Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Department of Manpower, and bodies falling under the department, give constant attention to rationalizing, co-ordinating and streamlining legislation in the field of manpower to keep pace with developments and to ensure that the legislation remains up to date. The Unemployment Insurance Board, on which both employer organizations and trade unions are represented, gave attention to amendments to the Act and appointed a special sub-committee to consider certain proposals. The Board recommended that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended in certain respects. The Government accepted the board’s proposals, and it gives me pleasure to furnish the following details regarding the planned amendments, which are mainly of an administrative nature.

The principal Act at present provides that a benefit committee must furnish the Director-General with an annual report of its transactions during the preceding financial year. The information in these annual reports is of a purely statistical nature and is already furnished in other monthly reports by the divisional inspectors of the Department of Manpower to the Fund’s head office and is therefore freely available. The elimination of such annual reports eliminates duplication of work, which in turn results in time saving.

The existing section in connection with unemployment benefits provides that a contributor is deemed to have been employed as a contributor during any period in which he was undergoing the continuous service contemplated in section 22(3) of the Defence Act, 1957. This period during which the contributor is deemed to have been employed as a contributor is only taken into account for qualification purposes i.e. to qualify for benefits.

However there are also volunteers and people serving in the Reserves, who are not paid by their employers during such service and are therefore not considered contributors to the Fund. The planned amendment means that such people will also be deemed to be contributors during their period of military service. These periods during which they are deemed to be contributors will also only be taken into account for qualification purposes. This concession in respect of military service is now also being extended to illness benefits, maternity benefits and payments to dependants of deceased contributors. People in the Permanent Force who contribute to the Government Pension Fund and who are at present excluded as contributors to the Fund, remain excluded and are not affected by this amendment.

At present the principal Act provides that maternity benefits can be paid to a female contributor for a period not exceeding 18 weeks immediately preceding the expected date of her confinement or the actual date of birth. There was uncertainty regarding the question whether a female contributor who applies for maternity benefits after the date of birth in fact qualifies for the payment of the maximum benefits of 18 weeks prior to the date of birth. In order to remove all doubt, an amendment is being effected to make it clear that benefits in respect of the maximum period of 18 weeks prior to the birth may be paid to female contributors applying for maternity benefits after the date of birth.

In the main this is what the planned amendments entail, and I trust they will have approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this amending Bill. I should like to underline what the hon. the Minister has said in his introductory speech, namely that these recommendations have the support of employer organizations and of the trade unions. I think we should note that when we consider the amendments. Secondly, the Bill is almost entirely administrative in terms of the changes that are contemplated, and for that reason I do not think this Bill should delay us too long at this stage.

The first amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1966, means that certain committees or commissions will no longer have to present their annual reports. We find this Amendment in clause 7 of the Bill. I believe this a further implication of the Government’s intent to try to expedite matters and to get rid of red tape, and wherever they do that we will support them wholeheartedly. Here I think, is another instance of where this attempt is being made.

It is also quite clear that this Bill, like other Bills that have come before the House, seeks to keep up to date with the process of modernization and with modern reproductive techniques which are used. I refer now to microfilm and other means.

As regards military service, this measure takes care of people who are performing any continuous service or who are undergoing continuous training, including those in the Reserve. I believe it is right and proper that they should be taken care of in this way.

In terms of the deletion of the words “prior to” and the substitution of the words “immediately preceding” in clauses 10 and 11, this is not something new. It certainly makes it much more precise, and as far as I can see it does not bring about any substantial change. It is interesting to note with the developments that are taking place in South Africa that this also takes account of maternity benefits, not only for normal employees in industry and commerce and the like, but also of women who are serving in the Defence Force. Again this is to be welcomed.

I should like to take this opportunity of at least saying that in our modern industrial society we have simply got to understand that women do get married and that they do have children, but they do also have other very real skills which the country needs very badly. I think any maternity benefits that can be afforded those who have to suspend their work for a short period of time in order that they can come back later on, is to everybody’s advantage, not only the individual family, but indeed to the country as well. Therefore we welcome that provision. It also makes the position clearer.

Finally, it is very interesting to see once again that in the process of bringing legislation up to date we have reference to the deletion of the word “Senate”. It seems quite remarkable that we have been able to accept the doing away with the Senate so easily without remembering those days when there were two Houses.

With these few words we welcome this Bill and we support it in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to express the support of this side of the House for this measure and to convey our thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the department for the constant efforts that are being made by the department to—as the hon. the Minister put it—rationalize and update the measures for which it is responsible. I do not think there is much one can say about this Bill, but I think it is important that we take cognizance of the fact that the official Opposition supports this measure, as the hon. member for Pinelands has indicated. I thank him for what he had to say. In general there is not much I can add to this except to say that the most important amendment in this measure is the amendment which makes provision for acting in an accommodating manner towards specific persons who are doing military service on a voluntary basis or who are serving in the Reserve Force. I think it is accommodating because the present provision definitely discourages people from doing military service on a voluntary basis. I think the way the amendment has now been worded could accommodate these people. Over the years I think we have all met people who have been inconvenienced by, what I can almost term, this unfair provision, in its present form. That is why we welcome this accommodating provision to enable people to do military service on a voluntary basis, without being paid by their employers, while still qualifying for benefits in terms of this Act. It is also interesting to note that the scope of this provision has also been extended to include maternity benefits for women. At present, of course, a limited number of women are doing military service on a voluntary basis. However, I feel that this is something which will occur more frequently in the future and for this reason we appreciate timeous provision being made for women in the amendment to section 36.

I conclude with these words and thank the department once again for the way in which the measure rationalizing and streamlining this Act was brought before this House. I gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also welcome this amending legislation. As the hon. the Minister himself has indicated, the proposed amendments are mainly of an administrative nature barring possibly the extension of the benefits to those people who do voluntary military service. I believe at this stage it may be opportune to tell the hon. the Minister in welcoming this particular amendment which will make it considerably easier for those people affected by this question of voluntary service, that we believe it is a great pity that there are still employers in this country who find it necessary to discontinue paying remuneration to individuals, male and female, who are prepared to undertake voluntary military service. I think that with the advent of the draft legislation on conditions of employment which I believe the hon. the Minister is to make public fairly shortly, the time will be opportune for us to have to look at this problem under a different piece of legislation. Obviously we cannot do so under this amending legislation. However, the contribution in respect of an employee to the Unemployment Insurance Fund are so small—in many cases it does not exceed R1 or R2 per month—that perhaps under the conditions of service legislation we should consider making it compulsory for all employers to pay medical aid, pension and unemployment insurance contributions on a continuous basis, a monthly basis, even though they may not be paying the employees affected their full salaries while such employees are on voluntary service.

As in the case of the previous two hon. members who have spoken on this legislation, we on these benches are satisfied with this amending Bill and will give it our wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is of course quite used to hon. members of this House, including the Opposition parties, supporting the legislation he tables here. We are glad that in some respects there is more understanding for sensible legislation on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

Actually this legislation results from the rationalization of the Public Service and many of the clauses in this amending Bill contain little else but the alteration of titles. However, I find clause 8 interesting because it deals with records. We know that in our modern society the keeping of records has become increasingly expensive because space is so expensive. I find it interesting that the private sector has found a solution to this problem in the form of microfilm, and as this legislation now recognizes this method of keeping records, it is clear to us that, as the hon. the Minister said, it is the aim of the department to remain streamlined, to remain modern and to keep abreast of modern developments in every respect. This is in fact what we have come to expect from the Department of Manpower.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members who supported this Bill. It has become traditional for us to support this type of legislation. In any case, all we are doing here today is to comply with the consensus and request of everyone involved. I thank the hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 10:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

There are six Bills on the Order Paper that I have introduced and that ought to be disposed of by this House this afternoon. I have no intention of differing with the Opposition this afternoon, not even as far as amendments are concerned. I thank them in advance for allowing all stages of all six Bills to be considered this afternoon. This will certainly attest to a spirit of pleasant co-operation.

The provision inserted in section 7(1)(j) of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1972, by clause 1 arises out of representations made to me concerning a donation from the funds of the MVA Fund to enable research to be carried out in connection with injuries sustained by persons involved in motor vehicle accidents.

†The question may well be asked why provision for such a donation by the MVA Fund is considered necessary. The reason is that the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act provides for payment of compensation resulting in injuries sustained by victims of motor accidents and the funds of the MVA Fund are utilized for the payment of the compensation. This Fund is therefore directly concerned with research in connection with injuries of the nature for which the donation is intended. The amounts of compensation payable to claimants invariably include the costs of treatment of injuries, and any research the result of which will effect a reduction in such costs, will therefore be to the advantage of motorists who contribute towards the funds of the MVA Fund, claimants and the MVA Fund itself.

It is therefore considered that the introduction of this measure is fully justified.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister was optimistic about the possibility of all six measures standing in his name on the Order Paper going through all their stages this afternoon. In that spirit I take it it is implied that he will accept any amendment which the Opposition may propose to these Bills!

The Bill before the House enables the Motor Vehicle Assurance Fund to make donations for research in connection with any matter relating to injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents, subject always to the Minister’s approval. I presume what is meant here is general research and not research relating to any particular motor accident. I say that because I hope that whatever research takes place will not add more to the delay which often attends payment of compensation from the Fund to those affected. The hon. the Minister may or may not be aware—I certainly am—that more and more people around South Africa are expressing concern at the delays that do take place in compensation payments from the Fund. I hope that this Bill is not in any way going to add to the tardiness of the Fund in paying out such compensation. There is in fact a need to streamline the procedure and investigations into the payment of claims. As far as the principle of general research is concerned, this can, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, only be to the benefit of not only the company but also the public concerned, and in the circumstances we will certainly support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Opposition also supports this measure. The hon. member for Berea indicated the support of the Opposition and spoke briefly about the venue at which the research might be carried out. I should like the University of the Orange Free State to be involved, but I assume that the bodies that will carry out the research will in fact do good work, even though it is carried out by other bodies.

We in this country are faced with a frustrating problem. The accident rate on the roads in our country is high and the consequences are so severe as to justify calling it a national disease. On a previous occasion we heard the hon. member for Parktown discussing a certain disease and branding it as a “apartheid disease.” I hope he does not want to classify the disease on our roads in this group as well. In any event, I think the hon. member sustained such a beating on that occasion with regard to his story about cholera that he will not soon mix medicine and politics again, because I think he found the brew somewhat bitter. I want to refer again to the high road accident rate. It is reflected in the claims paid out to victims of motor vehicle accidents by the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund. The task of promoting greater road safety rests on the National Road Safety Council. Therefore an effort is being made to prevent accidents as far as possible. The MVA Fund which is financed by compulsory third party assurance was introduced to ameliorate as far as possible the unfortunate consequences of motor vehicle accidents. The amount available for this purpose amounts to approximately R86 million annually. The gross premiums amount to approximately R66 million. Since the Fund was established to provide aid to victims of accidents on South African roads, it could give rise to misgivings if the Fund were to be used for purposes other than those for which it was originally intended. However, the aim of the measure is to make funds available for research in order to ensure the effective utilization of the funds and limit possible abuses by identifying invalid claims. It will also contribute towards the rehabilitation of injured and handicapped persons and minimize the loss of income. It is to be hoped that it will also reduce the claims for compensation from the Fund. Therefore, because this Fund is used for research and because the research will ultimately be of value to the contributors to the Fund, we venture to support these measures in the hope that what they envisage will in fact be achieved and that this will be in accordance with the initial aim for which the Fund was established.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welkom has made an interesting contribution to this debate. I do, however, find it a little surprising that he started off by trying to make a political debate out of such an innocuous little Bill as this one. Be that as it may, I nevertheless do believe that he has raised some interesting points, pointing out that the funds that will now be available can be used to investigate various types of injuries and also for the rehabilitation of people who have been injured in accidents.

When thinking about this Bill, I could not help but feel that moneys from the Fund should only be used for the benefit of the Fund. The Fund itself is not a charitable or philanthropic organization that will make funds available for any particular research. In approaching the Bill in this manner, and trying to find out why medical research should be sponsored, I did come to the conclusion that perhaps there are many people in this world today who would take any and every opportunity to—if I may use the expression—rip off insurance companies, business firms or people making a purchase, or whatever the case may be. There is that tendency, which I regard as very regrettable, for some unscrupulous people to take every opportunity to benefit themselves from a Fund such as the one under discussion which is actually set up in the interests of everybody. I do believe that insurance companies are being exploited by some people who make unjustified claims, and in considering these provisions, I think one must realize that there is a need for research to be directed towards countering such claims.

I think I have made my feelings on that subject clear. I think the idea of also doing research into rehabilitating people who may have lost limbs, thereby assisting the Fund because it would reduce the claims against the Fund, is also a very good thing, and it is for this reason that we in the NRP are supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker that there is indeed the possibility of a “rip-off”, but I think the legislation prescribes very clearly that the hon. the Minister must agree to the payment of the money, and I am therefore of the opinion that the objection advanced by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti may at this stage be ignored and regarded as superfluous, because there is machinery which can be set into operation to ensure that no funds originally intended for payment to injured persons can be misused. I do want to say at this stage that it would be as well if all research, as has in the past been advocated by the Division of Scientific Research of the Prime Minister’s Office, were to be co-ordinated to a greater extent. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister, the department and the NRSC will indeed continue to bring about this co-ordination, through the Office of the hon. the Prime Minister, among the various bodies carrying out research in this field. This piece of legislation ought to enjoy unanimous support, particularly if we bear in mind the figures relating to fatal accidents and serious injuries over the last few years. Apparently there were between 24 000 and 25 000 serious injuries last year. Therefore, if it is at all possible to place money from the Fund at the disposal of bodies that have been approved to carry out research in order to afford people involved in accidents an opportunity to recover rapidly and at a reasonably low cost, then this will be to the benefit not only of the injured person but also of the Fund itself.

The second important point we must bear in mind is that at the moment the Fund has a reserve of approximately R103 million and that the small amount being requested at the moment which may be approved in the future can only comprise a very small percentage of the R103 million already in the Fund after provision has been made for an amount of R196 million for claims which may still be submitted to the Fund. The Fund therefore has sufficient financial resources to make provision for a reserve for the future. I propose that this amendment be supported because, in addition, it will not cost the motorist a cent. Existing funds will be utilized. Ultimately the motorist can only benefit from it. I therefore support the amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opinions and views expressed by the two Opposition parties. I can give the hon. member for Berea the assurance that there will be no delay. I understand his concern about delays and his reason for asking for greater streamlining. We have taken note of his proposals.

*The hon. member for Welkom was an MEC for a long time and is very well acquainted with the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. We shall attend to his suggestions.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke of moneys to the benefit of the Fund. Actually, at the moment there is no research being done into many spheres. One finds, for instance, that people get licences for driving heavy vehicles without their eyes first being tested. Some people are colour-blind.

I just wish you were.

One university has said that at a cost of only R20 000 the necessary research can be undertaken and, in fact, money can be saved for the Fund. The cost involved is therefore not large.

*At that cost the university can carry out certain research which would be to the benefit of the Fund in that it would result in only certain people obtaining licences. As I have said, there are people who are colour-blind. There are people who think that if the traffic light is red, it is out of action. Many people have no idea how licences are issued. Some of the universities now wish to carry out research in this field.

As the hon. member Dr. Welgemoed quite rightly said, the MVA Fund is a large Fund and it is not envisaged that large amounts will be spent. However, the expenditure will be to the benefit of the Fund.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition are behaving so well, I even feel like voting for Alf Widman’s Smoking Bill, for it is a very good Bill! I now move—

Although this Bill consists of 22 clauses, it in fact contains only two main principles. The first is either to delete or adapt certain administrative procedures which the Act prescribes, namely that the engagements and discharges of crew on South African ships be carried out by or before a “proper officer” in order to facilitate these procedures. Many of these stipulations have long ceased to serve a useful purpose. Secondly, the Bill provides that a convention relating to merchant shipping which has been ratified by the Republic by proclamation in the Gazette may be added as a schedule to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, thereby acquiring the force of law.

†A “proper officer” performs administrative duties prescribed by the Act. In the Republic it is usually the responsibility of the principal officers, that means the officers in charge of the offices of the Marine Directorate of this department at a port. At places outside the Republic our consular representatives are usually charged with these responsibilities.

Clauses 2 to 5 are examples of the proposed amendments intending to do away with the requirement that certain actions must take place before or must be undertaken by a proper officer. The present requirements serve no useful purpose; in fact they place an unnecessary burden on proper officers. The proposed amendments which provide that the engagement and discharge of seamen need no longer take place before a proper officer will ease the work-load of officers of the Marine Directorate at South African ports as well as that of South African consular officers stationed abroad. More time can be devoted to other essential work. The proposed amendments will also result in a saving of funds since the performance of overtime duties will be limited and shipping companies will no longer be required to pay the prescribed fees for services rendered by proper officers in this respect.

The proposed amendments do not lose sight of the interests of seamen. Where the intervention of a proper officer might be necessary to prevent unfair treatment of crew by shipowners and masters, his presence is provided for, as may be seen in clause 10 (sections 113(1) and (4) of the Act).

*Section 7(3)(g) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, No. 32 of 1961, authorizes the State President to ratify international conventions, treaties or agreements on behalf of the Republic. Such conventions, however, only acquire formal force of law once they form part of our statute law. Section 356bis currently provides that the State President may effect amendments or substitutions of conventions which are mentioned by name, by proclamation in the Gazette and thereby amend the schedules to the Act, which contain these conventions. However, this authority does not extend further than the conventions thus mentioned.

There is at present a need to become participants in two conventions, viz. the “International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969” and the “Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping, 1978”. Such a need may also arise with regard to other conventions. As matters stand, the Act will have to be formally amended on each occasion by mentioning these conventions by name in the Act, incorporating them as schedules and thereby giving them the force of law. This is a cumbersome procedure, and the date of commencement of international conventions advantageous to ourselves can be unnecessarily delayed thereby.

Accordingly, clause 20 merely further extends the existing principle in the Act by providing that the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette add any schedule to the Act setting out a convention relating to merchant shipping participation in which has been approved by the Government and which has been ratified on behalf of the Republic.

†As is customary, Government departments and representative shipping organizations concerned were consulted, and all were in favour of the proposed amendments. The amendments are not contentious but cannot be held over until the Merchant Shipping Act has been revised in its entirety, a matter which is receiving attention but which will necessarily take a considerable time to complete.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has indicated quite clearly that this is not a contentious measure. It is really a matter designed to facilitate the operation of the existing Act in the meantime in so far as it relates to the compliance with the relevant conventions. It also defines specifically the person responsible for the issue of certificates and the employment of crew. It takes that responsibility away from the “proper officer” and gives it to the ship’s master in most cases, or even to the owner of a vessel, as the case may be. Generally no purpose can be served in repeating the very good outline which the hon. the Minister has given of this measure. We find this a measure which we can support. It contains a good interim measure until such time as the main Act is finally revised and amended.

I want though to draw attention to a matter which would normally be raised during the Committee Stage. It revolves around a comma, which, I think, changes the interpretation of the agreement in terms of clause 5 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 103 of the principal Act. I raise the matter now in the hope that we may come to some agreement on it and so that the hon. the Minister can be given his Committee Stage. It is a question of wording, and in both the Afrikaans and English texts, I think, the same problem exists. I refer the hon. the Minister to paragraph (b) of the proposed new section 103, on page 5 of the Bill. It reads as follows—

As I read that, it means that the agreement shall be read in the presence of a witness and shall also be signed in the presence of a witness. I do not think, however, that this is the intention of those who drafted the Bill.

To make my point clearer, I want to refer to paragraph (d), on the same page. The wording in this instance is different. Paragraph (d) deals with the question of a substitute. It reads as follows—

he shall appear before the master,

Here it is made quite clear that the reading over of the agreement does not have to be in the presence of a witness. It is only a signature which has to be witnessed. That, I should think, is the intention of the legislation. In paragraph (b), however, the legal interpretation of that, I believe, would be that the reading of the agreement by the master to a seaman would have to be in the presence of a witness, and so too the signing of the agreement. I do not think that is the intention. It is a small point, but it seems to revolve around the third comma in paragraph (b), which, I think, might cause difficulty in practice. It might be challenged, and if we are making a law, I believe, it should be worded as clearly as possible and without ambiguity.

I raise this matter now. It is a fairly minor point. In general terms, however, we find that this is a Bill which we are able to support. It will facilitate the application of the Act until such time as the Act is revised completely. I should like the hon. the Minister or his advisers to have a look at what I have just said and to reply to the question of the wording of the paragraph in question.

Mr. Speaker, historically we in this country, and even certain hon. members of this House, are the descendants of seafaring forefathers, or sailors, if you will; for instance, Portuguese, Hollanders, English, and others. Oddly enough, however, a maritime tradition has never been one of the driving forces in the development of our country, which has been largely agricultural, and more recently industrial in nature. Nevertheless, although a maritime tradition has not been a significant factor, is has always been alive and tangible.

Over the past few years—thanks to the foresight of this Government—merchant shipping has been of growing importance in our country, and now we are even on the same footing with the biggest in the world. During the past parliamentary recess, it was the privilege of the study group on transport to visit Walvis Bay, Table Bay and Saldanha Bay. This was very interesting and most enjoyable, especially in the evenings at about dinner time. [Interjections.] At the same time, it is cause for pride to see what this country has achieved in the field of merchant shipping. At Saldanha Bay, for instance, a world record was set up that same week in that one million tons of iron ore was shipped within a period of only five days. That is no trifling amount of iron ore!

Here in Table Bay harbour they hold the record for the shipping of container units. I hope hon. members know what this is. [Interjections.] This record was set up with the loading of 31 container units per hour, as against the next best of 26. It is really something to see, especially here in Cape Town harbour, when those things with the long necks pick up those big things and set them down so neatly.

What is the name of the thing?

A crane. It is also marvellous to see on one train at Saldanha Bay, as long as from here to the docks, a train with 210 wagons. When that train gets to the quay, those wagons are picked up like a baby, rail and all, and tipped over just like that, and within three hours all 210 wagons have been offloaded. Witnessing this, one realizes more and more what a major role merchant shipping plays and will continue to play. Shipping transport is one of the oldest means of transport and is still one of the most important. It transports more than three-quarters of the world’s international trade, including the raw materials on which modern civilization is so dependent. It is therefore very important to us that our merchant shipping legislation should be streamlined and up to date, because for us, with our many export products and long coastline, merchant shipping is going to become increasingly important.

I read this Amendment Bill over and over. I did not grow up near the sea, nor am I very familiar with ships, but if the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs says that this is a good Amendment Bill, then I say so too. I therefore support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester has made an interesting speech and has gone to some lengths to tell hon. members just how much our harbours have improved in recent years, especially when it comes to handling of bulk cargos. I do not think there is any doubt about that. The one thing that often bothers me however, is that sometimes, despite all the advances we make in the field of technology we tend to get ourselves bogged down in bureaucracy and paper work. I think the one aspect in this Bill that we in these benches wholeheartedly support is, as the hon. the Minister has said, that the changes regarding the duties of the proper officer and also the masters and owners of ships are now going to cut out a lot of red tape. I think this is one of the most important things we find in this Bill. It is also going to reduce costs, as the hon. the Minister has said, and we are very much in favour of that. Of course, when we discussed this Bill, we were concerned that perhaps the seaman himself was not being protected enough, but, as the hon. the Minister said, clause 10 does give that protection. We are therefore quite happy that the seaman is not going to be exploited by unscrupulous masters or owners.

Having said that, let me say that we support this Bill. However, there is one aspect of the Bill I should like to put to the hon. the Minister, namely clauses 12 and 19, where there is a change from the term “pounds” currency to “rands”. The hon. the Minister sees fit in the case of clause 12 to increase the amount from £10 to R50, but when one notes that the last amendment to this section was made in 1959 and that this amount is in regard to the amount of money that the owner or master of a ship shall pay to each seaman at the time of leaving his ship, one wonders whether R50 is sufficient. In 1959 R20 may have been sufficient, but I doubt whether R50 is sufficient today. Then again in clause 19 on page 13 of the Bill the fine of £200 is being changed to R400. This was presented six years ago, and I am just wondering whether that penalty is keeping pace with inflation. I merely draw this matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention because so often when we have the opportunity and a Bill comes before us concerning particular Acts, we do make the change in our currency from pounds to rands, but I wonder sometimes whether we are in fact updating the amounts sufficiently in order to keep pace with inflation. However, having said that, we accept this Bill especially seeing that the hon. the Minister says that all amendments were put to the interested parties and that there has been consultation with the marine industry.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to agree with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The hon. member referred to the fact that the prescribed penalty of £200 has now been changed to R400. Taking the inflation rate into account, it is perhaps advisable that these amounts, too, be brought up to date at this stage. It is interesting to note that an amount which was R500 in 1965, has now become an amount of between R8 000 and R10 000. If those figures can escalate to such an extent, one must take note of this and then keep pace with these factors as regards the penalties prescribed in legislation, so that those amounts are also adjusted to keep pace with inflation.

As far as the legislation itself is concerned, I should like to say on behalf of this side of the House that we support it wholeheartedly, and I should also like to place on record one or two facts. When one speaks of the legislation on merchant shipping, we are reminded of the fact that the Republic of South Africa owes its origins to merchant shipping. We all know that the Cape was originally used as a refreshment station which came into being when Jan van Riebeeck was sent here for that purpose in 1652. Taking a further look at our history, when we speak of merchant shipping, that history would be incomplete unless the name of the General Botha Merchant Navy Academy was also mentioned. I mention this here specifically in order to place on record that proud name and the record of that college, and also because the training, which is provided there today is uniform and equal for all the young men, both White and Coloured, who undergo their training at that college. The opportunities offered to those people for the future, are offered to all population groups which are trained there. All population groups can benefit from this and in addition, reach the top of their field. It is also gratifying to mention that Safmarine also have their own training system, specifically as regards young Coloured men, and we take note of this with gratitude.

It is interesting to note that the first merchant vessel in our history arrived here when the New Zealand ship Albatross, under Capt. Mattheus Thesen, called here due to a storm. Our merchant shipping had its origins there and in due course expanded. It is also interesting to note that this specific legislation we are now discussing, originated in 1951 and, as was to be expected, certain adjustments have had to be made with the passing of time.

If we look at the legislation itself, we see that one of the principles which the hon. the Minister pointed out to us, is the simplification of the administrative procedure. What is especially gratifying in this connection is of course the question of the time saving this will involve. There is also the fact that we shall benefit financially as far as both the private sector and the department itself are concerned. In the present period of rationalization, and especially as far as the Public Service is concerned, this is an encouraging factor and it is to be hoped that this example will be followed in other sectors and in other respects.

As far as the second aspect is concerned, the question of conventions, it is self-evident from the Second Reading address of the hon. the Minister that this has become imperative. The first approval is for the “International Convention on Tonnage Measurements of Ships”, 1969, while the second is for the “Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping”, 1978. Looking at this, one realizes that the first is already 13 years old, while the second is at least four years old. From this, one can take it as a matter of course that the amendments are vital, especially since that matters of this nature will not be delayed to such an extent in the future.

I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea drew attention to a comma which appears in the proposed paragraph (b) the insertion of which is sought by clause 5. I spoke to the Director-General and he said that the hon. member was wide awake. [Interjections.] We did not notice the importance of the comma and we have now decided to have the comma deleted because it is not necessary to cause the agreement to be read over in the presence of a witness. We shall therefore rectify the matter. It is true that the presence of the comma can be of importance. I fully agree with the hon. member and when the final Act appears, it will be without that comma.

What is implied by “final Act”?

When we print the legislation in its final form, but we could, of course, also amend it now. However, I do not know how it works in practice.

The comma can be deleted when the legislation is prepared for having it printed in the Gazette.

We shall delete the comma and I do not care sixpence how we do it.

Order! The amendment will be effected clerically.

That comma reminds me of the story of the tombstone. On the tombstone the following words were inscribed—

The comma was incorrectly placed, as it should have read—

[Interjections.]

I thank the hon. member for Worcester for his positive standpoint and for the fact that he was so full of praise for containerisation and the cranes at Saldanha. We are planning a tour to Richards Bay, and there he will see how coal is offloaded at the same speed as ore.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is glad that the cost is being reduced. Let me tell him that that is the main idea in so far as that particular amendment is concerned. In so far as the question of changing the amount of £1 to R1,00, I may point out that we have ascertained that it is sufficient to change the amount of £10 to R50. According to the officials who deal with this, the seamen and the ship owners are satisfied with the penalty of R400. They say that it is not necessary to alter the relevant provision.

*The hon. member for Vasco mentioned the General Botha Merchant Navy Academy, where we offer training for Coloureds and Whites. I appreciate his contribution. He has made a study of the legislation. I thank him too.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I have arranged with the hon. member for Berea and the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition that I shall accept certain amendments. However, I must point out to the hon. members for Port Elizabeth Central and Amanzimtoti that when the amendment concerned came to our attention, the Director-General and I both found the amendments acceptable, but the legal draftsmen subsequently pointed out to us that we would then have to amend the principal Act, which is the Liquor Act. The Liquor Act is administered by another Minister, and when that legislation is being amended, a suitable amendment can be made. No matter how anxious we are to accommodate the hon. members of the Opposition, we cannot do so on this occasion, because what appears in the present Bill is merely a reference to the Liquor Act. For that reason the amendment of the hon. members cannot be accepted on this occasion. I may point out that the proposed amendment is concerned with the question of colour.

The objective of this Bill, i.e. the regulation of the conveyance of animals in aircraft, is contained in the penultimate clause, clause 7. The development which takes place in a country leads to increasing economic activities. In these activities the rapid transportation of goods plays a very important role. The use of aircraft for this purpose has increased accordingly.

Increasing use has been made of aircraft lately for the conveyance of animals. Hon. members should not think that I am referring only to the conveyance of dogs, cats or perhaps horses. The following figures indicate how many and what kind of animals were handled at Jan Smuts Airport during the period 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1981: 1 738 dogs, 959 cats, 9 head of cattle, 44 horses, 5 sheep, 5 380 chickens, 60 rabbits, 1 903 monkeys, 501 rodents, 3 tigers, 1 jaguar, 4 emus, 11 bush-bucks, 5 kangaroos, 90 reptiles, 50 ticks …

Ticks?

Yes, it is for research work at Onderstepoort, and the ticks have to be packed according to certain prescriptions.

Put the ticks on the dogs!

During the same period, 6 500 dung-beetles were conveyed. Some time ago, when I was still Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, I pointed out that a country such as Australia was faced with a pollution problem because of dung from feed-lots finding its way into the rivers. Australia sent someone to this country for three years to do full-time research into the use of the dung-beetle, because Australia does not have any dung-beetles. The dung-beetles had to bury the dung, thus preventing it from getting into the streams. The person concerned did extremely successful research and the result was that we had to convey 6 500 dung-beetles. Attempts were also made to breed a better and bigger dung-beetle. Over the same period, 25 freshwater crayfish, 1 818 378 fresh-water prawns and 3 900 000 tropical fish were also conveyed.

†These figures clearly indicate to what extent animals are already being conveyed by air. No wonder that the International Association of Air Carriers—Iata—has found it imperative to investigate the question of the conveyance of animals by air to ensure the elimination of loss and undue inconvenience to animals so conveyed and to maintain safety to the public in general.

*Major air carriers all over the world, including the S.A. Airways, are members of Iata, and in many countries legal provision has already been made for the conveyance of animals by air in accordance with guidelines laid down by Iata upon completion of its investigations.

When the Aviation Act, No. 74 of 1962, was passed, the present circumstances were not foreseen, because the conveyance of animals in an aircraft was still a rarity at that time. Today it is a deficiency in the Act that the Minister has no power to make regulations regarding the transportation of animals.

†The purpose of this Bill is to extend the powers of the Minister to make regulations under section 22 of the Act. These regulations will relate to the requirements to be observed and the steps to be taken when animals and fish are conveyed by air and will conform to accepted international procedures. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the S.A. Airways and the SPCA will be consulted when the regulations are drafted.

*Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill are purely technical adjustments in order to replace certain obsolete words and expressions. In particular, references to the Liquor Act of 1928 are being replaced by the corresponding provisions of the 1977 Liquor Act.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches welcome the Bill before the House, particularly the provision contained in the final clause relating to the conveyance of animals, a provision which I think will be universally welcomed by animal-lovers and all thoughtful and caring people throughout South Africa. One hopes that the procedure to be adopted in the conveyance of animals will ensure their protection, and I am certainly happy to receive the hon. the Minister’s assurance that he will consult with organizations like the S.P.C.A. when drafting regulations affecting the conveyance of animals by air.

I think that at this stage it might be appropriate to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Airways on the variety of passengers they apparently carry. The hon. the Minister has given us an interesting catalogue of some of the varieties this afternoon. [Interjections.] As we see it, that is the main provision of the Bill. I think it is a constructive addition to the regulations relating to aviation. I think I must accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. It would appear that the hon. the Minister has no alternative but not to accept the amendment moved, in view of the provisions of the Liquor Act. One hopes that this can, in time, also be tidied up, and I thank the hon. the Minister for indicating that he was prepared to accept the amendment and would have done so had it not been for that technical difficulty.

The rest of the Bill seems to be a tidying-up measure and we shall therefore be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Berea for the fact that he and his party are prepared to support this legislation and for his acceptance of the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to the amendment.

Apart from the short title, the Aviation Amendment Bill has only seven clauses. And, as the hon. the Minister said, clauses 1 to 6 are merely technical in nature and are aimed at making adjustments in order to replace certain obsolete words and expressions. For instance, in the Liquor Act of 1977, the term liquor is simply used instead of intoxicating liquor. In clause 2 of the Bill “Department of Defence” is being replaced by “South African Defence Force”. Clause 3 also follows this pattern and has a bearing on changes in the Liquor Act. Clause 4 deals with the metrication of the imperial “three hundred feet” which is then replaced by “ninety five metres”. In clause 5, section 10 of the principal Act is being amended by substituting the expression “Chapter IX of the Precious and Base Metals Act, 1908 (Act No. 35 of 1908, Transvaal)” by the expression “Chapter X of the Mining Rights Act, 1967 (Act No. 20 of 1967)”. In clause 6, the words “Consolidated Revenue Fund” are being replaced by the words “State Revenue Fund”.

Clause 7 is the clause that has received most attention in the House today. As the hon. the Minister has already said, this Bill is aimed at regulating the conveyance of animals by air. The conveyance of air freight is becoming increasingly important as time goes by. Apart from the fare that the passengers pay, the income from air freight constitutes a very important part of the revenue of the airways. Therefore, the conveyance of air freight is extremely important for any airline.

I should just like to quote a few statistics in order to bring the importance of air freight to the attention of hon. members. The total international and domestic freight amounted to 146,2 million kilograms in 1976-’77. In 1979-’80 it was 163,1 million kilograms and in 1980-’81 it increased to 170,3 million kilograms. In 1976-’77 the international freight amounted to 67,2 million kilograms, whilst in 1979-’80—which was in fact the record year—it increased to 86,6 million kilograms.

As far as perishable air freight is concerned, there was an equally interesting phenomenon. The perishable air freight consists of fruit, flowers, meat, marine products, vegetables, frozen food, etc. In 1976-77, 17,2 million kilograms were transported, but in 1979-’80 which was once again a record year, it had already increased to 21,5 million kilograms. This shows us how important air freight has already become. The rapid conveyance of goods plays a very important role in modern life. Therefore, air transport is becoming increasingly important, particularly with regard to the conveyance of animals.

During his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister quoted figures relating to the number of animals that had been transported from Jan Smuts Airport in one year. In a slightly lighter vein I want to say that it is strange and it strikes one that, although Australia is not willing to allow our sporting people there, they are prepared to import and extend a welcome to 6 500 dung-beetles. I want to express the hope that the South African dung-beetles will do their work so well there that they may succeed in giving the Australians new insights. Apart from the 1 738 dogs and the 959 cats that were transported, 1 903 monkeys were also transported. I was under the impression that this figure might be incorrect. I thought that more than 1 903 monkeys were transported. Furthermore 3 900 000 tropical fish were transported. I really think it is a fact that once again gives us in South Africa an indication of how well our people in South Africa are doing. If 3 900 000 tropical fish are imported to serve as ornaments for people to sit and watch when they find life boring, surely this is proof of the prosperity that we are enjoying in this country.

The conveyance of animals has been under investigation by IATA on the international level for some time already and experts have drawn up provisions aimed at eliminating financial losses and the maltreatment of animals. However, our Aviation Act does not contain the necessary regulations in terms of which suitable regulations can be made. Therefore, an amendment is necessary in order to empower the hon. the Minister to make regulations in terms of that Act. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this Bill and express the hope that it will serve as an instrument for eliminating financial losses and the maltreatment of animals. As we have already learnt, the department will make regulations, taking into account the legislation for the protection of animals and that pertaining to sea fisheries. I welcome the fact that this Bill is being placed on the Statute Book.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that we of the NRP will be supporting the provisions contained in this Bill. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister how much we appreciate his approach towards, and his views on, the amendment appearing both in my name and in that of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. We do know that, had it been possible, this hon. Minister would have introduced the required change, because he has done so in the past. Last year he agreed to a number of such amendments. I should just like to ask him to discuss this matter with his colleagues in the Cabinet. Perhaps they could review all legislation with a view to removing some of the terms which do cause embarrassment or indignation on the part of some people. I say this because our N.R.P. Executive Committee in Natal some years ago decided to review all the provincial ordinances and to remove any reference to race wherever it was possible to do so. This, in fact, has been done. My colleagues and I see no reason why this could not be done by the Central Government.

Like all the other speakers, we support clause 7 which relates to the transportation of animals. As the hon. member for Berea said, anybody who has love for animals will welcome these provisions. I should, however, like to say to the hon. the Minister that when his committee, together with the SAA, sit down to draw up the flight conditions for animals, they might reconsider recent changes to the flight conditions of human beings on the S.A. Airways. There was a time that when one travelled on the three and a half hour flight from Durban to Cape Town, especially during mealtimes, one at least got a cooked meal. But what are we served today? I call it the “booze and nuts” flight because that is what we now get on the flight from Durban to Cape Town—free liquor and nuts. I prefer the hot meal we used to get.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for Berea and Amanzimtoti. We will go into the matter of removing certain references to race, and I believe hon. members know that I am very sympathetic towards alterations in this regard in an effort to eliminate discrimination as far as is practically possible. We will discuss the booze-and-nuts story during the debate on the budget of the SA Transport Services. It all depends on the profitability of such a service. Hon. members are aware of what happened to Sir Laker; he went bankrupt. The S.A. Airways is showing a loss of R60 million; so we have to do our utmost to make this a payable proposition. We will, however, pay attention to all these suggestions.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park is the chairman of the transport group of the NP and has examined the Bill very thoroughly. I thank him for his contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Over the years, the national road network of our country has been systematically extended and improved to keep pace with development in the field of agriculture, industry, trade, tourism, etc. Hon. members are aware of the fact that this road network is an extremely expensive facility, and consequently the National Roads Act, 1971, authorizes the National Transport Commission to exercise effective control over that portion of the road network which falls under its jurisdiction.

The National Transport Commission has the power, among other things, to exercise control over all land which is situated along a national road within a distance of 60 metres from the boundry of the road, or which is situated within a distance of 500 metres from a road junction and is also situated within the road reserve boundary, in order to implement effective protective measures.

If any action is contemplated on this land, therefore, the approval of the NTC has to be obtained. The NTC considers all applications on the basis of its declared policy and approves of those applications that are not in conflict with it, subject to conditions.

However, the way in which some cities and townships have been proclaimed lately is a circumvention of certain powers of the NTC and frustrating the intention of the Act.

The definition of “urban area”, read together with that of “building restriction area” in section 1 of the National Roads Act, No. 54 of 1971, implies that if a national road is proclaimed through an existing urban area, the NTC has no jurisdiction over the adjoining land in such an urban area, except when commonage land or land which is used mainly for farming or horticulture or the keeping of animals is being further subdivided and developed. In such a case, the approval of the NTC has to be obtained if the land concerned or any part of it adjoins the national road. Therefore the NTC has full control over commonage land or land which is used mainly for farming or horticulture or for the keeping of animals.

In recent times, however, cities and townships have been proclaimed with large open spaces known as “undeveloped land” or “open spaces”.

The effect of this is that if a national road is proclaimed through such a city or town, the NTC has no jurisdiction over the further development of the “undeveloped land” or “open spaces”. This means that such land adjoining a national road can be developed in a way which is contrary to NTC policy. In fact, such development occurs frequently. This practice frustrates the intention of the Act and deprives the NTC of the function of control over such land. You will agree with me that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that the Act has to be amended to provide that, as in the case of commonage land, all other open spaces in an urban area or township area which adjoin a national road, and which are not developed or reserved for public purposes, are placed under the control of the NTC.

†A further stumbling block which hampers the NTC in the execution of its duties is the exclusion of a water work, as defined in the Water Act, No. 54 of 1956, from the provisions of section 13 (1) of Act 54 of 1971. Section 13 (1) inter alia stipulates that no person shall without the written permission of the NTC, or contrary to the terms of such permission, erect, lay or establish any structure or other thing in the building restriction area of a national road. However, in terms of section 13 (2) of the Act, the provisions of section 13 (1) shall not apply to a water work except in so far as those provisions prohibit the erection, laying or establishment of a structure or another thing on, over, or below the surface of a national road. This implies that a water work may not be established on or over or below the surface of a national road without the approval of the NTC, but that it may indeed be established in any position in the building restriction area of a national road—even right to next the road reserve fence—without the approval of the NTC. As a result of water works being exempt from the provisions of the Act, it is becoming extremely difficult, if not impossible, to give proper consideration to applications for the establishment of other services such as telephone and electric cables inside the building restriction area and to determine suitable positions for such services due to a lack of details with regard to water works which may already exist in that particular area.

*On several occasions when the NTC has granted approval for the provision of other services, it has been embarrassed, and I shall quote two examples—

The laying or establishment of waterworks has been causing major problems lately, especially now that a great many services are being supplied in the building restriction areas in the more complex areas around cities. Therefore it is necessary that the Act be amended to extend the control of the NTC so as to cover waterworks in a building restriction area as well. In this way the NTC will be enabled to exercise meaningful control in order to protect its interests effectively and to minimize risks.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which is, no doubt, made necessary by what we would term “progress” in South Africa. The National Roads Commission is involved in essential work aimed at the development of the country and if, as the hon. the Minister has explained, it is experiencing difficulties in conducting this work, it would certainly seem that provisions such as these amendments are necessary. The Bill in fact relates to the definition of an urban area or a township, and it also adds to what was previously referred to as “commonage land”, land which is used or intended to be used for farming, or any other open space which is undeveloped.

One hopes that in the exercise of these powers the National Roads Commission will have due respect for the rights of the people involved in the townships and in the areas concerned, and that they will exercise their discretion regarding their rights in respect of these areas.

As far as the question of water works is concerned—which is the second question referred to in the Bill—the hon. the Minister has explained what the difficulties are, and it would seem that it is appropriate at this stage that the Act be amended accordingly.

We in the official Opposition will be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Minister for his clear explanation of why it is essential that these statutory amendments be made. The examples already quoted show clearly why it is essential that attention be given to this. We also want to thank the hon. member for Berea for his support. He also made it clear that prosperity has made it necessary to amend the National Roads Act.

There are basically two principles involved, the first of which is that with the knowledge of the NTC and in accordance with certain standards drawn up by the NTC, a little more control should be exercised over the establishment of structures, etc., along our national roads. At the moment, this is being circumvented by providing for open spaces in new proposed townships, land which cannot be controlled when it is traversed by a national road or when a national road is proclaimed over it. In the first place, this leads to disorder, and it means to a large extent that decisions requiring the approval of the NTC will also have to take into consideration what has already been erected there in the past.

The second aspect is just as important, and the hon. the Minister gave us clear examples, i.e. the services have to be brought under control, and very clear reference is made to three services, namely water, electricity and telephone lines, with the result that building restrictions are essential in the strip which is defined as extending for a distance of 60 metres from the boundary of a road and 500 metres from a road junction. It is very important that this strip be developed in an orderly manner for services, so I think it is quite understandable that the NTC should wish to be granted powers in terms of the Act so that it may bring about this orderly situation. The hon. the Minister mentioned some examples of what had happened in the past. Supporting this amending Bill and making the amendments to the Act will mean that better control will improve the safety of our passengers on our national roads. This amendment will not only have these advantages, but will also mean that delays which cause considerable problems at the moment when roads have to be extended or widened on such land will much more easily be prevented in the future because control has already been exercised at an early stage in order to have orderly development of services along the national roads.

I therefore support this amending Bill because it provides for an essential change.

Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. the Minister that when I read this Bill I was full of support for it, and my colleagues also felt that there were many reasons for it. We have our national roads and other roads which serve as main arteries throughout our country and there is a need to ensure that there is no indiscriminate building of buildings or any other structures. For that reason we will support this Bill. But having listened to the hon. the Minister this afternoon a thought occurred to me, and that is that as far as clause 2 is concerned I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we are not perhaps creating still more red tape which is going to require still more public servants to administer and also create more delays. The hon. the Minister is a practical farmer and we know that farmers sometimes want to lay for instance water-pipes through their land. In future, if these works fall within a certain point of the centre line of a road, the farmer will now have to write to the NTC and ask for permission. Those of us who in recent years have sought permission for various projects whether it be the subdivision of land or even laying a pipe across a road or through a culvert, know that we can get bogged down in these projects because of the delay caused by having to wait for approval. The hon. the Minister has told us that the department has on occasions given approval to the ESC to build a power-line and then suddenly it is found that because of a certain water structure it is unsafe to build that powerline. Are we now going to force every person who wants to construct a waterworks structure on his land which is close to a national road to make application and seek approval for this work, a great deal of which will be approved in due course after weeks, maybe months, of delay, just so that we can eliminate the occasional inconvenience to the department. I put the question to the Minister; which situation is going to cause the greatest inconvenience and which is going to result in the greatest expense to the nation as a whole? This is the problem facing South Africa today. We have so many rules and regulations that have to be complied with, and the resultant red tape and build-up of the paperwork is snowballing to such an extent that our Public Service is being submerged under it. I can understand the reasons for this provision, but I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I do not know how this is going to be administered in practice. Perhaps regulations are going to be drawn up. However, would it not be easier to provide that should a person wish to build certain waterworks he is required to give notice to the NTC of the nature of the waterworks by means of registered letter? If then there is no objection forthcoming from the NTC within, say, 14 or 28 days, he may proceed. The onus would then also be on the NTC to get off their proverbial backsides and ensure that such a person is not being subjected to unnecessary delays. This is just a thought I would like the hon. the Minister to consider. We will agree with this provision because we see the need for ensuring that the major arterial routes through our country are not cluttered or built on in such a way as to create major problems, especially in the future. However, what about the present? In supporting this Bill I appeal to the hon. the Minister to go back to those who are going to administer it to see whether they cannot come up with a form of administration of this legislation which will obviate the delays with which we are having to contend at present and also reduce the amount of paperwork and red tape to the bare minimum.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Berea for his contribution to this debate. The hon. member said that because of the progress in South Africa it is essential to have these alterations and I fully agree with him.

*The hon. member Dr. Welgemoed also mentioned certain matters of great importance and I should like to thank him for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is quite correct. He is on the ball. The farmers are becoming heartily sick and tired of delays and the wasting of time. However, in this instance we are dealing with a national road which already has a 60 metre restricted area apart from the question of waterworks. I had the experience of applying to have a pipeline cross a national road. I had a reply within a fortnight and certain conditions were laid down. I had to deposit a certain sum of money, there were certain safety regulations that had to be complied with and I had to make certain arrangements with the traffic police. I received the necessary permission after two weeks and all these conditions were specified in writing.

With respect, was that not because you are the Minister?

No.

No, it was during my period of office as Minister of Transport. [Interjections.]

I paid the deposit within 24 hours. I think that made the difference!

He is the only one who can afford it!

I can give the hon. member the assurance that this provision is not going to result in delays. It only affects the 60 metre strip within the boundary of national roads. It does not affect the ordinary provincial road. We are referring here only to national roads in respect of which we sometimes spend up to R1 million per kilometre. We may find that there is leakage from some or other waterworks that is damaging the surface of the road.

*I can quite understand—the hon. member is a farmer—that it immediately occurred to him that if he had to lay a pipeline to provide water for the sheep on the other side of the road, it would take months before he could have such a pipeline laid. I give him the assurance that it is not the intention to create a lot of extra paper work which could cause delays. In any event, the National Transport Commission will read Hansard and note the fact that the hon. member and I agree that no time should be wasted in laying such a pipeline.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The purpose of the Bill is to amend various statutory provisions regarding the S.A. Transport Services. The implications of the various amendments are explained in the explanatory memorandum which has been tabled, and I shall therefore only deal briefly with the more important aspects.

The Bill provides inter alia for the replacement of the existing Sick Fund by a medical scheme and for aspects incidental thereto. After careful consideration and consultation with the Federal Consultative Council of Railways Staff Associations, it has been decided to introduce a medical scheme with effect from 1 April 1982 in terms of which beneficiaries will have a free choice of general practitioners, specialists and hospitals.

Hon. members will be aware that column 2 items shown in schedules 1 and 2 of the Transport Services Appropriation Acts represent specific appropriations to which the Minister’s powers of virement do not apply. As the Minister decides on the amounts in respect of all expenditure items before submission to Parliament, it is only logical that the Minister’s powers of virement should also apply to column 2 items. The Bill provides for the amendment of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, so as to abolish the use of column 2 items. The Select Committee on Railway Accounts is in agreement with the proposed amendments.

*The Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Act, 1977, authorises the S.A. Transport Services to borrow money on its own account. Therefore it can be active on both the foreign and the domestic capital markets. It often happens that because of political, economic and other considerations such as fluctuating capital market conditions, Transport Services has to take action in support of its stocks on the foreign secondary market. Transport Services also has to act in the national interest sometimes by lending or advancing money to well-disposed institutions. The Bill makes provision for this.

Other amendments provide, inter alia, for increasing the annuities of pensioners of colour, as in the case of Whites, without the Pension Regulations having to be amended, for the appointment of any person as a reservist in the Railway Police Force, and for the making of false fire alarms to be a criminal offence from now on.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister indicated, an explanatory memorandum was issued prior to the introduction of the Bill to explain the Bill in some detail. It is a Bill which very largely contains consequential amendments deriving from previous legislation inter alia the South African Transport Services Act which was placed on the Statute Book last year. The hon. the Minister has indicated that the Bill is consequential in clauses 4, 5 and 8 in connection with the decision to allow Railway employees to appoint doctors of their own choice. It is therefore now necessary to bring the legislation into line. The hon. the Minister has also referred to the aspect which flows from the decision taken by the Select Committee to abolish column 2 items. The legislation which is now before us is, as far as that aspect is concerned, in conformity with the decision which the Select Committee took in relation to appropriation accounts of the S.A. Transport Services.

I have a problem in regard to clause 14 which relates to borrowing powers to raise funds. Clause 14 seeks to insert a new section 17 which deals with the authority to trade in negotiable instruments and to lend or advance moneys. I can understand the need for greater flexibility in this regard in view of the problems which are referred to in the memorandum. But the effect of this is that not only does it remove control from Parliament, deprive Parliament of control; it also does not provide in any way for the executive to have any sort of control over a General Manager in the exercise of his powers. I want to suggest—and this should meet with the approval of the hon. the Minister— that any activity on the part of the General Manager in drawing, accepting or endorsing negotiable instruments should be with the approval of the Minister.

But the Bill says that.

No, it does not say “with the approval of the Minister.” What it does say is “subject to such conditions as the Minister may decide”. It does not specifically say that the action of the General Manager must have the approval of the Minister. I believe this is necessary, because the Minister must have some control. Never mind the personalities involved. We are not dealing here with personalities when we make legislation. This then is worded in a way that gives a carte blanche to the General Manager to negotiate negotiable instruments and to lend and advance money, etc. I believe that if Parliament does not have any control, the executive must at least have some control, and certainly it should be subject to the approval of the Minister. I want to suggest that one inserts in line 55 after “may” the words “with the approval in each case of the Minister”. I would like to move this amendment in the Committee Stage and I would like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reactions to the comments which I have just made.

Clause 19 deals with the question of widening the scope for reservists in the S.A. Railway Police in order to allow people who are not employees of the S.A. Transport Services to join the police reserve. Again this is probably part of the circumstances of our time. I do not know to what extent nonemployees of the S.A. Transport Services can be encouraged to join the S.A. Railway Police, but if it is necessary for security reasons that there should be greater policing and if this will help towards that, then this measure has some merit.

Finally there is clause 20, which deals with the question of offences for improper use of fire-fighting equipment. I gather the Administration has had some difficulty in this regard because no offence has been prescribed in respect of this sort of activity. If so, then obviously this provision is necessary.

In general this is, as I have said, consequential legislation and subject to the reservation which I have in regard to the amendment which I have suggested, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea will excuse me if on this occasion I do not react immediately to the contribution that he made. All I want to say now is that one has appreciation for the fact that he supports the Second Reading of this bill in general.

This is the first time that I have the opportunity of acting as the chairman of this specific study group in the House. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to thank the hon. members on this side of the House who thought fit to put me in this position, for the confidence that they have placed in me. I hope that I shall not disappoint the hon. members nor the hon. the Minister in this regard. You will also excuse me if I digress a little on this occasion, Sir. It is ironical to think that I previously dealt blows to the hon. the Minister from the other side of the House while he was still the Minister of Agriculture. However, now the story is somewhat different, because now I have to be the hon. the Minister’s right hand when it comes to Transport matters. It is ironical that things should have happened in this way. [Interjections.] When I was still on the other side of the House, the hon. the Minister told me on one occasion that it seemed to him that I was not all there.

Hear, hear!

Now my task is somewhat different. [Interjections.] Now I too have to help to keep the hon. the Minister on the tracks. However, it will not be difficult, because there is probably not a single hon. member in this House who does not have a high regard for the hon. the Minister because of the very human, practical fashion in which he deals with a portfolio. That is why I say it will probably be a very easy task to support him in this respect.

However, on this occasion I should also like to express my gratitude towards the previous chairman of this study group, the hon. member for North Rand, who for health reasons—possibly a very serious operation in the near future—no longer sees his way clear to head this study group. One appreciates the work that he has done so conscientiously. I think he held that position for 12 years, if not longer. One cannot render service of that calibre for such a long time without having special qualities. Therefore, I pay tribute to him on this occasion for what he has done for this group and for the Railways and its workers throughout South Africa.

I should just like to single out a few clauses in this piece of legislation as being particularly important ones at this stage. For years the Railway men were in a difficult position. Their sick fund was a bone of contention for many years because they were obliged to accept the doctor and the treatment that was prescribed to them and could not choose their own doctor and their own treatment. Now a very important change is being made. Instead of the sick fund there will now be a medical scheme. Of course, the Railway official does not receive this for free. It will cost the unmarried official a rand or two per month, and the married official with dependants will have to pay a little more. However, he will now be able to choose which doctor, treatment, specialist or hospital he wants, and I think this is a very important step forward. This should create great satisfaction amongst Railway men on the long-term. Therefore, one is grateful for this change that is taking place.

However, there is another clause that I consider very important. I am referring to the clause that has a bearing on the increase of annuities. Now this no longer has to be announced by regulation. That amendment now has a bearing on the non-White workers too. In this respect too it is a good amendment because it accords equal treatment to the Coloureds, the Indians and the other people in the employ of the Railways, together with the White employees.

I am pleased that an amendment is being made with regard to the intake of reservists. Previously it was limited to employees of the S.A. Transport Services. The reservist plays a very important role in the maintenance of law and order and in the combating of crime. It has been clear for some time already that at harbours, airports, etc. this task could not be limited only to those people who have previously been or are still employed by the Railways. That is why it is a good thing that other members of the public too, who would like to be reservists in the Railway Police, can now make themselves available for this task. The more we can have of them, the better. I think that on such an occasion one could ask members of the public who can render this service, to come forward for the sake of law and order in South Africa and the protection that they can offer the Railways.

With these few words I want to say that I hope that in the position in which I find myself at the moment, I can make my best possible contribution in order to assist the S.A. Railways as the chief transport service of the country as well as the officials, but also to ensure that the consumer that makes use of the Railways, will be a satisfied consumer.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for De Kuilen on his appointment or election as chairman of the study group on the Government side. I suppose this means that in Railway debates I will be following on the hon. member. That means he is going to have to be very careful in what he says, because I am going to be the one to hold him to account.

As the hon. member said, the creation of the medical scheme in place of the old Sick Fund is definitely a progressive step forward and we welcome it. We sincerely hope, and in fact know, that the employees of the Administration are now going to enjoy being able to choose their doctors, hospitals and so forth.

We agree with most of what is contained in the Bill, but I am going to take this opportunity of putting a couple of reservations we have to the hon. the Minister. I hope that he will be able to reassure us on these points, in which case we shall not be moving amendments later on. The first query we have is in relation to clause 8 which concerns the recovery of amounts in respect of the medical scheme. In terms of this clause the Administration is being empowered to recover amounts due by annuitants under the medical scheme from the annuities payable to them from any fund. As we see it, a person may retire from the S.A. Transport Services and may be owing the medical scheme some money, money which the Administration will now be empowered to recover from his annuity.

Our query is this: What happens in the case where such an employee does not agree with the amount that the medical scheme says is owing by him? There is no provision for appeal against such an amount which the medical scheme says is actually due. We believe that the Administration could run into trouble here, and I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s view on this. Perhaps there should be a proviso added to this clause that would eliminate any problems in that regard.

The other comment I should like to make is in regard to clause 10, which provides that annuities may be increased from time to time. The clause clearly states that where such an annuity is payable from the pension fund, this fund will bear the increase, and when it is payable from revenue, it will be borne by revenue. The point I want to raise in this regard is that nowadays there is a tendency on the part of employees to call for increases in the annuities that are payable to them upon retirement. I fully understand the reasons and the need for this in times of high inflation. If one studies what has happened in the Western World, in Britain and especially in the United States, where pension funds and social security funds have been created, one finds that because of the pressure from those who benefit from these funds, the funds have increased annuities and also the benefits. However, because of inflation, of early retirement and because of the fact that people are living to an older age, the financial burden that the funds are now experiencing has placed the entire economics of the funds in jeopardy, to the extent where some of them are going bankrupt. So, what does this mean? It means that the actuaries who determine the payments and the benefits have really skated on thin ice. They have in fact capitulated to the pressures that have built up from employees and their unions. I think also politicians have in recent years also unfortunately buckled to the pressures from people who, as they say, come from a “give me” generation. Children are apt to say: “Dad, give me this and give me that”. These people are now saying to the State and pension funds: “Give me this and give me that”, and in the process the whole social security scheme in the United States, for example, is on the verge of bankruptcy. This is something that President Reagan is now wrestling with because it is a very serious problem.

I raise the point at this stage because I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the actuaries who are planning and administering this fund abide by very strict economic principles.

The other point that I want to make to the hon. the Minister is that I sincerely hope that the money that is paid into the fund will be invested in investments that are both sound and a hedge against inflation. I do know that there has been a tendency in some quarters and in some countries—I know that it has happened to one of the major industrial concerns in the United States—that when the company was in trouble, it borrowed money from the pension fund, something which fortunately cannot happen in this country. In any event, in the process the company still went bankrupt and the pension fund went down the drain with it. I know that the State as such can borrow moneys from certain funds at interest rates which may not be high enough in today’s circumstances.

I want to raise these two points with the hon. the Minister. The first one is that the Fund should be actuarially sound, and in the second instance, the investments in which the money is placed should be aimed at combating inflation. Having said that in connection with clause 10,1 should also like to refer to clause 14. This is a clause to which the hon. member for Berea also referred. He also has certain reservations about this clause. We are concerned about a certain part of the wording of the proposed new section 17. I quote from clause 14, as follows—

Appropriation Bills come before Parliament so that we the representatives of the people can be informed of moneys which are going to be spent, and how much money is going to be raised. Ultimately Parliament gives its approval to such Bills. The way I read this clause, it appears to mean that the General Manager is empowered to carry out these various financial transactions, with which we agree. Nowhere, however, do we see his having to report to Parliament or being responsible to Parliament. I wonder therefore whether there should not be a proviso to ensure that such transactions are reported to Parliament by the Minister. This is just so that we in this House can be aware of what is going on. I ask the hon. the Minister to give his serious consideration to this question, because in recent years we have had certain problems in this regard where money was misappropriated.

I do not want the hon. the Minister to misunderstand me. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister, and also the General Manager, will not misunderstand my motives in this regard, but I believe that prevention is better than cure. In order to ensure that everybody is happy, I believe there should be a proviso here in terms of which we can be sure that these transactions will be reported to Parliament.

Finally, I should like to refer to clauses 19 and 20 of the Bill. We in these benches believe that these two clauses are necessary. I think it is a very good idea to allow the Railways’ Police Reserve to now draw on people who are not members of the S.A. Transport Services. We think this is a good idea. We are also in agreement with the provisions contained in clause 20, in which it is now made very clear that it is unlawful for people to tamper with or remove any equipment intended for the combating of fires. We think this is a good thing. We also agree with the penalty prescribed for people who transgress this provision. We will be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are grateful that we now have the hon. member for De Kuilen among our number. We also want to congratulate him sincerely on the new position he is occupying as chairman of the S.A. Transport Services group. When he was still on that side of the House there was always a red light against him and he sometimes let off too much steam. However, we are delighted to have him on this side of the House where he will find he will always be on the right track which will never come to a sudden end. Together with the hon. the Minister, we give him the green fight to take the Railways to new heights, also by means of debates in this House.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that he would follow the hon. member for De Kuilen in future debates on Transport Affairs. I am just wondering to what side of the House he wants to follow the hon. member for De Kuilen. [Interjections.] However, we hope he will clear up this matter with us in due course. He must kindly explain to us in what regard he will follow the hon. member for De Kuilen. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked certain questions about medical services. I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to all these questions. Of course the incorporation of the old Sick Fund into a medical scheme is something new to us. This means that a member of the scheme now has a free choice as regards general practitioners, specialists, hospitals and pharmacists, and that he can exercise his choice with the aid of a membership card which he produces wherever and whenever he requires medical services. He can also stipulate the type of medicine he prefers and the hospital he wants to be admitted to.

The matter of prescriptions is also important. Any medicinal preparation may be prescribed to a member, except for certain specialized items, which are excluded by all medical schemes. These items include patent foods, contraceptives, slimming aids, homeopathic remedies and herbal preparations. Remedies for which neither the medical aid scheme nor the practitioner concerned can accept responsibility are also excluded.

It is a good thing that prescriptions are now covered by the medical scheme and that no levy is paid on these prescriptions. Subject to certain conditions, prescriptions may now be taken to any pharmacy. As the hon. member for De Kuilen pointed out, the scheme now pays 75% of the costs of medicine prescribed to ordinary members and 90% of the costs of members who are pensioners or widows. The medicine may be obtained from a pharmacy of the medical scheme, from contracting pharmacies and from doctors who dispense medicines themselves.

A medical scheme pharmacy supplies medicines at a considerably lower price because 25% of the costs are recovered by means of evidence of payment deductions by a serving member. In the case of members who are pensioners or widows only 10% of the cost of the medicine will be recovered from their monthly pension. I think this solves certain of the problems referred to by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

On the other hand, when medicine is obtained from a contracting pharmacist who usually offers a discount, a general practitioner may dispense medicines himself or a serving member may also deal with private pharmacy, where there is no medical scheme pharmacy. If there is a medical scheme pharmacy and another pharmacy in his neigbourhood, a member may prefer to get his medicine from the private pharmacy, but he must them pay the full amount for the prescribed medicine and claim a refund. In that case the scheme will pay 70% of the costs, and 85% in the case of pensioners and widows. In this way expenses can be considerably reduced and restricted.

What members must take into consideration here is that they must not try to get further prescriptions for medicines they already have as this would constitute unfair expenditure. In the case of chronic ailments prescriptions can be handed in early and can be delivered by the pharmacy to the station nearest to the member’s home.

The same applies to hospitalisation. The scheme is responsible for the full costs of hospitalisation in general wards and in provincial hospitals. Costs of medicines, operations, blood transfusions, radiological examinations and other additional services are now fully covered. That is what makes this scheme so marvellous.

That part of the medical costs for which the member is responsible or that is recovered from him will not be more than 5% of his basic salary or pension in any month. If the amount exceeds 5% it will be deducted in monthly instalments. Members can also open a special savings account at a financial institution into which they can deposit the amount they would usually have paid as a Sick Fund contribution every month.

I should like to point out how ordinary members will benefit from this scheme. The present deduction for an unmarried member is R6,32 per month, and this will be reduced to R2 per month. A married man with one dependant pays R12,02 at present and this amount will be reduced to R4 per month. At present a member with more than one dependant pays R16,44 per month and this amount will be reduced to R4 per month.

At present we have 56 Sick Fund dispensaries and let us see what sort of service they give the Railway employee. During the 1980-’81 financial year Sick Fund dispensaries prepared no fewer than 5,3 million items, at the low cost of R21 million. I do not think this achievement can be equalled by private pharmacies. That is why it is very important that this scheme receives the full support of hon. members on this side of the House and of hon. members opposite.

These R2,00 and R4,00 contributions are now paid into a provident fund from which fees will be automatically paid. This will benefit members who are facing high medical expenses. Members now pay a limited part of the restricted expenses they incur for their dependants and on the cost of medicine. As I say, the scheme pays 75% of the fees and this is based on the applicable tariff of the medical aid. Consultations, visits, treatment and minor operations in the consulting room are included as is the cost of materials, which is often calculated separately.

It therefore gives us pleasure to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Administration sincerely on this new medical scheme that has replaced the old Sick Fund. We thank him and the Administration for it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin with the hon. member for De Kuilen. I want to congratulate the hon. member on having become the chairman of the Select Committee on the S.A. Transport Services Accounts as well as of the Railways group. [Interjections.] Years ago the hon. member for De Kuilen used to be the old UP Opposition’s chief spokesman on agriculture. I recall the occasion when we were discussing the soil conservation legislation and the hon. member kept me busy for four days. Then there was the time we were debating the egg production legislation. When I said that a farmer could not keep more than 10 000 extra hens, the hon. member quarrelled with me on every clause.

He was good in those days.

In my opinion, an Opposition is there to keep the Minister on his hind legs, and the hon. member was extremely effective. Last Friday I listened to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I want to tell him frankly that he was very good until he began to read. When he was shooting from the hip, however, I thought that it would have been a very good thing if he had been sitting on this side of the House. I want to tell the hon. member for De Kuilen that he was extremely effective in his agricultural days and I believe that he will also be of great value to me as far as Railway matters are concerned and will help me to make a success of my job.

I also want to convey my best wishes to the hon. member for Witwatersberg, Mr. Hans Schoeman, who may have to undergo an operation. I also want to thank him for the contribution he made in his day.

†To save time, I should like to tell the hon. member for Berea that it will not be necessary for us to discuss this legislation clause by clause. I have decided to accept his proposed amendment to clause 14. I realize that the hon. member is thinking of the future and it may happen that one may have a General Manager who may do certain things irresponsibly. I had thought that we were fully covered in this regard because in certain other sections of the principal Act the approval of the Minister is definitely stipulated. For example, we find the stipulation in regard to the approval of the Minister contained in the Railways and Harbours Finance and Accounts Act. But in order to make the Opposition completely happy, I have decided to accept the amendment and we shall insert this as an amendment to clause 14.

The hon. member also asked some questions in regard to clause 19. I want to tell him that we have found that certain people who are not employees of the S.A. Railways have asked if they cannot help us as reservists. We have therefore thought fit to alter this provision so as to enable certain people who are not employed by the Railways to help us to protect Railway property. I agree with what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said. They fully accept it and they are satisfied with these provisions.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to the question of an amount owing to any fund by any person and the fact that such person had no right of appeal. This was in regard to the proposed new medical scheme. These provisions are contained in clause 8 of the Bill. The Sick Fund staff will assist pensioners in establishing the correctness of amounts and the right of appeal will always remain. Such people can still appeal.

The hon. member also referred to clause 10 in regard to periodic evaluations and I can inform him that in this regard we will ensure that the balance in the fund will continue to grow at an acceptable rate. The funds are invested with the Public Debt Commissioners. The interest that we receive on our money is not the amount that I should like to receive because every businessman wishes to invest at the highest rate of interest possible. However, in terms of our South African financial legislation, we are compelled to invest with the Public Debt Commissioners. As far as clause 14 is concerned I should like to point out that amounts to be spent will be included in budgets which are submitted to Parliament for approval. If the General Manager gets the approval of the Minister to borrow money overseas, it will be impracticable for him to wait for Parliament to give its approval. In every instance, however, we shall have to come back to Parliament with a budget. Furthermore, the Auditor-General will always investigate Railway finances. The power now sought in terms of clause 14 will enable us to borrow money on the overseas market without first having to wait for Parliament. Parliament, however, will still enjoy the full power to approve the budgets that will still have to be submitted to Parliament for approval. In this instance nothing is being altered—Parliament will still exercise control.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is correct to say that all these transactions will be clearly shown in the accounts of the Railways?

I give the hon. member the assurance that such transactions will be clearly stipulated and they will also be referred to the Select Committee.

The hon. member has also indicated that clauses 19 and 20 meet with his approval.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned a few very interesting facts. His reference to the fact that more than 5 million prescriptions were handled by the chemists was fascinating. The chemists of the S.A. Transport Services are under considerable pressure, but through them we save millions of rands. I suppose we could discuss this subject at great length. I may point out that the Sick Fund is going to cost us an additional R21 million. All these things have been done after discussions with the trade unions and the staff associations. Each one of these Sick Fund benefits was discussed point by point and general consensus was obtained. Therefore I am grateful for the fact that we have the support of the Opposition in this regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides for the construction of a single track railway line between Komati-poort and the Swaziland border near Border Gate to connect with the railway line to be built by the Swaziland Railways, in order to serve as a northern rail link between South Africa and Swaziland. The Board of the S.A. Transport Services has investigated the proposal and recommended that the line be constructed. Full details of the proposed scheme are furnished in the board’s report, which has already been tabled, and I shall therefore be brief.

The Swaziland Railways intends constructing a railway line from a place near Mpaka on the Goba-Phuzumoya line to a place near Border Gate on the northern border with South Africa in order to serve the existing sugar factory at Mhlume and a possible coal mine between Mhlume and Tshaneni. If the envisaged railway line is linked with the rail network of the S.A. Transport Services, this will mean that traffic between the Eastern Transvaal and Natal will flow through Swaziland, and this will result in better utilization of the existing southern rail link between South Africa and Swaziland. The envisaged rail link will also be to the benefit of the S.A. transport services since the re-routing of traffic from Eastern Transvaal to Richards Bay via Swaziland will create reserve capacity on the existing main line to Richards Bay for which there is a steadily increasing demand, and this can be used for additional coal and other exports.

It is expected that approximately 1 850 000 tons of the existing traffic, comprising 1 200 000 tons of rock phosphate, 300 000 tons of phosphoric acid and 350 000 tons of general traffic such as timber, fertilizer, fuel and fruit, will be conveyed annually between the Eastern Transvaal and the Natal north coast through Swaziland over the proposed rail link.

As far as new traffic is concerned, it is possible that approximately 250 000 tons of rock phosphate—this figure could eventually increase to 1,5 million tons per annum—a substantial amount of anthracite, almost 270 000 tons of softwood and 168 000 tons of hardwood may be conveyed on this railway line annually. The owners of the sugar factory at Mbabane, various farmers and the Citrus Board are also showing interest in the conveyance of their products on the new railway line.

†From an economic evaluation of the project it is evident that the construction of the railway line is a feasible financial proposition for both the S.A. Transport Services and Swaziland Railway. Moreover, this can be considered an excellent opportunity for co-operation between the two neighbouring countries to their mutual benefit.

A Memorandum of Understanding has been entered into between the South African and Swaziland Governments providing for matters such as the traffic potential of the rail connection, the basis of fixing and reviewing tariffs and the apportionment of receipts accruing to Swaziland Railway and the S.A. Transport Services from the interworking of traffic between the two countries.

The proposed line will be approximately 61 km long and will cost an estimated R47 million to construct. Diesel traction will be used.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches welcome this legislation. It follows the acceptance of the principle some time ago. This is really enabling legislation relating to the line. We believe this is a constructive step in the interests both of the Republic of South Africa and of Swaziland. From the hon. the Minister’s remarks it is clear that this is a practical step and that we are not doing it out of altruism. The S.A. Transport Services is a business concern and one would look forward to an increase in rail traffic which would benefit, inter alia, any slack periods on the Richards Bay line and on other lines. This is then a constructive measure which deserves our support. Apart from the economic advantage it will have for South Africa, it will also help to cement relationships between South Africa and one of its neighbouring States. In that sense too one welcomes this sort of step. We know well the part the S.A. Transport Services have played in developing Southern Africa. A further extension thereof in the form of this line linking up the northern part of our country with Swaziland, will be an added advantage towards improving relationships between our two countries. This is after all the part the S.A. Transport Services should play in Southern Africa, on a business basis, and at the same time trying to build up viability and stability in our neighbouring States. In that sense we welcome this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is heartening that the hon. member for Berea supports this Bill. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House support the legislation in a particular way because it is most probably one of the most interesting pieces of Railway legislation that we have had in the House for a long time.

In the first instance, it reflects co-operation between the Republic of South Africa and an independent State. It is to the benefit of both that this railway line will be constructed. However, it also reflects—and possibly this is more important with a view to the future constellation of States—how there can be co-operation between different countries in a practical way and how those countries can help one another. I am saying this because this piece of legislation is an example of how it can be done in a very practical manner. If there is one country that will welcome this development, it is definitely Swaziland, because it offers them new transport possibilities, and they will be able to transport their products to Richards Bay much more easily. To us it means an alternative route to Richards Bay that will be shorter than the present route. It will unavoidably mean less revenue for the Railways, but since there is already considerable traffic on the present section to Richards Bay, this change will be able to bring about a considerable decrease in the quantity of traffic on the present line. Of course, this creates greater export possibilities for South Africa from the Lowveld, the Eastern Transvaal and other parts of the Transvaal that are at present placing a very heavy load on the existing line.

It will also have an effect on costs. Under the present circumstances, approximately 60 kilometres of line is being constructed, and taking the siding into account, this is nearly 70 kilometres of line, and the cost attached to this is approximately R47 million. Of course, this is a hilly area, and I am sure that the Railways made a very good advance estimate so that the project in general will be to the benefit of the country.

I can also foresee that tourist traffic could increase considerably in due course. The additional business activities in the surrounding towns and areas that are served by this line, will herald a new era.

This shows once again that people do not necessarily have to agree with regard to one another’s domestic policy in order to be able to co-operate on the economic level and in other spheres to the mutual benefit of both parties. Therefore we welcome this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we also welcome this Bill and agree with all the sentiments that have been expressed about the new railway line and the advantages it entails. The three previous speakers have clearly identified these advantages. It is going to result in further development, which South Africa requires, and is also going to relieve pressure on the existing railway line. When one considers the increasing export of our bulk ores, coal, etc., one realizes that to have an additional line to a major bulk port is a very good idea. I believe that all this development is also going to benefit Richards Bay, which has cost the Administration and the country as a whole a tremendous amount of money. If one studies the annual accounts, one sees that the Richards Bay harbour has a long way to go before it becomes as profitable as other harbours. Certainly, it is a new harbour, and a very large one which has a tremendous potential which should be utilized. Therefore, I believe that this railway line will in time prove to be a very good investment because it will bring added business to Richards Bay, which is, as I have said, something that is really needed at the present time.

I should just like to say that this again points to the importance of the province of Natal and Zululand. Here we have another major line which is going to connect the Eastern Transvaal and parts of Swaziland with ports in Natal. As someone from that province, I am very pleased to see once again Natal’s importance being emphasized through a development of this nature.

There is one point which I feel may give cause for concern. I see that traction is going to be by diesel locomotive. With the shortage of liquid fuels and the big movement which has taken place in South Africa in recent years towards electric traction, I think it is a pity that this line could not have been electrified. I appreciate that there are a lot of ramifications to such a step, because the independent State of Swaziland is involved. I do not know how much electric power is available to them and it could mean yet another international agreement, because the power would probably have to come from the Republic of South Africa. However, I raise the point that it is a pity that this line could not also have been electrified, in view of the fact that the Administration is presently endeavouring to electrify all systems throughout the Republic. We shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few remarks in support of the Bill. It is a privilege to extend our hearty congratulations to the Railway Board on the thorough planning with regard to the proposed railway line. If one looks at the map, one sees that the proposed line will cause little disruption. It follows borders or a road that is already in existence. There will not be many problems with regard to expropriation or alienation of land, an aspect that causes a fair amount of problems for entrepreneurs and developers these days.

Other problems that existed in the previous century with regard to building a similar railway line in the Eastern Transvaal, are also something of the past. I am speaking here in particular about the Eastern line that was built under the guidance of an engineer, Gen. Machado. If one looks up the history of the line, it is interesting to note that in order of importance the main problems at that particular time were, first of all, the terrain and the Hollanders that were employed. I do not think that the Administration is going to experience those problems in our current dispensation. The Administration has the necessary machinery to eliminate problems with the terrain and I do not think that Hollanders are going to be employed for that project. The second problem that the builders of that time had was mosquitoes. The third problem was lions. Those who were not terrorized by the mosquitoes at night, were caught by lions in broad daylight.

The development of this section will create new employment opportunities for the Railways as an entrepreneur, as well as for the subcontractors. At this time of a levelling off in the economy, I believe that it will be an injection in the sphere of the provision of employment. I am pleased to support the Bill because, as other speakers have already said, it is opening up a new sphere of goodwill between two States. This railway line cannot but contribute towards the salvation and development of the country.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been indicated, we on this side of the House support the legislation, but further to the subject of the specific route, I do nevertheless want to avail myself of the opportunity of raising a matter that affects not only the Minister of Transport Affairs, but other departments that are also involved in the provision of services, including those who provide roads, railway lines and pipelines, as well as overall services and possibly even the Office of the Prime Minister as coordinating planner. I am referring to co-ordination between the providers of the various services with regard to the planning of routes.

As an engineer I realize that it is pleasant to begin with a clean sheet of paper when one is planning such a service. The premise with regard to co-ordination is generally to establish not how close to one another the providers of services can be, but how far apart they can be. Consequently, the first services in undeveloped areas are generally placed very far from one another because planning and designs may be facilitated somewhat by restricting liaison between the other authorities to the minimum. Ultimately the area is systematically criss-crossed by the services. Each one follows its own course and in the end the region has been cut up into a number of strips and patches that are unusable, which complicates planning at a later stage. Here I am thinking for instance of the Saldanha Bay area. The engineer is supposed to have an orderly mind, but that area is no credit to the engineers involved if one looks at the confusion of services there.

If one looks at the proposed line, one sees that it runs parallel to but approximately 2 to 5 km away from a provincial road. In the process, small farms such as “Sweet Home”, “Rusplek”, “Figtree” and even “Beginsel” are divided up. Farms that have already been divided in two by the provincial road, are now being divided into three. In the meantime we are also aware of the field that is going to be mined shortly and various services will be required there. Escom, the Water Board, the Post Office and others will therefore have to come along and they all try to avoid one another like the plague and in this way very little will ultimately remain of the farm “Beginsel”. Perhaps the owners of the farms will have to sow carrots that remain neatly in their rows, because ultimately their farms will consist of alternating servitudes and plots and pumpkins, for instance, take no notice of this. Possibly those people who named farms in that area had the gift of prophesy, or were expecting something because this must surely be why one farm through which the railway line runs, has been called “Wanhoop” and another “Nil Desperadum”.

I ask that engineers who are involved with planning, should keep themselves in check when they are given a clean sheet of paper. I ask that they should think of the environmental pollution that they are causing with their monuments of steel and concrete. Although wedging everything together causes a bit of trouble now, it nevertheless leads to a much better utilization of the available space. Therefore, I am calling for closer co-operation between those who provide services in order to bring about a more economic use of the land, although to begin with it may be at a slight premium, as would be the case with this line because it would then be a few metres longer. If, in the early stage of the development of fairly undeveloped areas, one could provide service corridors in order to accommodate multiple services, future planning could be facilitated. At the same time the original premium that might have had to be paid for the restriction of the freedom of planners in the various individual services, could be recovered on the long-term by saving on expropriation, by joint intersections, by mutual access and possibly also by joint security regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Berea for the positive approach he has adopted in respect of this matter.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to diesel traction. I want to inform him that we have had discussions with the Swaziland Government. I have had several personal interviews with their Minister of Transport. As far as both parties involved are concerned, finances seem to be the big problem. The capacity of the railway line in question is such that it does not enable us to spend the money necessary for the electrification of that line at this stage. That is something, however, which will be done ultimately. Initially, however, diesel traction appears to be the answer, particularly from a financial point of view. Steam and diesel traction are currently employed on the line between Phuzumoya and Golela. The Swaziland Government, however, is not prepared to introduce electric traction at this stage. Everything depends, of course, on the future profitability of this particular railway line.

*The hon. member for Standerton referred to new employment opportunities. This is a very important matter. Indeed, this is one of the matters which needs a tremendous boost. The hon. member for De Kuilen also made a sound contribution, for which I thank him.

I cannot understand why the hon. member for Greytown is so concerned about the fragmentation of land. The other day a few farmers came to speak to me about a railway line which is to be built right across their irrigation land. This is irrigation land valued at R8 000 per hectare. I put it to them that the railway line would cost R0,75 million per kilometre, and that it would only be practical to pay them out for their land. If we were to build a deviation around those people’s irrigation land, it would cost the State approximately R1 million for every kilometre. Being practical farmers, those men then told me that they were satisfied, that they accepted the payment for their land and that they would consolidate the unutilized piece of land which remained, with land belonging to a neighbour. In this way everyone would eventually be satisfied. Therefore it is not a case of messing up the land. However, to build a railway line right alongside a road is not practical politics.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members of the Opposition and to all other hon. members who took part in the debate for their contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Precious Stones Act, 1964, provides for the regulation and control of prospecting and mining for and dealing in precious stones and for matters incidental thereto.

The Act makes provision for the payment of various kinds of moneys and fees, such as claim licence moneys, mining lease rent, fees for the transfer of claims and for the issue and renewal of diggers’ certificates and prospecting permits. The maximum fines which may be imposed for offences under the Act are also prescribed.

One-half of the claim licence moneys and mining lease rent received by the Mining Commissioner in respect of land not owned by the State, must be paid over by him to the landowners concerned.

Representations have lately been made for a more reasonable dispensation for owners on whose land digging operations are being carried out. The size of a claim is 15 metres square and at the present tariff of 50c per claim per month the owner receives 25c. I may mention, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of mining leases, the rent is equal to the amount which would have been payable if the lease area had been held under claim licence.

The stage has been reached where the position of the landowners, the various fees payable under the Act and the maximum of the fines which may be imposed should be revised. Hon. members will agree that, due to the eroding of the value of the rand since the commencement of the Act in 1964, a revision of the prescribed fees and maximum fines has undoubtedly become necessary.

The increases proposed in respect of claim licence moneys and other fees payable in terms of the Act, are set out in various clauses of the Bill. As far as the participation by landowners in claim licence moneys and mining lease rent is concerned, it is proposed that the provisions of the Act be brought in line with the provisions of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, which will have the effect that the full share of such moneys and lease rent will be paid over to the landowners concerned. This proposal, if approved, will ensure a much better deal for owners on whose land digging operations are carried out. For example, under the proposed dispensation, the fee payable for a claim will be increased from 50c to R1 per month, which will be paid in full to the landowner concerned. This amounts to an increase of 75c or 400% per claim per month. The effect of my proposal in this connection, Mr. Speaker, will be that the State will relinquish an amount of approximately R200 000 per annum in favour of landowners. However, it gives me pleasure to inform hon. members that the Treasury has approved of the payment of the full share of claim licence moneys and mining lease rent to the landowners.

*As far as the maximum fines are concerned, I should just like to mention that a judge of the Supreme Court remarked some time ago in connection with a case of illicit diamond dealing that the maximum fine of R10 000 at present prescribed by the Act for convictions in this regard is inadequate, and I agree wholeheartedly. The money value of diamonds has increased by at least 500% since the Act came into operation, and since then illicit transactions have been exposed in the courts involving amounts of up to R100 000. Therefore the R10 000 fine imposed in 1964 is definitely no longer an adequate deterrent today. After due consultation with those concerned with the practical implementation of the Act, including the Commissioner of the S.A. Police, it is proposed that all maximum fines prescribed by the Act be increased fivefold.

I now wish to refer briefly to the amendment of section 7 of the Act by clause 3 of the Bill and the insertion of section 13A proposed in clause 8 of the Bill.

Complaints have been received from certain local authorities in the Western Transvaal in connection with prospecting on township plots. Before the inception of the Act in 1964, such prospecting could only be carried out with the consent of the Minister and subject to the limitations and conditions imposed by him. It is proposed that in order to exercise the necessary control as before, similar provisions be reinserted in the Act, which would of course mean that there would have to be advance consultation with the local authority involved. Such control applies only to residential areas for Blacks and Coloureds. What is proposed in clause 3 is that control be effected in all residential areas or townships.

As far as the proposal in clause 8 is concerned, it might be mentioned that it often happens that a prospector discovers precious stones in a pipe or fissure formation, but readily acceptable evidence that the precious stones occur in payable quantities, cannot be furnished without further ado. In this regard the legal position is that a discoverer’s certificate may only be issued by the Mining Commissioner if he is convinced that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that precious stones are present in payable quantities on the land in question. It also occurs that precious stones are discovered in such a formation in payable quantities, but that the deposit or the part of such a deposit situated on a specific piece of land is too small to justify the proclamation of the land as a mine in terms of section 63 of the Act. The position is therefore that if in such instances a prospector is not permitted to exceed the normal limits in terms of which the prospecting activities may be performed in order either to prove payability or to exploit the precious stones, where the deposit on the land in question is limited, the precious stones may remain in the ground. In the past the department has been accommodating in cases of this nature and has permitted the prospector to dig on a temporary basis, but hon. members will understand that any such arrangement outside the scope of the legal provisions could not stand up to litigation. Therefore clause 8 is aimed at making legal provision for prospectors, in the circumstances to which reference is made above, to be accorded the right to carry out digging activities. As will be noted, any digging concession proposed in terms of the measures in clause 8 can only be granted after the holder of the right to precious stones or the owner of the land, as the case may be, has granted permission and the prospector has agreed with the owner on the use of the surface of the land for purposes relating to the proposed digging operations.

The Bill also provides for a period of 21 days within which appeals against certain actions may be lodged under the Act. Further minor amendments are being proposed in the Bill with the aim of promoting the efficient administration of existing provisions. I should just like to inform the hon. members of the Opposition that a printing error has occurred in clause 20 in the English text and that during the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment merely to bring the amounts mentioned in clause 20, into line with the amounts that appear in the Afrikaans text of clause 20. None of the proposals contained in the Bill are of a contentious nature.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition benches will support this Bill. However, we do have two small amendments which we shall be moving to clauses 29 and 30. These amendments relate to the question of colour. The question of race is brought into the Bill in a sphere in which we do not believe it to be at all necessary. I say this because even according to the policy of the hon. the Minister himself the question of where Black people may or may not live is covered very adequately in other legislation. This is a Bill which sorts out many administrative problems and at this stage I should like to thank the hon. the Minister’s staff for the great help they have been and for the assistance they have given in outlining to us the reasons for many of the actual changes and the new provisions that have actually been inserted.

I should like to conclude by saying that I hope that the hon. the Minister will in fact be able to see his way clear to accept our amendment. If so, we shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for supporting this Bill in principle. The matters that he raised, will probably receive attention during the Committee Stage.

The Precious Stones Act of 1964 forms the legal basis of the diamond industry in South Africa with regard to the mining aspects thereof. It is also essential for this important, vast international industry, which is also a sensitive one, to be properly regulated from the mining stage to the marketing stage. Therefore it is necessary for this legislation to be amended from time to time and to be brought up to date in order to deal with changed circumstances and situations. The inhabitants of South Africa have to a large extent disposed of the handy philosophy that Providence put these precious stones in the earth and that anyone can remove them as they wish. In this regard I read a very good speech that was delivered in this House by an honoured predecessor of mine, the late Dr. W. P. Steenkamp, when he delivered his maiden speech in this House during the thirties. At the time he delivered a rousing plea here on behalf of two of his voters in Namaqualand who had been imprisoned due to illegal diamond dealing. He said that these assets had been placed in the earth’s crust by Providence and that the two young men who had committed the crime were good people, that they came from an exemplary home and that they did not consider it to be a crime at all. Now, to my own cost and to the cost of the hon. member for Queenstown I must add that these two “exemplary” young men were both “Louws”. [Interjections.]

Fortunately the wheel has turned full circle now and I do not have to plead on behalf of my voters who are in prison, but I can in actual fact ask for the fines that apply to that offence, to be increased, as the hon. the Minister has already said. The maximum fine, if the Bill is passed, will be increased from R10 000 to R50 000. Such an increase is necessary for two reasons: The existing fines no longer serve as a proper deterrent and, as the hon. the Minister also pointed out, the value of precious stones, diamonds in particular, has increased five-fold since the legislation was placed on the Statute Book in 1964.

Other moneys that are paid in terms of the Act, are also being brought up to date now and being placed at a more realistic level with the new provision that the moneys with regard to mining rental and claim licences be transferred in full to the landowners. I want to convey my hearty thanks to the hon. the Minister for this.

Another new principle that is being introduced, is contained in clause 8. The present position in terms of section 13 is that discoverers’ certificates will be granted and a mine proclaimed only if the mining commissioner and the Government mining engineer are satisfied that precious stones have been discovered in payable quantities. The emphasis is very clearly being placed on “payable”. If the find is too small to justify a mine, it will in future be possible in terms of the Bill to obtain written permission subject to the conditions and stipulations laid down by the Minister. It will then be possible to undertake mining on a larger scale than mere prospecting makes provision for.

The same clause also provides for proper care to be taken of the interests of the landowner or even of the occupant of the land.

The Bill makes the principal Act more efficient, both in scope and operation, and therefore I am pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP also welcomes the Bill and will be giving it its full support.

The essence of the Bill is to increase the fees or the portion of the fees payable to the landowners. The 100% transfer will of course be welcomed by those people, and the R200 000 per annum speaks for itself. As far as the fines are concerned, we would hate to feel that we have reached the stage where crime does pay and that the fines for offences in terms of the Precious Stones Act could be written off against unforeseen expenses. We therefore also should like to support the concept of an increase in the fines for the various offences, an increase of some 500%.

We fully agree with the points raised by the hon. member for Namakwaland and the official Opposition.

In conclusion I should like to say that we would be happy to accept the hon. the Minister’s proposed amendments. We had a look at the clause and there is no doubt, as he has discovered, that the Butterworth edition is slightly different to the amending Bill. We have no difficulty with that.

In so far as the official Opposition’s proposed amendment is concerned—here I refer to clauses 29 and 30—in order to delete references to “Coloureds, Blacks and Whites”, I should like to say that if the hon. the Minister sees his way clear to doing it, then of course we shall be very happy to support that. I have an idea, however, that there are other legislative restrictions which will make it impossible for the hon. the Minister to have those references deleted. If this is the case, then of course at another suitable time we shall be able to support the intentions of the official Opposition.

We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in this discussion because my constituency is greatly affected by the provisions of the Bill. First of all I want to say that this Bill is going to force many people to act in a much more responsible manner in the future. I think it is going to give greater satisfaction to many people in the future as well. I should like to agree with previous speakers on the increase of fines for illegal diamond dealing. I also want to express my gratitude towards the hon. the Minister and his department on behalf of the landowners that the sensible decision has been made to recommend that all claim licences and mining rentals be paid out to the landowners. Therefore the owners will now receive the full amount per claim per month.

I want to speak in particular about clause 3 of the Bill, which refers to section 7 of the Principal Act. According to section 7 it is illegal to mine within a proclaimed residential area for Coloureds and Blacks, without the written permission of the Minister. For some reason or other, White residential areas were left out of the above section at the time. Consequently this led to uncontrolled mining within White areas, particularly in the Western Transvaal, assuming tremendous proportions. I have had considerable experience of this. In a certain town in my constituency, mining was taking place on practically every empty erf at one stage. After a while the town looked like a mining town. Digging had been to a depth of approximately 30 metres. We brought this problem to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department and attention was speedily given to it. I feel that should clause 3 be passed, one would be creating a situation where mining activities within a residential area will take place on a much more responsible basis in the future. This clause will not affect the right of ownership of any specific person. In future if anyone wants to mine his erf in a town, he will be able to apply for a permit through the normal channels. The local authority will be consulted in this regard and following that the Minister will be informed, and he will then decide on the merits of the application. Indeed, this was how section 7 of the Principal Act functioned in practice with regard to Coloured and Black residential areas. No new principle is being introduced in clause 3. It is only the scope of the existing provision that is being extended so that White towns too are being included.

I want to conclude by addressing a special word of gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his department for having dealt with this problem so efficiently and having come up with legislation in this regard so speedily. It will definitely contribute towards the conservation of the rural character of the towns in the Western Transvaal.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and the hon. member for Durban North for their support. With regard to the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, due to the early stage at which this legislation is being discussed, I did not have prior notice of them, and similarly the hon. member did not have prior notice of the amendment that I am going to move. I feel that the amendment of the hon. member requires some deliberation, but not too much. I hope that at the start of proceedings tomorrow afternoon, the Bill will be at the top of the Order Paper. However, in view of his amendment, I would like to have a little time at least to go over the implications of it and therefore I shall not ask to proceed to the Committee Stage today. We shall give thorough consideration to the amendment and we will then debate these aspects further during the Committee Stage, should debate be necessary.

I should like to thank the hon. members on this side as well as those on the other side of the House for their support. As usual, the hon. member for Namakwaland made a very interesting contribution and told us more about the culture and interesting background of this specific industry, with which he has become so well acquainted in his area. With regard to the investigation that was launched on the strength of the representations by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, in which he indicated that a problem did in fact exist, it was a pleasure for the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs to be of assistance to him and to create order in a situation that had become somewhat out of hand.

Questions agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of section 124(1) and 8(a) of the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Act, 1950, and the Vaal River Development Scheme Act, 1934, the Rand Water Board is entitled to the gratis abstraction of specified quantities of water from the board’s own works, as well as from the Vaal Dam.

In respect of the quantity referred to in section 124(1) of the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Act, 1950, different unit measures were used in the past in the legislation and in practice, such as cubic feet, gallons and acre feet, which was changed to cubic metres upon metrication. As a result of rounding off at the time of conversion in practice from one unit measure to another, there is presently a slight difference between the quantity of free water to which the board is entitled in terms of the relevant statutory provision and the quantity which has been used in practice for some time.

This difference is now leading to accounting problems, because the board has to pay for additional rights which have been granted. In order to eliminate these problems, it is proposed in clause 1 of the Bill that the section concerned be amended to bring it into line with what is being done in practice.

†I have already referred to section 8(a) of the Vaal River Development Scheme Act, 1934, and as hon. members are aware a Bill, with similar provisions to amend this Act, has also been introduced.

*The proposed amendments in the two Bills represent an increase of 924 159 cubic metres, which is less than 1% of the total quantity of 356 067 538 cubic metres to which the Rand Water Board is at present entitled free of charge every year in terms of the two statutory provisions involved.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches have no disagreement with this Bill. The hon. the Minister has motivated the reason why it should be passed and we shall be supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we should like to convey our appreciation to the Opposition for their support of this piece of legislation. As the hon. the Minister has said, the unit measures used in the past were cubic feet, gallons and acre feet, for example, while these were changed to cubic metres upon metrication. This piece of legislation simply removes the minor anomaly which has arisen as a result of the change. Since the two main works of the Rand Water Board are situated in my constituency, it is a personal pleasure to me to give my support to a law which will further facilitate the activities of those of my voters. Therefore we on this side of the House very gladly support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will certainly be supporting this Bill. We accept the explanation given by the hon. the Minister and see no problem in giving our support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the hon. members sincerely for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Weza Timber Company Limited and the Tweefontein Timber Company Limited were incorporated in terms of Act 42 of 1976 and Act 22 of 1981, respectively. The establishment of both these companies, which is based on a partnership between the State and the private sector, was regarded and supported as a positive step towards rationalization in the sawmill industry. It was indeed such a step. The purpose of the amending Bill which is now before the House is to take this process of rationalization, which commenced in 1976, one step further.

The State and the Hans Merensky Foundation each has a 50% interest in both these companies. The objectives of the two companies are identical and the further statutory provisions regarding the establishment and functioning of the companies are also virtually identical. The directors of both companies believe that it would be conductive to more effective management and that capital and other assets could be better utilized if the two companies amalgamated. A request to this effect has been made by the boards of directors of the two companies, and the Bill which is now before this House is therefore aimed at amalgamating the two timber companies into a single company under the name of Tweefontein Timber Company Limited.

Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6 are intended to replace obsolete words and expressions, while clause 7 provides for the repeal of the Weza Timber Company Limited Act, 1976, and a few consequential amendments directly connected with this. Clauses 4 and 5 merely regulate the pooling of the share capital of the two existing companies which is held separately by the Hans Merensky Foundation and the State.

†Mr. Speaker, the performance of the Weza Timber Company Limited since its establishment in 1976 was satisfactory in all respects. The Tweefontein Timber Company Limited, having been established only in 1981, has as yet not had sufficient time to prove itself, but even at this early stage of the company’s existence I have reason to believe in its success.

I am confident that the new company as envisaged in the Bill will also prove to be a success and provide further proof that a partnership between the State and private enterprise has a significant role to play in this field.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will be supporting this legislation. It essentially seeks to repeal the Weza Timber Company Act of 1976 and to consolidate that company’s affairs with those of the Tweefontein Timber Company Limited. I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and tell him that we are happy and fully satisfied with that explanation. We support the Bill.

There is, however, one matter we should like to clear up. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will do so in his reply. I refer to the reasons for the increase in the share capital of the new company. As I have said, we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for his support of the Bill. The Bill gives practical effect to the principle of rationalization. As far as I know, the expertise and marketing of the two companies are already being pooled. This Bill now makes it possible to pool the capital as well. The Tweefontein Timber Company is still in a stage of development, while the Weza Timber Company has already built up certain reserves.

On behalf of my constituency I am very glad that it is the Weza Timber Company Act which is being repealed and not the Tweefontein Timber Company Act. I gladly support the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP will be supporting this Bill. We again accept the explanation of the hon. the Minister, and we see this as a very practical step forward. In view of the results that the Weza Timber Company has achieved in the past and the indications for the future of the Tweefontein Company, I think we can look forward to the successful amalgamation of these two concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill. The increase in share capital referred to by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South merely reflects the combination of the share capital of the two companies. The share capital of the Tweefontein Timber Company is R7 million and that of the Weza Timber Company R1,5 million, and these two combined give us a total of R8,5 million.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amending Bill which is now before the House, does not contain any contentious proposals. It merely aims to eliminate a deficiency which has been identified in the existing Water Research Act, 1971, and to facilitate the administrative process.

The existing Act does not contain any provisions with regard to the writing-off of rates or charges, together with the interest on such items, which were imposed in terms of section 11 of the Act and which were irrecoverable on the grounds of the insolvency of a taxpayer or for other reasons. It is now being proposed that such power be conferred on the Minister and that section 11 of the Act be suitably amended to make provision for this, as set out in clause 1 of the Bill.

The Act does not at present make provision either for the delegation of powers conferred upon the Minister by the Act. Several of the powers are of such a nature that they ought to be exercised by the Minister in person. On the other hand, however, there are certain powers which the Minister may only exercise in consultation with the Minister of Finance, which means that the final authority rests with the latter. Therefore, as regards administrative actions which require consultation with and consent from the Minister of Finance, it would be possible to expedite the administrative process if the powers of the Minister of Environment Affairs were delegated to an official in the Department of Environmental Affairs in certain appropriate cases. In clause 2 it is being proposed that the Act be amplified to make provision for such delegation.

†From the contents of clause 2 it is obvious that it is by no means the intention to encroach on the autonomy of the Water Research Commission. The Commission is making a valuable contribution to the promotion of research in connection with water affairs, be it in the field of industrial and domestic water or water for agricultural purposes. The amendments proposed in the Bill before the House are not of a drastic nature and I am of the opinion that they can only contribute to the ever smoother functioning of the Commission.

Mr. Speaker, any queries that we may have had have been adequately answered by the hon. the Minister’s motivation. There is, however, one small item on which we may care to comment. Can he give us an indication of the amounts still outstanding or those that have to be covered by this Bill? Apart from that we see no reason why we should delay the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members of the Opposition for their support for this Bill. I think that the hon. the Minister will gladly provide the hon. member for Albany with the required information.

I am merely rising briefly to express my support for the Bill. It is true that the Water Research Commission performs a very important task with regard to the supply of water to South Africa. The commission has only three methods of obtaining funds. Of those three ways, they have so far only made use of one method, which is by means of the charging of rates in terms of section 11 of the Act. When one looks at the Annual Report of the commission, it is interesting to note that the commission expects to collect R3 648 000 in this manner during the present financial year. A tremendous amount of good work is being done with this small amount of money, as the hon. the Minister indicated. It is work which is being done in all spheres, from industry and agriculture right through to the smallest sphere in which water is used in this country. The legislation provides that those who have fallen behind with their payments, who cannot pay, perhaps because of insolvency or even as a result of a deceased estate, may obtain remission of payment. That debt will therefore not be shown as outstanding in the commission’s books indefinitely, but may be written off at some stage. I think an earlier deficiency in the Act will thus be eliminated. Therefore by supporting the present legislation, we are not creating any problems for the department; on the contrary, I firmly believe that the hon. the Minister will not abuse this concession. Consequently I gladly pledge my support for the legislation at present before this House.

Mr.

Speaker, we in these benches will also be supporting this Bill. We accept that the latter part of the Bill will greatly facilitate the operations of the Water Research Commission. We therefore have great pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my most sincere thanks to those hon. members who expressed support for this legislation. I thank them for their kind co-operation.

I should like to inform the hon. member for Albany that I regret that I cannot at this stage furnish him with the exact figures he enquired about. I can, however, give him the assurance that they are minimal amounts of money, amounts with which the problems being experienced are merely arithmetical and which, for the rest, have no real meaning. I am, however, willing to ascertain the precise amounts from the Commission and place them at the disposal of the hon. member.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I referred to this matter during my Second Reading speech on the Rand Water Board Statutes (Private) Act Amendment Bill. Basically, what it amounts to is that the allocation of water to the Rand Water Board free of charge, is regulated by two pieces of legislation. One of these has already been agreed to, while the second consists of the Bill now before this House. If one of these measures has been agreed to, surely it is only logical that the other should also be accepted in order to rectify matters completely.

†The amendment pertaining to the quantity of water as proposed in the Bill is almost insignificant, but for the purposes of calculation it is imperative that the correct figures be used. This amending Bill is aimed at eliminating any confusion which might arise in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation. I am also pleased to inform him that we will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister indicated that this House approved of the principle in the other Bill which we agreed to a moment ago. We are grateful for the support for this measure on the part of the official Opposition, and we should also like to support this Bill. On behalf of the Eastern Transvalers, where all the rain falls and where the water supply is so good, I can only say that my voters have no objection to the Rand Water Board abstracting a little water from the Vaal Dam free of charge. With that I should like to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting this Bill as well. I should just like to point out to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat that a lot of the water that now flows into the Vaal Dam comes from Natal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support. I can also believe that the people on the Witwatersrand would appreciate a little more water.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 5 of the Forest Act, 1968, empowers the Minister of Environment Affairs, in respect of any land which is not a State forest, to take steps at his discretion to declare certain species of trees or a forest to be protected, whereupon any cutting of or injury to such protected trees or forests is prohibited, except with the consent of the Minister.

However, a need has arisen in practice for a more scientific and sophisticated approach to the protection of trees and for a clearer definition of the considerations, on the grounds of which such protection is granted. It is also realized that it will be possible to carry out the task of protection far more effectively by making use of advisory committees to advise the Minister on the protection of trees, as well as of local control committees to assist in this task of protection. In this way a local involvement will be created which appears to be desirable in all respects. The proposed amendment in clause 1 of the Bill is aimed at giving effect to these objects.

†Section 8 of the Forest Act, 1968, prescribes the procedure for the demarcation or withdrawal from demarcation of State forest land. In terms of section 8(2) no land which has been declared to be a demarcated forest or any portion thereof shall be withdrawn from demarcation, except with the approval, by resolution, of this House. For the purpose of demarcation the land in question must be clearly defined. In parctice, however, it occurs from time to time that the definition of land which has been declared to be a demarcated forest is found to be faulty after surveying or resurveying of the land. In the event of the newly established surface area being less than the area indicated in the original demarcation notice, or even in the case of a change in the name of a demarcated forest, sanction has to be obtained to rectify the matter. I think hon. members will agree that it is not warranted to take up the time of this House for the rectification of issues such as this which could be regarded to be of an outright administrative nature. The amendment suggested in clause 3 of the Bill is intended to effect a more streamlined arrangement in this regard.

*Mr. Speaker, section 9 of the Act makes provision for the granting of permanent and temporary rights in respect of State forests, but with the express proviso that rights in respect of wilderness areas, nature reserves and protection forests may only be granted with the approval, by resolution, of the House of Assembly.

The effect of these provisions is that when temporary rights in respect of State forest land have been granted in terms of section 9 (1) and such land is declared to be a nature reserve, protection forest or wilderness area in terms of sections 7 and 7A, such rights lapse through the operation of the law since there is no mechanism in terms of which such rights can continue to exist, except with Parliamentary approval. It was obviously not the intention to rescind existing rights of this nature through the establishment of nature reserves, protection forests and wilderness areas, but merely to provide that new rights may only be granted with Parliamentary approval.

In order to rectify this matter an amendment to section 9 of the Act, as contained in clause 4 of the Bill, is now being proposed to make provision for the continuation of rights which existed at the time of the setting aside of nature reserves, protection forests and wilderness areas.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Opposition welcome this measure which is before us this afternoon. It widens considerably the powers of the hon. the Minister relating to the preservation of trees or individual trees, if necessary, as well as to other matters relating to conservation and the development of natural resources. For these reasons we welcome this legislation before us. The Bill also makes provision for the establishment of advisory committees as well as for local control committees. We believe this to be a very wise provision because it will involve people intimately concerned in a given area with the application of these particular legal provisions.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will permit me to digress slightly at this stage in regard to one or two aspects which relate or will, I hope, relate to the application of these particular provisions. One of the aspects I should like to mention to him, although possibly he is already aware of it, is the problem relating to river estuaries in Natal, the Eastern Cape and other areas in our country. We know that many of these estuaries have in fact been damaged irreparably. This has been brought about by development in the area of the estuary itself as well as by farming operations upstream from the estuary. In this regard the activities that come to mind are sugar cane farming and pineapple farming upstream from the estuary. I hope that the hon. the Minister will discuss this problem with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, to see whether further steps can be taken in this regard. I know that action is already being taken in regard to the conversation of certain river estuaries.

The other matter I should like to raise— this is one of my pet topics—is in regard to the use of trees and woody shrubs for firewood. There are vast areas of our country that are in fact being denuded because this timber is the chief fuel supply of many people. The problem is more serious in the self-governing and independent States which are not covered by these particular provisions but it also arises in areas that are in fact covered by this particular legislation. It has been estimated that this fuel consumption is of the order of between 0,6 and 1 ton per person per annum. The natural rate of regeneration is nowhere near this so that in the long run soil erosion and the degradation of the environment result. Perhaps here again the hon. the Minister could consult with his hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and, by means of an extension programme, encourage farmers perhaps to plant more woodlots as well as promote and encourage research in the field of energy.

There are also many other topics that one could raise under this particular Bill. One need only think of a few endangered species as far as timber is concerned. My hon. colleague to my right has already mentioned sneezewood in the Eastern Cape. All of those who are involved with farming have seen sneezewood poles that have been standing for years throughout our country and South West Africa. The fact remains that there are not many mature sneezewood trees left in the Eastern Cape. One can also mention other plant species such as the cycads and tree ferns although I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will be well-informed in this regard.

With those few words, Sir, I want to say that we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to say a few words in support of this Bill. We convey our cordial thanks to the official Opposition for their support, because any measure which is adopted to protect our indigenous forests is in my opinion not only important, but absolutely essential.

Coming as I do from an area in our country which is known in particular for its indigenous species of trees, which are renowned and sought-after for use in the manufacture of furniture, I am very conscious of and I set great store by the preservation of our rare species of trees. If the existing Forest Act of 1968 then appears to be inadequate, it is certainly our task to rectify it so that we can effectively preserve our indigenous species of trees and flora and protect them for posterity.

The existing Act only makes provision for the protection of a species of tree or forest, but it is not descriptive enough, not specific enough. It is too vague. It no longer meets the present-day needs. In the legislation now before this House, an attempt is being made to give the existing Act more potency; in other words, to make it more effective and practicable.

Since the Forest Act was passed in 1968, a tremendous amount of research has been done in respect of this subject, as the hon. the Minister pointed out. It has also proved to be a very complex subject. It has become clear that there is a specific need for an improved and clearer definition in the Act. The legislation now before this House consequently adopts a more sophisticated and scientific approach.

In particular we welcome the inclusion of section 5(4) which makes provision for the appointment of local control committees, as the hon. member has just said, as well as advisory committees, because that would ensure local involvement. It would also leave the door open for expert inputs by knowledgeable people outside the department.

As far as the penal provisions are concerned, we find that there are specific provisions pertaining to offences, and that fines are imposed which are in line with the contraventions. In addition, there is the important provision which empowers the Minister to alter the definition of demarcated land if this definition is found to be erroneous after survey. This is another provision which will facilitate administrative matters.

It is very clear that the existing Forest Act had many deficiencies in this respect, and it gives me great pleasure to pledge my support for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches shall support the Bill. We are of the opinion that it is of absolute importance that the Minister be given greater powers to protect natural species of trees. We realize that this is a long overdue step because there are areas in the country which have suffered very severely from the denudation of indigenous trees. We therefore support this measure very strongly.

We feel that there is a dire necessity throughout the country for the natural preservation of the environment. Unless this can be controlled in a form of preserving the various species of afforestation, the preservation of the environment will never be properly achieved.

I should like to raise a few points in regard to advisory committees and local control committees. It is absolutely essential that the co-operation of the local communities, the local organizations and the representatives of local agriculture be brought into this scene because it is only through them that one will get the desired appreciation amongst the people in that vicinity and to get them to co-operate in such a venture. Here again I just want to touch briefly upon what an hon. member of the Opposition said in regard to the importance of preserving indigenous trees, particularly those along the river bank areas in the higher rainfall areas of the country. It is absolutely essential that these indigenous trees—so many of them have in the past played such an important role in preventing erosion—be protected in order to try to combat this very serious problem.

We in these benches support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for supporting this Bill. Naturally it does one’s heart good to know that there is at least something on which everyone in this House can agree, and that is nature conservation in South Africa. It also does one’s heart good to get the immediate support of all hon. members upon introducing a measure to protect certain species in nature. I want to thank hon. members for doing so.

†As far as the estuaries are concerned, it is a problem that is well recognized. The Subsidiary Committee for the Coastal Area, previously of the Planning Advisory Council of the Prime Minister, is currently giving attention to the various problems related to the estuaries. It is hoped that some constructive suggestions will come from these deliberations. The present position is that the only body that is in a position to do anything about the estuaries is the Lake Areas Development Board. The Lake Areas Development Board is a body whose activities are currently confined to the area between George and Knysna. This board will in future be in a position to control some of these estuaries, but not until the position has been reviewed by the committee I have referred to and from which we expect some sound advice.

*Mr. Speaker, I also want to tell hon. members that I think that this Bill goes to the heart of what we need for any kind of conservation. It is important that local communities should, under all circumstances, become interested in what ought to be preserved. Of one does not succeed in that, no conservation effort is going to succeed. For that reason I think that this Bill, however short it may be, goes to the heart of the conservation idea in South Africa.

As regards the allegation made by an hon. member concerning the eradication of plantations and forests for firewood, I want to emphasize that this is indeed a serious problem. If I were to be asked at this stage what the solution to the problem is, I want to say that I have no obvious solution. However, one will have to give serious consideration to this situation. I think that the Bill before us does not allow us to discuss all these things in detail. Later this session, however, another Bill dealing with the conservation of the environment will be before this House, and will afford us a further opportunity to discuss the matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments to the National Parks Act which are being proposed in this Bill are of a minor nature and are primarily aimed at facilitating the administrative process in connection with the practical application of the Act. It will interest hon. members to know that it has nothing whatsoever to do with coal in the Kruger National Park.

In terms of section 2 (2) of the National Parks Act, 1976, the State President may by proclamation in the Gazette declare any land to be part of a park, or in similar fashion exclude land from a park and accordingly amend the definition of the area which comprises the park concerned, as specified in Schedule 1 of the Act, with the proviso, however, that the exclusion of any land from a park shall be approved in advance by resolution of the House of Assembly in terms of section 2 (3).

The purchase or expropriation by the Minister, in terms of section 3 (1), of land for the purposes of a park is confined to land which forms a part of a park, but which is of course still in private possession. This entails that before land can be obtained in terms of section 3, it first has to be declared to be a national park in terms of section 2 (2). This restriction on the powers of the Minister gives rise to administrative problems in this respect that careful co-ordination is required in regard to the declaration of a specific piece of land to be part of a park and the acquisition of the same defined piece of land. In practice it is frequently not possible to combine these two procedures relating to the specific piece of land which is ultimately to be acquired with absolute precision. The result is frequently that land is declared to be a part of a park which ultimately is acquired only partially or possibly not at all. However, to invalidate the declaration of that land to be a part of a park requires a resolution of the House of Assembly, and to omit the declaration concerned is from an administrative point of view, not satisfactory either. Consequently it is being proposed in clause 1 of the Bill that this administrative impediment be eliminated by the deletion of said restriction in section 3 (1).

†The existing National Parks Act, 1976, confers various responsibilities of an administrative nature upon the Minister but does not make provision for the delegation of powers by the Minister. The delegation of some of these responsibilities to officials in the Department of Environment Affairs will assist in accellerating the administrative process, and the necessary provision in this regard is now being made in clause 2 of the Bill.

*This is what this Bill entails. I think it is a positive step which will contribute to more efficient administration.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are glad that this Bill does not involve the mining of coking coal or any other such controversial activity, because then the spirit of co-operation which has resided over the House this afternoon would have been rudely broken. The Bill has been well-motivated by the hon. the Minister. It is a Bill which is designed to speed up the administrative processes and as such we have no quarrel with it.

I should, however, like to touch on one or two problems which do arise from time to time when the expropriation of land is brought into question. The expropriation of land is always an emotive issue, in whatever context it might be considered. It is unfortunately so that not everyone is wildly enthusiastic about environmental conservation. This obviously then aggravates the problem. Although we are glad that a great number of farmers are interested in conservation, certain farmers are in fact resentful when what they see as good, productive farming land is taken out of production for the purposes of nature conservation. One does from time to time come across a kind of backlash from the farming community. I have been disturbed to see that in the case of the Andries Vosloo Kudu Reserve in the Eastern Cape, just to mention one instance, when an attempt was made to acquire more land, this was met with a certain degree of resistance from the local farming community. It is disturbing because ultimately the conservation of our wild life resources does depend in large measure on the farming community as such. It is impossible to expect that the National Parks Board with the relatively limited resources at its disposal will be able to ensure adequately the survival of our natural heritage. It is therefore terribly important that we should get the farming community on the side of nature conservation. It is to be hoped, therefore, that the hon. the Minister and his department will consider the advisability of establishing better links—the hon. the Minister did touch on this in his summing up of the last Bill—between his department and the local community in any particular case.

The second point concerns the exploitation of the parks themselves. We foresee the need to increase the size of the parks. There are a number of people who are concerned that the growing number of people visiting the parks can pose a threat to the particular environments. This has become more of a problem overseas than it is in this country, but I am sure it is a problem the hon. the Minister will bear in mind in the future when it comes to acquiring more land for purposes of conservation. There is a great need for us to extend the land we have available for purposes of recreation and environmental conservation so that our parks do not become overcrowded with visitors.

With those few words let me say that we have pleasure in supporting this proposed legislation and congratulate the hon. the Minister on introducing it.

Mr. Speaker, this amending Bill, as in the case of some other Bills discussed this afternoon, is a typical example of rationalization and of the expedition of administrative procedure, and also reflects the way in which the Government is administering the national economy. I do not think there is any difference of opinion in this House on the need for the conservation of our rich heritage of indigenous flora and fauna. However, it is not conservation for the sake of conservation as such, nor is it conservation for the sake of recreation and tourism, but conservation for the sake of the retention of the genetic reserves which exist in our indigenous plant and animal kingdoms. As in the past, science will also in future, with its improved techniques, utilize these rich genetic reserves in the interests of improving the circumstances of life of mankind.

The expansion of the surface area which falls under the National Parks Board is one of the possible methods of promoting the conservation effort. As the hon. the Minister said, the Bill expedites the administrative procedure in order to facilitate the further acquisition of land for the purposes of national parks. In truth the existing process of acquisition is simply being reversed. Because it will instil greater dynamism in our conservation effort, I support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are very happy indeed to support this Bill, and in doing so I should just like to touch on the question of the expansion of parks. We know what an important role parks are playing in the heritage of this country. We know how important it is that this heritage should be preserved at all costs, and we also know how important it is that the expansion of our parks continue. However, I think that in the expansion of these parks one must ensure that the character of the parks should not be lost. In my view this should be one of the most motivating factors in regard to national parks, in that the character of these parks should be kept as individualistic as possible in order to ensure a far better spread of the selection this country has to offer.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their contributions and their support for this amending Bill. As in the case of a previous Bill, I can give hon. members the assurance in this case as well that I thoroughly appreciate the problems which could arise with the acquisition of local agricultural land. The hon. member for Albany also referred to this. For this very reason I said that I thought the key to conservation lay in co-operation with the local community. If one is able to obtain a local input, that kind of resistance disappears, and therefore I think that we should work in this direction. The conservation concept requires an exceptional educational effort, and in my opinion the State should begin with itself, the provinces and various municipalities should begin with themselves and then the ordinary citizen will also go along with it. What is required in other words, is a joint educational effort.

As regards the hon. member for Mooi River, he may rest assured in the knowledge that this is exactly the view of the National Parks Board, i.e. that they wish to preserve the natural character of every park under their supervision, and in cases where the character has already changed to restore it in accordance with ecological requirements. After all, hon. members are aware of the excellent reputation which the National Parks Board enjoys among nature conservation bodies in the world. I think that that reputation should be maintained, and this Bill is indeed another effort in that direction. A considerable number of parks will still have to be added to the present number. Hon. members are aware that the Langebaan Lagoon area is at present under consideration and an announcement in that regard as well will be made soon.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As the long title of the Bill indicates, this Bill seeks inter alia to alter the constitution of the council and the senate of the University of Zululand, and to effect a similar alteration to the council of Medunsa. In addition certain obsolete designations and concepts are being substituted or deleted.

In terms of the existing Act the University of Zululand may also conduct its university activities at places other than the seat of the university, as is in fact at present the case with the campus at Umlazi, near Durban. In order to link the designation “branches of the university” to the concept of “distant branches”, a statutory amendment is required. Since the control, administration and executive authority of the university is vested in its council, it is necessary for this purpose that the person who is in charge of a branch of a university shall serve on the council. As far as the University of Zululand is concerned, such provision is now being made. As regards the senate of the University of Zululand, the constitution of this body is also being enlarged by the inclusion of the chief librarian and other members of the administrative staff. The intention is initially to designate the director of the language and audio-visual centre as a member of the senate. Owing to the close association of the aforesaid staff members with the academic activities of the university, it is desirable that they be involved in the activities of the senate. For example the same principle already applies at Medunsa, where the chief librarian and the superintendent of the hospital serve on the senate.

As regards the constitution of the council of Medunsa, provision is being for all States which previously formed part of the Republic, for example the Ciskei, Bophutswana and Venda, to obtain representation on the council in future. Owing to practical considerations, the prerogative of determining which Government may nominate members to the council rests with the Minister.

Since the remainder of the Bill is self-explanatory, I shall content myself with what I have said thus far, and express the hope that I can rely on the wholehearted support of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, it would be a very brave man who would disturb the tranquil atmosphere of the House at this time of the day. I surely do not intend to do that. I am in fact going to tell the hon. the Minister that we in the official Opposition will support this Bill.

Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to amend section 1 of the University of Zululand Act, 1969, by proposing to delete the words “conduct its university activities also” and to substitute the words “may establish branches”. This does not seem to us to make any material difference to what can happen. If there is such a material difference I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister. It makes good sense to us. It also indicates again the Government’s awareness of the fact that there are such things as urban Blacks, which is something I am delighted to welcome again today.

Surprise, surprise!

How this is going to fit in with the proposed Vista University, I am not sure. It is perhaps not going to fit in at all. It does seem to me, however, that this is a satellite campus, similar to those found at other universities too; Black and White universities. It therefore makes a great deal of sense to extend this sort of practice.

The bringing about of membership of the council of people who are in charge makes good sense too. It is right that they should be represented there. It is also right indeed that they should know what is going on in the whole sphere of operations at the university. We have no quarrel with that whatsoever. The same applies to the chief librarian of the university as a member of the senate. This also makes good sense to us and we shall support that. The other amendments have to do with the deletion of certain words which are no longer applicable and we think this makes good sense.

In terms of clause 10, which deals with the Medical University of Southern Africa, whereas provision is already made for a representative from Transkei to serve on the council, further appointments will be consequential upon other States becoming independent. I am not at all sure whether this is really desirable, except that if we are going to be drawing people from these States to attend this university then, of course, it makes good sense. I should like to call this clause “bye-bye ethnicity” because it is quite clear that provision cannot be made for one particular culture or group as this particular university from its inception has been open to all and we, of course, think that the hon. the Minister is becoming very progressive, if I may put it that way.

With these few words and taking the time into consideration, we have great pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I feel like saying: Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands for his support on behalf of the official Opposition. It is very clear that the amendments contained in this Bill testify to progress and improvement, something which this side of the House sets great store by under all circumstances, and something which it recognizes and also promotes.

Arising from the observation of the hon. members for Pinelands in respect of branches that have been established and university activities as at present defined in the Act, it is very clear that to my mind branches imply the concept of distant campuses which are of a more extensive nature and is not merely confined to university activities, for example limited research. Here we are in fact dealing with the creation of branches which are in fact distant campuses, at which students can be enrolled. This is wonderful progress in this connection. In addition it is also clear that these branches may only be established in the self-governing and independent States after consultation with the Minister. I also endorse the idea that it is of course logical that the head of a distant campus or branch will also serve on the council, for which provision is in fact being made.

In respect of the activities of the Vista University there is to my mind a basic difference because the Vista University operates primarily in the White area. This legislation, on the other hand, deals with the self-governing States and the independent States, that are now able to allow their students to attend Medunsa, and so on. As for the enlargement of the senate, it is also clear that it is necessary to have the chief librarian and administrative staff represented on that body.

In conclusion, as far as Medunsa is concerned, it is quite logical that the independent Black States will be afforded the opportunity of obtaining representation on the council if they so prefer. Therefore I wish to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that this does not necessarily indicate that ethnicity is disappearing, because it could happen that there are independent Black States who will decide that they do not want representation on the council of Medunsa.

It is a great pleasure for me to support this legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we too shall be supporting this amendment. There are in fact one or two points on which we should perhaps like the hon. the Minister to elaborate as he goes along. The question of establishing branches has already been raised. We have a similar query to that of the hon. member for Pinelands in respect of the particular areas that will be served in view of the fact that the Vista University is going to be doing the same thing. One takes it that logically they will spread outwards from their parent body and cover ground where the necessity exists. We therefore support the inclusion on the council of members who are intimately involved in the branches which will of necessity be a little remote from the parent body. We also support the many consequential amendments.

With regard to the second Act that is being amended by this Bill I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would just indicate when he replies to the Second Reading whether there is any significance in the wording …