as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Unauthorized Expenditure).

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed and considered.

Order! The hon. member for Sandton has asked me for an opportunity to make a personal explanation and I now give him the opportunity to do so.

Sir, you have drawn my attention to the fact that certain words which I uttered when withdrawing certain questions which I had on the Question Paper yesterday were not permissible and not in accordance with parliamentary practice and procedure. I therefore withdraw all the words relating to the alleged lack of courtesy or otherwise of the hon. the Minister of Law and Order which I uttered.

Order! I wish to point out to hon. members that it is the established practice that Ministers answer questions appearing for oral reply on the Question Paper on behalf of other Ministers. Ministers must obviously be unavoidably absent from time to time because of other official duties which are essential in the public interest. It has always been left to the discretion of Ministers to decide on this matter and members will appreciate that a Minister’s good faith in this respect may not be questioned.

It is self-evident that Ministers who answer questions on behalf of other Ministers are not always able to reply to supplementary questions. However, such questions may be placed on the Question Paper for a later question day when the responsible Minister himself can reply.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kimberley North said yesterday that it was actually wrong to discuss the whole constitutional dispensation in conjunction with this Bill because there would subsequently be an opportunity to discuss the constitutional aspect. Unfortunately the hon. Minister himself, as well as other speakers on the Government’s side, associated this matter with the question of the transfer of certain functions to other Ministers. It therefore deals with the whole question of cultural activities taking place within the concept of segmental autonomy, which will be granted in terms of the proposed legislation. I can therefore understand the hon. member’s problem, although I believe that it is not a choice which was exercised by other hon. members of this House.

If I understood the hon. member’s argument correctly, I believe that in a sense the hon. the Minister made a mistake by perhaps at this stage tying this question in with a dispensation which still has to come about, and which still has to be approved by this Parliament. However, I believe that the hon. member will concede to me that what must be understood by matters of common interest—that which all three of the proposed chambers will have to decide—are matters of segmental interest, over which the three chambers will exercise autonomy separately. However, it is a matter which will only have to be thrashed out later. I think that in that sense it is perhaps somewhat unnecessary that we have anticipated things and that the hon. the Minister has in fact involved an unfortunate element in the Bill because of that which should perhaps rather have been left alone.

You are really covering for the NP, are you not?

Mr. Chairman, I am not covering for the NP at all. Surely the NP is strong enough to look after itself.

Mr. Chairman, I refer next to the definition of the word “Minister” found in clause 1. After all, it relates to this whole question. In his reply to the Second Reading debate—and once again I want to offer my apologies for not being here then—the hon. the Minister said that the questions I put seem to be censorious. In any case this is the impression I get from his speech, as I read it in Hansard. It was not censorious at all, Mr. Chairman. They were questions which I really wanted to put because they affected the implementation of this legislation. I also put the question within the framework set by the hon. the Minister. They were by no means intended to be censorious.

The problem I put to the hon. the Minister in respect of the transfer of the powers granted in terms of the Bill under discussion, in the first place amounts to how the overseas activities envisaged in terms of the legislation fit into the pattern of the differentiation of the people charged with the implementation of the legislation in respect of the various groups. In my opinion it does not seem imaginable that we can draw that line through consistently.

My second question with regard to the transfer of powers to Ministers dealt with the problem I have with the concept that on rational grounds a Coloured Minister should be placed in charge of Coloured cultural affairs, because I do not in fact believe that such a thing as a Coloured culture exists. I have pointed out previously that the Malays could perhaps be to a greater or lesser extent be regarded as a separate cultural sub-group. We are dealing here with the transfer of powers to other Ministers in terms of the definition of “Minister” in clause 1. In this clause the definition of “Minister” is offered in various categories. This is really all that is involved here.

Later perhaps—possibly when clause 4 is being discussed—I may wish to deal with the matter further. However, I am trying to do so now; then we may perhaps not have to do it again later.

My second problem deals with the question of the concept Coloured culture. I really believe that it is absurd to talk about a separate Coloured culture. My third question with regard to the transfer of powers to the Ministers is the following. How does the hon. the Minister see the practice of that common culture about which he spoke in his Second Reading speech when the aspect of cultural function is transferred in the Bill to various other Ministers? I am not being censorious with these questions. I am putting these questions because they deal with matters that worry me. I hope that the hon. the Minister will clear up these matters at some stage during the discussion of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have already replied to almost all the questions which have been put here, either in my Second Reading speech or in my reply to the Second Reading debate. I think the questions put by the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member Prof. Olivier in particular, were answered in so many words in my reply to the Second Reading debate. However, I should like to try to make this clearer.

Firstly I wish to say that in my Second Reading speech I tried to find a balance between the various emphases in the fostering of culture. Unfortunately it has been the case that in the debating by hon. members on the opposite side of this House one particular aspect is often taken out of context and dealt with seperately. During my Second Reading speech, as well as in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I tried to point out clearly that on the one hand, and particularly in respect of the promotion of culture, culture is a matter linked to a particular population group and that it calls for the differentiated promotion of culture. I said in my reply that in addition, since the culture of the Coloured population group—and I never used the words “Coloured culture”; I spoke about the culture of the Coloured population group—contains very considerable and perhaps predominant elements that correspond to those of the culture of the White population group, it was nevertheless essentially a culture which had to do with a particular population group, with its community life and with its identifiable character as a population group, however diverse its composition. The fact that there are a multiplicity of cultural groups within the Coloured population group, is in essence no different from the fact that there are different cultural groups within the White population group. I stated my case very clearly and I do not think the hon. member for Bryanston did justice to it in his interpretation of my Second Reading speech when he said that, as he put it, I had under-emphasized the so-called apartheid aspects. On various occasions in my speech I said that the approach behind this statutory amendment—and this goes for the existing Act as well—is to provide for the differentiated promotion of culture of the various population groups. On at least four or five occasions I said as much in so many words. Ultimately, when it came to the question of cultural councils, I expressly stated—I left no room for misunderstanding about that; in fact, I emphasized it in my reply—(Hansard, 3 March, col. 2268)—

I stated this clearly and unequivocally, and in reply to the question put by the hon. member for Germiston District, I clearly underlined it.

On the other hand, I also emphasized that in the approach of this legislation in regard to what one could call the universal elements in the culture of the various population groups, i.e. those elements one cannot set aside as belonging only to the interests of a particular population group, flexibility should be built in so that the institutions of those particular population groups can make the promotion of culture available to members of other population groups as they see fit. Linked to this—and I said this in my reply as well—there is also the fact that as there are various possibilities of dealing with these common or universal elements in culture without thereby undermining the differentiated promotion of culture. For example, I mentioned two possible bodies in terms of the dispensation as it is at present, viz. that the various Ministers responsible for the promotion of culture could consult and plan together on an inter-ministerial basis in respect of how such aspects could be dealt with. I also stated that in respect of regional cultural councils, talks could be held and co-operation could be planned at the regional level in respect of the handling of such matters, but that this would not be spelt out from the top by way of a regularized dictatorial approach.

The third aspect in my whole approach to this matter was—and I wish to emphasize this once again, since the fact that this is being opposed, appears to create the impression that hon. members of the CP are having problems with this aspect too—that, as in the case of the promotion of culture for the Whites thus far, this Bill seeks to make provision for a statutory basis for the promotion of culture, organizationally and financially, by way of support from the State for the culture of the other population groups. This would erase the impression that the State simply wishes to promote the culture of one population group. I hope that, in a certain sense, I have stated this matter clearly for the third time.

Both the hon. member for Bryanston and the hon. member for Rissik, as well as the hon. member Prof. Olivier, with reference to the remark I made, tried to allude to the new constitutional dispensation which is to be introduced. Allow me to try and state clearly why I made this remark. I think I should quote that part of my speech (Hansard, 3 March 1983, col. 2265)—

Even if there were no prospect of a new dispensation, I think that this provision that is being made in this Bill is in itself sound and valid. In fact, it was accepted as such by the Cabinet when the hon. member for Lichtenburg and the former member for Waterberg were still members of the Cabinet and before the new constitutional dispensation had been worked out in detail.

However, what I clearly meant here, was that the two concepts at issue here, viz. the differentiated promotion of culture and a legal basis for the promotion of the culture of all the population groups, need not be regarded as an over-hasty, untimely interim measure in view of the forthcoming changes, but that it is an arrangement which could work as well in the present set-up and which could be adopted and implemented without disruption in the forthcoming new dispensation with, of course, certain statutory adjustments which would possibly be desirable and necessary. Therefore this is not something which will clash with the forthcoming new dispensation.

In view of that remark, I do not intend giving hon. members opposite the opportunity of dragging this debate in the direction of a discussion on the constitutional details of the new dispensation. Nevertheless, I should like to make this one remark, since I think the hon. member for Rissik raised a fundamental question. I think the hon. member for Koedoespoort also asked this and in fact, I have already replied to the Hon. member on this. They asked whether there would be separate Ministers. Just as education is at present regarded as being a matter which is dealt with by separate, different departments, and therefore by different Ministers, I see those two matters in particular, apart from other things one could argue about, as being pre-eminently typical group-specific affairs in the future dispensation as well, which will therefore be dealt with by the Ministers, Chambers and Cabinet Commitees of each specific group.

The question of how overall promotion of culture will take place—I think those were the words used by the hon. member for Rissik—and how common cultural elements will be promoted—those are the words which the hon. member Prof. Olivier used—concerns a matter which I believe can be dealt with, on the basis of the two examples I mentioned, by way of consultation between the various bodies. If it is necessary to go further in this regard, it will be something which will have to be debated on merit when “group-specific affairs” and “matters of common interest” are defined when the new constitution is considered. No change in respect of foreign cultural activities is being envisaged in the present set-up. In the present set-up the Minister of National Education, apart from the fact that he is responsible for the promotion of culture amongst the Whites, would also carry out his function in terms of this particular section, viz. assistance with regard to making known and promoting abroad the culture of all the various population groups in this country. However, how this would take place in a new dispensation, would be a matter which, in my opinion, could be argued in detail in terms of the definition of culture as a group-specific affair and possible aspects of culture which may perhaps be dealt with as matters of common interest. It could also be argued that it could be dealt with purely administratively—as I put it—by way of co-operation between the various Ministers or cultural bodies.

Apart from the question of the hon. member for Rissik as to how I see the Coloured chamber, I think I have dealt with the important matters raised by hon. members. I do not think that is relevant to this debate and I am therefore not prepared to go into that.

Oh yes, there was another question put by the hon. member for Rissik. It concerned officials for the various population groups. I believe that as at present, officials will be divided among the Ministries and departments of the various population groups responsible for the promotion of culture. I do not think there will be any essential difference in that regard.

I think I have now replied to all the most important questions put by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, before I enter into a discussion with the hon. the Minister I just want to come to the hon. member for Kimberley North. Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate he made the remark yesterday that the hon. member for Germiston District was reported to have said that we would wait for the reply of the hon. the Minister before we decided how to vote, while the hon. member for Koedoespoort had said that we would not vote for the Second Reading. With all the doubt we have about the hon. the Minister’s views with regard to dealing with the culture of the particular population group to which we belong, we still allowed a certain degree of leeway so that hon. members of the governing party could, after the hon. the Minister had spoken, clear up certain questions we had. However, after the other hon. members of the governing party had spoken, it was very clear to us that our presumption was correct that the hon. the Minister’s view of culture, nation and a people—we will elaborate further on that during the Third Reading debate—differed fundamentally from that of this side of the House. Because this became very clear to us we voted against the principle of the Bill at the Second Reading. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister has now, in reply to the questions we put, once again referred to Dr. Treurnicht and the hon. member for Lichtenburg and said that they were in the Cabinet when this legislation was approved. Just in passing I want to put just one question to the hon. the Minister. When did the hon. the Minister become a member of the NP? He must reply to this one question for the sake of further debate in this House on this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! I just want to point out to hon. members that I am not going to allow hon. members to conduct another Second Reading debate on this clause. The hon. member may proceed.

In reply to our speeches the hon. the Minister referred to the two hon. gentlemen I mentioned just now. In the Third Reading debate I want to talk at greater length about that. All I want to say now, is that the hon. the Minister must understand very clearly that when this party on this side of the House formed part of the party on that side of the House, we attached a certain interpretation to the principles for which the NP stood at the time. [Interjections.] In the light of those principles we made certain judgments and adopted certain standpoints. Thereafter it became very clear that there was a difference with regard to the interpretation of those principles. That is why the separation occurred. Now the hon. the Minister must not…

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that he cannot discuss the general principle of the Bill again here. We are dealing here only with the powers of the hon. the Minister, and the hon. member must confine himself to those.

Certainly, Sir. I therefore once again come to the Minister. Where mention is made in this clause of “a Minister or Ministers”, I want a straightforward reply from the hon. the Minister on the question of whether there are going to be three Ministers in the dispensation to which he referred in his Second Reading speech. It is important for us to know this. I repeat: Are there going to be three Ministers?

There is a further question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. It is concerned with a matter about which we have to get clarity when discussing this Bill, because this Bill deals with culture. The hon. the Minister spoke about diversity and also about universal elements. Those are the terms he used. He does not want to talk about a Coloured culture, but he talks about the culture of a Coloured population group. I want to tell him that there was a time when I understood his language and terminology very well. However, I do not understand the terminology he is now using. Therefore, when we talk about “a Minister or Ministers” here—mention is not just made to “a Minister”—I want to ask if I am right when I say that the Minister then visualizes that there will be three Ministers of Education who will see to the particular culture of each of the three groups, whatever one calls them. This is my first question.

I now come to my second question. Reference is made here to “Ministers”. I assume that it could refer to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I then want to ask the hon. the Minister who will be the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the new dispensation. Will he be Coloured, Indian of White? Secondly, one could also refer to the Minister of Finance, because the Minister of Finance is responsible for financial matters as regards these particular Ministers. Even if the hon. the Minister wants to be vague about it at this stage—I understand why he should want to be vague—he should still be able to give us an indication of the type of cultural elements which would then be particular to the Whites; what cultural elements are particular to the culture of the Coloured population group—according to the terminology which the hon. the Minister now prefers; what cultural elements are common to the culture of the Indian population group; and what cultural elements will then be universal and for which there will be a common department or Minister.

Mr. Chairman, there is a question I should like to put to the CP. Suppose there was no question of a new constitutional dispensation: Would they then have supported the Bill?

I will give you a answer.

Answer right now, Daan. It is easy.

Daan cannot think so fast. [Interjections.]

At least, I do not let another man think for me.

Order!

Since the CP has objected to this Bill, I want to put it categorically that they do not know what the new dispensation involves.

Do you?

But I am not arguing about it. I do not base my objection on something I do not know. I put it to them that their objections are based on an assumption …

On the guidelines of the Government.

… and on certain suppositions for which there are no proof. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to put it to the hon. member for Rissik that he comes forward with a lot of questions to which he seeks answers on which he can then base his objections. He is therefore looking for objections which he can get by means of replies to his questions. Surely that is no way to argue. If you have no objections, if your objections are based on suppositions and on an assumption about which you know nothing, how can you then object?

We are asking you, are we not?

The reply is: Precisely, because this is not a debate on the new constitutional dispensation. It is concerned with the promotion of culture…

I want to ask the hon. member please to confine himself to the provisions of the clause.

The hon. member for Rissik asked so many questions. I want to contend myself by saying that with all the questions he asked, he was just looking for arguments to use against the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, we must be clear about one thing, and that is that there are no grounds for all the chopping and changing of the hon. member for Germiston District and the hon. member for Koedoespoort and it has simply come out of the blue. There is no logical cohesion between the argument advanced by the hon. member some time ago and the conclusion. The hon. member for Germiston District asked whether I could give the assurance that the regional councils for the promotion of culture would consist of different councils for the different population groups. She said that depending on the reply to that question the CP would decide whether they would support the Bill or not. I gave her a clear answer. If she meant what she said, the implication was that if she should get a clear reply, the CP would support the legislation. However, when the hon. member for Koedoespoort spoke, he did not ask any questions about the issue of separate regional cultural councils, but asked, as the hon. member for Rissik also did, whether there were going to be separate Ministers for promoting the culture of the different population groups. He asked that kind of question. However, he did not say that depending on my reply, they would decide whether they were going to support the Bill. He said that no matter what my reply was going to be, they had decided not to support the legislation. Surely this is an unmotivated and unreasoned about-face as regards their standpoint in the course of a debate by two hon. members of the same party, not to mention the total about-face in respect of the standpoint they and their colleagues on the other side of the House adopted a year or a year and a half ago. Let us therefore have no illusion about this. It is a silly piece of reasoning.

I should like to come to the question which the hon. member has now put for the fourth time and which I am now going to reply to for the fourth time, namely whether there are going to be different Ministers for the promotion of the culture of the different population groups. He spoke about three different population groups. Apparently he only thinks about the three population groups. I want to give him the categoric reply that there will be different departments which will be controlled by different Ministers for the promotion of the culture of the different population groups. This is very clear. This is the way it is now, and as I understand the new dispensation, this will also be the case in that dispensation—and that is why I referred to it “terloops”. Therefore, as I put it, it was something “incidentally”. The word I actually used was “terloops”. Hansard translated the English word “incidentally” as “toevallig”. I think a more correct translation would have been “terloops”. It was an incidental remark I made there. That is the reason why I mentioned it. I therefore do not think that it makes any real sense to argue about it any further. A question is put and the reply to it provided and then the question is simply repeated again and a reply given to it again.

With regard to the question of which elements are common and which elements are particular, I made it very clear in my reply to the Second Reading that the approach of this side of the House, and the approach in the Bill itself, was that culture was something which was primarily related to a particular population group. The promotion of culture takes place on the basis of differentiation in respect of the population group. However, there is definitely a need for and room for negotiation between the responsible bodies of the various population groups in respect of those elements which may be regarded as universal or common. However, it will have to be dependent on mutual cooperation and the concurrence of the relevant groups on the degree to which they wish to consult and wish to work together. The structures involved are primarily structures for the promotion of culture through the existing Department of National Education for the Whites, the Department of Internal Affairs for the Coloureds and Asians, and either Co-operation and Development or Education and Training for the various Black peoples.

Mr. Chairman, after the reply by the hon. the Minister, a new element has emerged. From the hon. the Minister’s reasoning during the Second Reading it was clear to me that we were dealing with, and that the hon. the Minister was—adventitiously or consciously—hinting at the future three-chamber Parliament. I think until now the whole discussion, also during the Second Reading, was concerned with the discussion of culture in respect of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites.

Order! May I point out to the hon. member that Standing Order No. 63 very clearly provides that—

I want to point out to the hon. member that the details of clause 1 only deal with the definition of “officer”, “Minister” and “regional council”. The hon. member must address me only on those aspects now, otherwise I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman, I specifically want to speak about the responsibility of the Minister now. We asked whether this Minister was going to be only one Minister or three Ministers and what Ministers were going to deal with this. We have not yet received a reply to this question from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I have just replied to that question as well. I mentioned the names of the Ministers. Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to you to ask hon. members to give recognition to replies given to questions.

Order! I also want to point out to the hon. member that he should not repeatedly ask the same question. In terms of the rules, if he persists in doing so I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

In his previous reply the hon. the Minister told me that “Minister” here does not refer only to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. But what about the Blacks? There is an additional question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. I have to vote for or against clause 1 and I want to tell the hon. the Minister straight away that we shall vote against it. Does the word “Minister”, as it appears in clause 1, also mean Ministers who are going to be responsible for the promotion of the culture and the heritage of the various Black nations in South Africa?

Mr. Chairman, the current status quo which also prevailed at the time when the hon. member for Rissik, ostensibly very calmly, sat in the benches of this side of the House, was that the Minister …

Before the new dispensation arrived.

No, it was during the current dispensation. The new dispensation is still coming. The question concerned the current dispensation. This was the question the hon. member for Rissik asked. He asked whether there was going to be culture promotion for Blacks as well. This was undertaken by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and by the hon. the Minister of Education and Training without being empowered by Parliament to do so, without any statutory foundation. That is a fact. They did it in respect of culture promotion for the various Black nations who are not resident in the national States. This is the existing status quo position and this is how it will continue.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 again concerns the powers of the Minister. Clause 2(1) reads—

1. (a) in order to foster culture in the Republic—

For understandable reasons a description of “culture” is not given under clause 1. At this stage I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: When it is stated in clause 2(1) that “the Minister may—(a) in order to foster culture in the Republic” and in view of the arguments we have had in regard to clause 1, which Minister is it going to be who is going to promote culture in the Republic? I want the hon. the Minister to give a reply to that question, viz. who is going to be the Minister and precisely what does the hon. the Minister understand by “culture in the Republic”.

Then, in terms of clause 2(l)(b)(iv) a chair is going to be established. I suppose this chair is going to be established at some university, White, Coloured or Indian. What I should like to know is which Minister is going to be the Minister responsible for the establishment of such a chair and under whose jurisdiction will such a chair operate—to put it briefly, which Minister is going to be responsible.

Mr. Chairman, the Bill itself gives the answers to all the questions of the hon. member. In terms of clause 4(1) “Minister” may include a number of Ministers. This clause provides that the administration of the provisions of this Act may be assigned “to any Minister, or partly to one Minister and partly to another Minister or Ministers… As I spelt it out very clearly in my Second Reading speech, the promotion of culture will be assigned on a population-group differentiated basis to the various Ministers, with their departments, responsible for the promotion of the culture of the respective population groups in the Republic.

As far as the hon. member’s question concerning paragraph (b)(iv) is concerned, it appears that the hon. member interpreted the paragraph incorrectly. We are not dealing with chairs within the Republic, but abroad. Chairs may not be established in the Republic in terms of this legislation. I think hon. members owe it to the House at least to read a Bill carefully …

My question was which Minister was going to be responsible for it.

In subsection (3) of clause 2 it is stated clearly that services may not be provided in respect of education and training “for an examination conducted in terms or by virtue of the provisions of any law”. This excludes all forms of formal education and also chairs at universities in the RSA, and therefore the latter fall outside the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister will concede to me that when the Department of National Education appoints officials abroad, they do very valuable work, and in this regard I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the results achieved by such officials. I am not sure whether clause 2 empowers the Minister to appoint officials of his department abroad to do this type of culture promotion. If it is so that adequate provision is not being made for that here—and I am aware of the general nature of paragraph (vi)—we must consider inserting such a provision here, a provision to empower him without doubt to appoint such people abroad.

Mr. Chairman, may I just point out that the whole subparagraph (b), i.e. including subparagraph (vi) was taken over directly from the existing Act. In terms of this provision, the State, through the Department of National Education, continued to appoint cultural attachés and culture councils abroad. This has never created any problems.

Mr. Chairman, may I just point out to the hon. the Minister that I am fully aware that the chairs referred to here are chairs at overseas universities. However, my question to the hon. the Minister was which Minister would be responsible for these particular cultural links, because, if there is to be one Minister for each of the three population groups, is it going to be the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Another question is whether the hon. the Minister expects that chairs will eventually also be established in the Republic. However, let me come to the clause. Subparagraph (1) provides—

1. (a) in order to foster culture in the Republic …

The hon. the Minister himself said that members of other population groups therefore had a need for and a claim to a share in the fostering of certain aspects of the Whites’ culture. He subsequently qualified that by saying that this was the case where, especially in the arts, it became common property for other groups as well. I now want to inquire from the hon. the Minister whether these statements he has made, have a bearing on group-specific or universal matters. How then does the hon. the Minister explain what he said in relation to clause 2(l)(a) in his Second Reading speech?

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Rissik is drawing a line where it is in fact very difficult to draw a line. The universal in our culture is also group-specific, in the sense that to us it is something essentially our own. However, it is also group-specific to others in the sense that to them, too, it is essentially theirs. That is the whole point I tried to argue in my reply to the Second Reading debate, viz. that one cannot place culture into absolutely watertight compartments. I differentiated among three spheres that overlapped one another to a greater or lesser extent.

The first is the individualistic sphere which has to do with the unique individual, although in that respect, too, I argued that no individual was detached from roots in his community. The second sphere is the community-oriented or ethnically bound sphere, and the third, I said, was the sphere of the universal. However, the universal is no less group-specific, no less innate, no less beloved than the sphere of the exclusively innate. Therefore differentiation of that nature is simply unpracticable.

Consequently, when a Minister responsible for the fostering of the culture of a specific population group bears the responsibility in terms of section 2(l)(a) to support actions launched by organizations of a community for which he is responsible, it must be possible for those bodies, on suitable occasions, to allow other population groups to participate as well. I mentioned the example—an example which in the past has created grave embarrassment—of matters such as literary competitions. It has happened in the past that such competitions were organized in, for example, English or in Afrikaans and that, in terms of the prescription in the existing Act, participation was limited to Whites. The use of Afrikaans in Afrikaans literature and the use of English in English literature—apart from containing specifically ethnic elements of each separate national group and also of each separate population group—is at the same time also a universal element.

One thus reaches the point of absurdity when, for example, one organizes a competition for Afrikaans poetry and then limits it, by means of a ban, to Afrikaans-speaking Whites only. This is the area in which the Minister concerned should have the right to prescribe participation in such a competition on a broader basis.

Which Minister?

The Minister responsible for the promotion of the …

But there are now three Ministers.

Any of those three Ministers may be responsible for such a competition and may feel that he wants to throw it open to the other groups as well.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we told the hon. the Minister right at the outset in the debate on this Bill that we would support the Bill. However, I hope that it will still be possible for us to keep to that. The further this debate progresses, however, and the more explanations the hon. the Minister provides, the more difficult it is getting for us to support this measure. [Interjections.]

While we were discussing clause 1, I put a question to the hon. the Minister with regard to the establishment and the composition of the regional council. My standpoint was that I thought it would be an excellent idea if all the cultural organizations and groups within a certain area falling under a regional council, a geographic area demarcated for the purposes of creating a regional council, could decide for themselves; in other words, if they were to have the right to get together to discuss the matter and to decide for themselves whether they wanted one regional council for that area or whether they wanted separate regional councils for the various population groups. Now it seems to me as though the Government intends issuing a directive to virtually every population or race group in a specific area, instructing it to form a regional council for that population group. When one reads this legislation—and I have mentioned this before—one sees that in terms of clause 3(1)—

Therefore there is no mention in this legislation of the idea that a separate regional council should be established for each group. This is a fact which was singled out by the hon. the Minister in this discussion, based on statements he made in his reply to the Second Reading debate. However, the impression which is created when one studies this legislation as such, is not that there could be separate regional councils. I should just like to explain this to the hon. the Minister. We shall continue to support this legislation.

What is the purpose of a regional council? A regional council is not responsible for a particular group or a particular form of pursuance of culture. A regional council is an organization established to support and encourage all the cultural groups within a particular area in fostering their pursuit of cultural activities. In my opinion, the purpose of the regional council should be the planning of all cultural activities within a particular area, communication among the various cultural organizations and groups and the organizing of co-operation, through which the culture of the area and all its people—not only the culture of a particular group or a particular organization—will be fostered. When one listens to the hon. member for Kimberley North and the hon. the Minister, one gains the impression that what is envisaged here is not only the establishment of regional councils for the Whites; there was even talk of the need to separate the fostering of culture between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people. Therefore the idea of cultural apartheid is now being extended from the race groups to the various White groups. If, then, it is the policy of the NP that there should be separation as regards the pursuit of culture and as regards cultural institutions for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people who are compartmentalized, why then should this not apply to the Greeks and the Portuguese, and Italians and all the others as well? Why should it only apply to the two main ethnic groups? What about the other ethnic groups? Are their cultural pursuits and forms of culture not also of such a nature that they should also be divided into separate regional councils? One could take this argument further as far as the Coloured and Indian communities are concerned. There are specific groups within those communities and if the system has to be extended in this respect as well, then, for example, we are going to have to establish a Hindu regional council and a Moslem regional council amongst the Indians, as well as an entire spectrum of regional councils among the Coloureds.

Now we come to the Black groups in South Africa. Is every ethnic group among the Black population meant to have a separate regional council? It seems to me that we could be creating something here which will be clumsy and impractical and which will not work. Therefore it will not be making a contribution to the fostering of culture, nor will it serve as a mechanism for communication among the various groups in South Africa with a view to developing a common culture, eliminating friction and bringing about fruitful links among the groups.

I proved my good faith right at the outset—the PFP proved its good faith too—by accepting this legislation per se—as it stood. I had hoped that the hon. the Minister and I could fight shoulder to shoulder against the hon. members of the CP, but now the hon. the Minister is making matters difficult for me, since he is backing down. It almost seems to me as though the CP has given the hon. the Minister a big fright and that he is in the process of altering his position somewhat. Has this something to do with the fight going on in the Cabinet at the moment? Has it something to do with the war which has broken out in the Cabinet? Are the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs and his men in the process of triumphing over the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and his supporters? Perhaps that is why the hon. the Minister is now trying to engineer a shift in the front lines.

We are simply pleading for the following. We are not saying that there are no sound reasons as to why ethnic groups or religious groups or groups of whatever kind would prefer to practise their culture without interference by or communication with other groups. There are certain forms of culture of certain groups which are specific, absolutely specific to that particular group and they cannot be extended or even practised in cooperation or liaison with other groups. Provision must be made for this. However, can the Government not accept the principle that it should leave it to the community with all its components, all its racial, ethnic and other components, to decide for themselves what they prefer? After all, they could decide for themselves whether they preferred one regional council, or a multiplicity of regional councils for a particular area.

If the hon. the Minister were to allow this, he would be removing interference by the Government, interference by bureaucracy in the fostering of culture and in the associated organizations. If he does not allow this, this will always be regarded as a sign that the Government is imposing its particular pattern for South Africa, a pattern of racial separation and group separation and so on, on the cultural life of the various population groups of South Africa. This would not be conducive to confidence and co-operation; it would only result in the creation of tension and resistance and opposition to what the Government is trying to do. What would in my opinion be most detrimental is that the opportunity for contact among different cultural groups, the opportunity to create understanding, the opportunity for co-operation, would be lost to South Africa.

Ultimately we in South Africa shall have to work towards a greater degree of understanding, co-operation and contact among the various groups in South Africa and towards the development of a comprehensive South African culture to unite all South Africans into one people, one nation for our country.

I had thought that the hon. the Minister agreed with me that this was the objective, the direction in which we were moving, but now I gain the impression that this is no longer the case. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the establishment and functions of regional councils for cultural affairs. In view of the debate with the hon. the Minister and his replies thus far, it is clear that there will be three Ministers, each of whom will be responsible for one of the three separate cultural groups, or whatever terminology the hon. the Minister chooses to employ. I wish to associate myself with the establishment of regional councils. I assume that there will be three regional councils in a particular region or area and that those three regional councils, appointed by the particular Minister responsible, will be established and that they will then have particular group-specific matters they will consider. However, there is another matter which is not clear to me at this stage. Could the hon. the Minister give me a further definition of who will be responsible and what the responsiblities of these particular regional councils are going to entail? In other words, what will they be responsible for? I am asking this in respect of group-specific affairs. However, if I have understood the hon. the Minister correctly thus far, there will also be universal matters, as he has just explained to us. This brings me to a further question. Will there also be another regional council for these universal aspects, or perhaps a regional council consisting of all three of these regional councils, to look into universal matters? Thirdly, this brings met to a question which links up with this. Could the hon. the Minister tell us who is going to determine, in respect of each of the particular regional councils, which of the matters they will be dealing with will be group-specific, or will the regional councils determine this themselves? Which Minister will determine which aspects are universal, or which regional council will determine which aspect is universal?

Mr. Chairman, this particular clause, of course, is one in relation to which one looks at the mechanics of how the promotion of culture and other sub-functions are going to be exercised through the regional councils. The hon. member for Bryanston raised a very interesting point in this regard, as did the hon. member for Kimberley North, when he started to discuss the subdivisions of the different cultures or population groups in South Africa. The attitude the hon. the Minister adopts towards the establishment of the council is going to determine the success or failure of his whole initiative in terms of this Bill. We in the NRP prefer to see South African culture as one unit, a diamond—as I said in the Second Reading debate—with various facets to it. As that diamond turns, each facet will sparkle with its own light and intensity and be a joy to the eye. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I think I detected, in a reply he made earlier today in regard to another clause, the answer which he is likely to give us in this respect, and that is that it is not the hon. the Minister’s intention to force a particular structure or mode onto regional councils from the top. That gives me some encouragement—I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm or deny this—but the hon. the Minister visualizes that a regional council can have on it members of different population groups from different cultural sectors and that the character of the regional council will reflect the character of the geographic region. In other words, the hon. the Minister will take account of the demographic factors and the population content, for instance, in any particular region. I do not want to repeat the argument raised by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Rissik about what is universal and what is indigenous or individual to any particular cultural group. One does, of course, have to take that into account. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that regional councils should reflect the regional character of the population.

Take Natal, for example, the area from which I come. There we have a very rich and diversified culture. We have Black Zulu culture; we have tribal Black Zulu culture; we have Afrikaans culture; we have English culture; we have Greek culture; we have Portuguese culture and we have that of the Coloureds as well. I believe that there is enrichment that would occur if the regional councils were able to reflect the cosmopolitan nature of Natal. That would not destroy the creation and promotion of each group’s culture. In fact there would be an enrichment-exchange between the different cultural groups, because the regional councils—and I want to make this very clear—do not create culture. By the same token they would not downgrade any culture either. They are placed there to promote, on a mechanical basis, the different facets of South African culture. I am not appealing for a multiracial council for the same reasons as the hon. member for Bryanston. I am saying that the very diversity and richness of the overall culture would, in fact, enhance the promotion of the individual component parts. If ever there was a case for local option, this is it. If the hon. the Minister were to allow the national character of a geographic area to be reflected, quite voluntarily and spontaneously, in the character of the regional councils, I believe we would have achieved a lot. I should like once again to warn the hon. the Minister that the formula he accepts for the composition of the regional councils will definitely determine the acceptability to the majority of South African citizens, and therefore overseas as well, of the bonafides of these regional councils.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Durban North had read subsection (5) of this clause, he would have had an answer to all his problems. I quote—

Therefore it is primarily the task of the regional council to make recommendations of its own accord—this does not come from the top.

What, then, will the position be in practice? Supposing that in a particular region there was a certain dormant cultural activity in respect of which nothing was happening. In such a case the hon. the Minister would be fully justified in asking the council involved, without being prescriptive: What about this cultural matter?

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Bryanston. It is my contention that he agrees with the hon. member Prof. Olivier that we in South Africa do, in fact, have a multiplicity of cultural forms. This is still the central issue here. The hon. member agrees that culture should be pursued in the context of one’s own group. Surely that goes without saying.

Not necessarily. What about ballet? There is no colour bar there.

That has nothing to do with it. It is an art form which could flourish under a regional council in all respects.

Now the hon. member is objecting to an idea I put forward, the implementation of which appeared to be the best and most fruitful in practice. I was speaking about a local council for Afrikaans-speaking people and a local council for English-speaking people to foster their own cultural affairs. As proof of this, one finds that, in spite of the fact that we have had the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns for many years now, the English-speaking people felt so neglected that they established their own academy. Is this not proof that there is the need, even in the groups which apparently live in the same cultural environment, to consider their own problems separately? Personally, I have no objection to their being, for example, a regional council in a community for the promotion of the Greek culture, the Portuguese culture or the Italian culture. I said as much in my Second Reading speech. I think it could be fruitful if a regional council were to have a subcommittee for the fostering of the culture of a particular group. However, as soon as this is mixed, one has a potpourri.

But that is what you want to do under the new dispensation. [Interjections.]

Even praying for some people would be of no use.

I conclude with the thought that regional councils are essential for the fostering of group-specific culture. The more diversified, the better and more fruitful.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to certain statements made by the hon. member for Kimberley North. Once again he made a plea here for separate English and Afrikaans cultural councils. We understand when the hon. member says that separate cultural committees could be established to promote the particular indigenous culture of that section of the population. However, the idea that we should continue to have a division between English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, is going to affect the credibility of these regional councils. There are many of us in South Africa—including the majority of the hon. members in this House—whose culture, particularly in the literary sphere, contains components of both Afrikaans and English writers. The poems of Totius are just as much part of my culture as they are part of the culture of the hon. member for Kimberley North. On the other hand, the writings of Olive Schreiner are just as much a part of his culture and heritage as they are of mine. Therefore, to persist in this nagging for separate cultural councils for English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking; South Africans is going to affect the credibility of these regional councils. I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to solve this problem by leaving the decision-making to the local regional councils, since those regional councils are to reflect the character of that geographical area. Therefore the hon. the Minster should not fall into the trap set by the hon. member for Kimberley North by once again separating the South African White cultural groups into English and Afrikaans councils.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to a few aspects. Every region with its distinctive development of its particular population group will determine how the regional councils are made up. It may be that the cultural development of a particular population group is on a more advanced level than that of another. [Interjections.] In that case it may be in the interests of the other population group that each will have its own body so as to raise its people to a level at which they will be more or less on the same level in relation to each other.

[In audible.]

The hon. member for Rissik was a member of the NP when we had the South African Games in Durban and Pretoria and the gymnastrada in Europe. He did not say a word about it then. Gymnasts from all our population groups formed a mighty contingent to represent our country.

Were they cultural groups?

Of course there were cultural groups. The Zulu dancers were a part of that group which had to promote our country’s image. Let us not be small-minded now. Those hon. members now want to become so narrow-minded that if we were to put a woodcut of a Black man in South Africa House in England, they would object to it.

Don’t be silly.

Those hon. members have to object to it. They have to object to it, because they are opposed to our promoting South Africa’s culture. Can hon. members see how slanted their arguments are?

Every group will be familiar with the requirements of its own region and as the groups develop, they will find contact with each other in a natural way. There are rules and regulations as to how that contact can take place. [Interjections.] There are opportunities where contact can take place among the cultural groups so that they can enrich each other. We have said so in the past in this House. At the moment an international Eisteddfod is being presented at Roodepoort.

Not at Wilgerivier, perhaps?

It is not in Rissik either. Nor is it at Amajuba, where the hon. member does not want to be. Programmes of this nature afford our artists in this country the opportunity to perform with the best from overseas. It is an opportunity for enrichment for our people. The provisions of this clause make it possible for the instruments to come to the various regions. In some regions it may be that the Afrikaans and English-speaking persons will serve on the same body, while in other regions the English-speaking people may feel that with regard to the theatre, for example, they want their own organization. However, then that organization will join the regional council. It is affiliated to it. It forms part of it, although it has its own specific task. I find no fault with that. Say for example there is a Greek community or a German community which has formed a choir. They can form part of that broader council. However, they have their own small area which they want to preserve as something precious. I think we do not begrudge them that. It is a natural development, but we want to establish the instrument so that we do not neglect people in the regions. They must be singled out so that we can promote culture in that way.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryánston remarked that the Government was forcing its approach to differentiation on to other groups. Let us now accept the facts. This Government has presented the voters with a particular approach in respect of cultural differentiation in South Africa and was elected with an overwhelming majority on the basis of that policy to implement that policy here.

That was in 1981.

The concept of cultural differentiation among the various population groups forms the basis of the political approach, of the educational approach and of the approach to cultural promotion of this side of the House. While this side of the House, as the hon. member for Standerton has rightly said, recognizes the beneficial fruitfulness of enriching interaction among the various cultures, is its approach nevertheless that, in respect of culture promotion, as is the case in the other fields mentioned, we proceed from a differentiated point of departure. That is why I said emphatically that the aim was that there would be different cultural councils for the different population groups—just as different Ministers are responsible for different departments—for the promotion of the culture of those different population groups. We made that absolutely clear and unambiguous. It is certainly not the intention that there will be mixed cultural councils in the various regions, just as it is equally not the intention that there will be one Minister for the promotion of the culture of all population groups or one Ministry of Culture for all population groups. This was said very clearly and plainly. However, our concept of what is peculiar to a group is not the timorous cocoon vision of the hon. member for Rissik. We foresee that the cultural councils, in co-operation with the cultural councils of other groups, will be able to identify projects which can be promoted jointly, or will want to support projects emanating from the community and promote them jointly. I am referring here to a prominent Afrikaans cultural organization like the AKTV which has in recent times stimulated the cultural life of South Africa with musical and theatrical activities and which is supported in these efforts by the State. Although this organization is basically an Afrikaans cultural organization, it thought fit to make its competitions, where the nature of the particular performing art justified it, open to groups from other population groups as well. In this way it will be possible to find co-operation with other population groups at the regional level, whether there is one regional council or three regional councils, in respect of particular projects, whether in joint committees or in particular project committees. If there are more councils than one, there have to be representatives of all the councils, or if there is only one council, there must be representatives of all the population groups who do not have their own council to work together in such a project committee. However, the fundamental approach is differentiated cultural promotion as regards the Minister, the department and the regional organizations, but not in isolation.

The fact that I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate that differentiation could take place within a population group did not mean that it had to lead to different cultural councils for that population group, but that different committees and interest groups would be brought together on that regional council. Let me therefore make it clear to people who are prepared to approach this matter in an understanding way: The basic approach is differentiated cultural promotion, but not strictly compartmentalized cultural promotion. The degree to which there will be co-operation can with good grace be left to each cultural council to decide to what degree there should be co-operation with representatives of other groups. The same applies with regard to the promotion of the culture of Blacks. The question is whether it is at all necessary to establish regional cultural councils for Blacks. I said that the responsible Minister could work together in good grace with the Black local authorities which are to be established, obtain their co-operation, or could co-operate with the Governments of the various national Black States in order to obtain their co-operation to assist with the promotion of the culture of its population group in the Republic, in other words outside the national States. For someone who wants to approach this whole matter in a positive manner, there is the possibility, the obvious possibility, of having on the one hand, the orderly handling of the situation with a differentiated approach and, on the other hand, the greatest possible degree of co-operation. Unless we now want to regiment every single thing strictly, this provision contains ample room for manoeuvre, in the light of the approach I put, in dealing with this matter in the interests of every population group and its own characteristics, and these do not only include what is exclusively its own, but the universal as well, and therefore there is an opportunity for interaction and the involving of members of other population groups. I do not believe that there is any practical problem in that respect.

Mr. Chairman, in his argument the hon. the Minister mentioned the ATKV as a cultural organisation of the Afrikaans-speaking people within the Railways. In contrast the Minister of Transport Affairs said in a previous debate that his portfolio could in future be filled by an Indian or a Coloured. Let me now put it to the hon. the Minister of National Education that the more he talks the more entangled he becomes in his own arguments. He had a standpoint in 1971 which differs from his standpoint in 1981, and I wonder what his standpoint in 1991 will be. I also want to tell him that our discussion of this matter has only just begun. These regional councils which are to be introduced, one regional council for each of the three population groups … [Interjections.]

I said that separate regional councils would be appointed where necessary …

Let me put it this way: A Minister appoints a regional council for a specific region. A Minister from the second chamber also appoints a regional council, as does the Minister of the third chamber. Let us now consider what section 3(6) provides—

In the dispensation which the hon. the Minister foresees, it could happen—this is possible in theory—that a difference of opinion may arise between the three regional councils with regard to a specific aspect. Who is going to settle that dispute? Which Minister is going to settle that dispute? Or is another regional council going to be appointed to take care of universal aspects? Are the White, Coloured and Indian regional council going to establish a separate regional council for this? If so, which Minister will be responsible?

I come now to clause 3(5). It provides—

1. (c) … the utilization of leisure, including physical recreative activities …;and
2. (d) such other fields as the Minister may from time to time determine.

What I want to know is whether these aspects the hon. the Minister mentioned here are group-specific or can they become universal, for example utilization of leisure?

Mr. Chairman, I have had the privilege some years ago to serve on a committee with the hon. the Minister when he was still an administrator at RAU and I remember being very impressed with him at that time, with the way in which he handled the meeting. He obviously knew what he was doing and gave clear and concise answers so that we all knew where we stood. Since then, however, the hon. the Minister has left the academic field and ventured into the political field. In the course of time the Nationalist Government, which has a tremendous dearth of brains, appointed him Minister and, do you know Mr. Chairman, he has been a very unhappy man ever since. He sits in his bench over there with a look of obvious confusion on his face. He does not understand the political field. He does not know what is going on and I pity him, that a man with his brains and talent …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: What relation is there between what the hon. member is now saying and this clause?

Mr. Chairman, let me put that hon. member’s mind at ease: He cannot understand it now; he won’t understand it tomorrow and he will never understand it ever. Let me therefore deal with the Minister. At the start of this legislation we indicated that we would support it. But as the legislation progressed through the House particularly I think as a consequence of the pressure which is being put on the Minister by the CP and possibly because of the full-scale battle that has broken out within the ranks of the Cabinet where they are fighting a pitched battle against one another in connection with their constitutional proposals, this Minister chooses this occasion to move to the right. He is letting us down. He is letting us down, Mr. Chairman. We should like to support him but he is letting us down.

We will, however, still continue to support him in the hope—and I hope it is not a vain hope—that this is indeed only a temporary aberration and that in the end, when it comes to the application of this legislation, good sense and the realities of the situation will prevail. I should like to repeat that the regional council is not and should not be created to look after and to promote the interests of any particular type of cultural activity or any particular group participating in such an activity. Surely the logical thing is that the Government, if it wishes to promote culture in South Africa in respect of all its peoples, without favour and without discrimination—and I accept that that is indeed the intention of the Government—should accept that the regional council will be created in order to promote culture in respect of all the communities and all the people within a particular geographic area, and to do that effectively. In other words, the regional council is an administrative body. It is a body which co-ordinates, which brings about contact and communication, and which also brings about understanding.

Mr. Chairman, it has not gone unnoticed in this House that the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is fighting a life and death battle in the Cabinet against the right wingers under the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs.

*We know all about that, Mr. Chairman. I was eye-witness to a small altercation between the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs the other day. [Interjections.] I know what it was about. We sympathize with the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. Don’t worry, Chris. We support you. [Interjections.] We are behind you and…

Horace, do you want a dummy, or is your thumb good enough?

… and together we shall overcome—we and the hon. the Minister.

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself to the clause under discussion now.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I must assure the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that together we shall overcome as far as reform in South Africa is concerned. [Interjections.] This hon. Minister together with his comrades in the NP and the PFP are going to make it as far as reform in this country is concerned. [Interjections.] It does not matter at all what the verkramptes in the NP are going to do about it. [Interjections.]

†What we are appealing for is the following. The regional council is an administrative body. Its function is to co-ordinate activities, to bring about co-operation, contact and understanding and to give people an opportunity of learning about one another’s culture and of participating in one another’s cultural activities, and also of building a cohesive feeling in South Africa among the various peoples, of building patriotism, common loyalty and common interests.

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. member for Bryanston perhaps tell us how the Van Rensburg-Heunis pact feel about the NP setback in Waterkloof last night? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one thing to the hon. member for Jeppe. Next time …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston need not answer the question. It has nothing to do with this clause.

And you need not react to nonsense either, Horace. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning would just be courteous enough to invite me to appear with him, we shall do very well on every political platform. [Interjections.]

†I should just like to continue with what I want to say to the hon. the Minister of National Education. We believe in two things. Firstly we believe that the Government’s participation must comprise the provision of funds and support and encouragement, but with a minimum of interference and a minimum of bureaucracy. We believe that the people and the cultural organizations themselves within every area must have control of the promotion and the co-ordination of cultural activities in that particular area. They should co-operate with one another, and the Government should create the mechanism by way of which this will be made possible. That mechanism is the regional council. If one wants to achieve co-operation there are so many forms of culture which have no colour boundaries. How does one describe ballet, for instance, as a cultural activity which can be compartmentalized in terms of colour? There are any number of other cultural activities. Let us take for example the Johannesburg area and the vast spectrum of cultural activities that are followed in that area. Is it not in South Africa’s interests not to have a dozen different regional councils for every racial, colour and ethnic group there? Would it not be better to have a body on which Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians can co-operate in this particular field? Just imagine what this will mean for South Africa! I do not say that the Government must plan for a single council. What I say is that the people of the area must be allowed to plan for the establishment of a single regional council. If they want to have separate bodies, then that will be their choice. Take for example the case of Indian music.

*The hon. the Minister and myself are probably no more able to understand that Indian music than the man in the moon. Obviously there is a need for a separate organization for the pursuit of that kind of culture, but it could be a subdivision of a regional council. It does not require the establishment of a separate regional council. If there are people who do want separate regional councils, then the Government can establish them. But we must not start off by saying that we are going to establish separate regional councils, because then we begin with this diversity, this apartheid structure in our culture in this country, and then we are very far away from the objective we are all striving for really, viz. to bring about unity between the various population groups in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in his speech the hon. member for Bryanston did not add anything new to what he has already said and I do not think that I wish to add anything to what I have already said in reply to that argument.

However, I could not help noticing the confusion in the benches to his left when he said: “The hon. the Minister has moved to the right.” The hon. member for Kuruman then nodded his head in agreement. I do not know whether the hon. member for Kuruman is so confused that he no longer knows the difference between shaking his head and nodding his head. Apparently he agreed with the hon. member that I had moved too far to the right. Actually I had gathered from his hon. colleagues that they were afraid that I would move too far to the left.

We know that.

However, that is the kind of confusion that could change in the course of a speech, and no longer only in the course of a debate. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rissik put two questions to which I want to reply briefly. His first question was that if the Minister convokes experts from various regional councils with a view to the advancement of culture on a country-wide basis—this was what his question implied—and the regional councils of those representatives of different population groups from a specific region differ, who will settle the dispute? In view of the explanation I gave, it ought to follow logically that when the matter concerns a Minister or a department or a regional council for each population group a Minister would convoke experts on a matter he wants considered on a country-wide basis from regional councils dealing with his population group. Consequently there is no question of a difference of opinion on which someone will have to give a decision. If, for example, all three Ministers convoke experts from their regional councils on a central level there is not one person who will have to give a decision if they differ with one another. They will have to act by way of agreement.

The President’s Council?

No, not at all. These are group specific matters which each group deals with separately. If they want to co-operate then they must co-operate by means of a voluntary agreement. I want to give the hon. member for Rissik the assurance that the attitude among our people is such that there will be no problems in getting people to co-operate without friction and without a feeling of being threatened. The same applies to the local and the regional level. I made it quite clear that if there was a need to tackle a project of common interest, it had to be a need on which the various groups were agreed and in regard to which they therefore co-operated voluntarily by way of agreement and concurrence. There is therefore no scorpion under this stone which the hon. member is trying to turn over.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister …

You really are persistent, Daan.

Yes, you will still come to realize just how persistent I can be. I have only just begun.

The hon. the Minister said that what we were dealing with here was a case, which was theoretically possible, of the cultural councils of the three respective Ministers differing on a specific matter. Very well, I accept that they will not differ on group specific matters, although this is also possible. The problem—I shall discuss this when we get to the next clause—which has given rise to our debating this clause for so long is that the hon. the Minister neglected to lay down truly fundamental foundations in the Second Reading with regard to how he sees the so-called diversity and unity in South Africa. That is the dilemma of the hon. the Minister, but I shall not pursue the matter.

There are certain matters that are group specific, but there are other matters which are universal. I am using the hon. the Minister’s terminology. At the outset I asked the hon. the Minister if there would be a Minister who would co-ordinate the activities of these three Ministers or would see to matters when the interests of the three cultural groups coincided. In the Third Reading debate I shall point out to the hon. the Minister that my problem concerns the interpretation of the concepts, “people”, “culture” and “nation”. I shall not pursue the matter now. However that is my dilemma when decisions have to be taken on the so-called universal matters, matters in which all three groups have an interest. Who will decide about that? That is the question I am putting to the hon. the Minister.

I have replied to it.

Not very clearly.

Very well, then the hon. the Minister must make his reply a little clearer. I must say he may have been a rector at one stage, but when it comes to politics he is a first-year student.

In clause 3(6) there is a specific expression which bothers me. It reads—

I wonder whether there could not perhaps have been a different choice of words, because the members he does not convoke to consult may gain the impression that they are unsuitable. I think the choice of words here should be reconsidered.

Mr. Chairman, there are a few questions I want to put to the hon. the Minister. My first question is the following: If the Whites and the Coloureds in the Western Cape, for example, prefer to have a single regional council, will they be allowed to do so in terms of the provisions of the Bill? In Capab’s ballet and drama performances Whites and Coloureds perform together. These are mixed performances. Does the hon. the Minister approve of this multiracial cultural expression?

The hon. member also said his party’s policy was a policy of differentiation with regard to the various racial groups. Different councils can be appointed for the different colour groups. I want to point out that the Sport Promotion division of the hon. the Minister’s department recently held a rugby clinic in the Northern Cape in which high schools and primary schools and senior rugby clubs were involved. The hon. the Minister’s department helped to arrange this clinic and it was also funded by his department. The precondition for offering the clinic was that it had to be multiracial. The boys were asked in advance—my son was one of them—whether they would object to participating in such a multiracial clinic. Surely the multiracial approach adopted here is in conflict with the hon. the Minister’s statement on differentiation in the cultural sphere. If the hon. the Minister’s party had not been faring so badly in Waterberg and Soutpansberg he would definitely not have adopted the standpoint that he adopted today. I believe he is trying a different tack.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked a question to which I have already replied. He referred to a possible need in the Western Cape for a mixed council. A question in this regard was already asked by the other hon. members, in connection with Natal. I then gave this House the clear reply that it was the approach of the Government that there should be different regional councils for the different population groups, in the same way as there are separate Ministers and separate departments. Surely that was made quite clear.

But there could also be one.

No, surely I stated the Government’s standpoint. If there is a need for co-operation—and now I am also dealing with the queston asked by the hon. member for Rissik—that co-operation must be brought about the voluntary and eager need of the various population groups to work together on a specific cultural project. In the field of culture one cannot force people to work together, in terms of any authority.

But they are asking to co-operate.

Yes, they may co-operate. They are free to co-operate. From among the various cultural councils—as I nave already explained repeatedly—they may appoint project committees or other bodies to promote co-operation. This is a perfectly simple matter that can easily take place.

This brings me to the matter of participation in ballet performances. After all, ballet is ballet and if there is a provincial performance, at a highly sophisticated level, by a council for the performing arts—in this case ballet—I and this side of the House in general cannot see any reason why expert ballet dancers from other population groups cannot so participate.

As far as the rugby clinic is concerned, surely it is quite clear what the policy of this side of the House is. [Interjections.] When that hon. member was still a member of this side of the House, it was already the policy that normal school sport, organized as part of the education programme of the school, is practised separately, in the same way that schools and education are separate, except by way of exception for which permission is granted. Those hon. members were on this side of the House when that policy was laid down. However, when sporting events are presented outside the school context, by the various national sporting control bodies, we accept that it can be on the basis that members of all population groups can participate, as this side of the House accepted when those hon. members were still sitting here … [Interjections.] … that participation in sport is dependent on the autonomous decision-making of the relevant sport controlling bodies. In this case it was an extramural activity that was arranged by an autonomous sport controlling body … [Interjections.] … and this side of the House, the Government, has no objection if that controlling body wants to throw open a clinic to members of all population groups. We do not believe for a single moment that this will offer the slightest threat to people who have sufficient self-confidence in their own identity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with what the hon. member for Bryanston said, namely that the hon. the Minister has a confused picture of the position. In a certain sense I can understand this, because this pattern must develop as we go along. However, there is something I should like to say at this juncture. In spite of the degree of doubt we have about some of the points of departure of the hon. the Minister, as reflected by him, I find the approach of the hon. members of the CP—I want to emphasize this—in fact so totally repugnant to me that it is difficult for me to find words to express myself on this.

We feel the same about you. Your policy is just as repugnant to us.

In spite of the doubts I have, if I really have to make a choice, I had far rather we adopted this course than associate myself in any way whatsoever with the points of departure of the people in the CP. [Interjections.]

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to quote clause 4(1) and then briefly restate my standpoint to the hon. the Minister—

In this clause Ministers are referred to eleven times. I just want to mention briefly that my dilemma with the hon. the Minister is that in spite of the explanation of this specific Bill based on the new principles the hon. the Minister has accepted, this remains a totally confusing Bill with a confusing clause. Already in the Second Reading debate we indicated that the entire concept of culture is very closely interlinked with ethnic groups and all the problems surrounding nationalistic ethnic groups or threatened ethnic groups. Just as it is impossible for the new dispensation of the Minister to work politically, so it is impossible for this Bill, containing this provision, to work.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, in clause 5, too, reference is made to a Minister, and at this stage it is still unclear to us what is meant by “Minister” where reference is made to “Minister” in this Bill.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, in clause 6 reference is again made to “the Minister”, and the same argument that I have already advanced, applies. Reference is also made to the regional council. To this is added—

Specific officials will work for the three Ministers with their respective departments as well as for the co-ordinating Minister, if there is one, etc. As far as these officials, too, are concerned, we are also not clear as to exactly what the hon. the Minister means. Put another way, it is quite clear to us in which direction the hon. the Minister wants to move with this legislation and we are opposed to it. In addition, we do not regard the explanation given to us by the hon. the Minister as sufficiently clear.

In clause 6(2) reference is made to the “concurrence of the Minister of Finance”. In the course of the day I heard the hon. the Minister of Manpower say that under the new dispensation the Minister of Finance would definitely be White. I do not believe that was a correct report. I must therefore assume that Finance, too, will be a matter of common interest and that in the future dispensation the Minister of Finance could be a Coloured or an Indian. On this basis, too, we cannot agree with this.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 7:

Clause 7 deals with the repeal of the National Culture Promotion Act of 1969, the National Culture Promotion Amendment Act of 1977 and the Culture and Education Laws Amendment Act of 1981. As far as the 1969 Act is concerned I want to say that I myself, as a member of the then National Party, made a contribution during the Second Reading. The party at that stage had certain fixed principles, from which they have now deviated. I want to express my regret that this specific Act is being repealed.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 8:

Clause 8 contains, inter alia, the short title of the Bill and reads—

In the entire debate thus far, during the Second Reading and now, too, in the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister has not given us any clear indication as to what he understands by the word “culture”. For that reason I want to tell him that we simply have to draw our own inference that his view with regard to the concept of “culture” in the reality of human life is unacceptable to us. We shall therefore vote against the clause.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr. Speaker, in these more peaceful circumstances than those in which we discussed the Bill on the previous occasion, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his—as far as I know—first handling of legislation in this House. We on this side of the House are convinced that the hon. the Deputy Minister possesses the qualities necessary to carry out his function as Deputy Minister very effectively in this regard.

Allow me, too, to convey my congratulations to the chairman of the Council for the Environment, Prof. Roelf Botha and his council. I have before me a list of the members of that council and it is clear that these people have already distinguished themselves by having in the past shown an exceptional awareness of environmental conservation, and represent in this body a wide variety of specialized fields.

I also wish to convey half a word of congratulations to the spokesman of the official Opposition, the hon. member for Constantia—I note he is not present—and to the hon. member for Bryanston, who is not present either. It is remarkable that the hon. members who served on the commission are not attending the debate. Among other things, the hon. member for Constantia proposed a ten-point plan of action for the Council for the Environment. This side of the House could support much of what he said. We want to add to that that we think that the Council for the Environment is perhaps in the best position to work out a plan of action for itself. The hon. member for Constantia put several questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister will react to them. There is a saying: “A leopard does not change its spots”. Having praised the hon. member for Constantia, I wondered what the hon. member would be harping on, what the piece of Prog philosophy would be that the hon. member would present for the hon. the Deputy Minister to swallow. It took me some time to detect it. The hon. member said (Hansard, 18 March)—

We, as the commission that had to decide on the legislation which established the Council for the Environment, never had a specific balance in mind with regard to the proportion of race groups in this council. The hon. member for Constantia proposed that the Deputy Minister use the extra five members for which provision is made in this draft legislation, to create a so-called better balance on a racial basis. What, however, is the consequence of what the hon. member for Constantia proposes? If he speaks of a “better” balance, then a “best balance” is also presumed. I do not think I am wrong or illogical to argue in this way. What, then, is this best balance according to Prog Philosophy?

Green majority government.

Exactly! The hon. member has reacted exactly as I had expected them to react. Then, in terms of Prog philosophy, this would mean that the Council for the Environment should at all times take the racial balance into account. The Minister who is to appoint the council will have to take that balance into account. Then that side of the House states that the Council for the Environment will eventually have to consist of 24 people of colour and one White.

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member perhaps tell us whether he thinks it would be desirable to have some Coloured, Black and Indian members on this council or not?

Yes, I shall help the hon. member. Where members have to be appointed, the basis will be whether the environmental conservation effort would be promoted thereby; that and nothing else.

So there are none at present?

That is in the hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister, who is in the best position to decide whether at this stage there are also people of colour who can be appointed to the council. If there are such people they will be appointed, but not in terms of the so-called balance formula proposed by that side of the House.

Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, this balance formula of theirs has of course presented them with a problem with regard to their proposal of a convention. However, I know that if I elaborate on that at too great a length you, Mr. Speaker, will rule me out of order. However, I wish to put it to hon. members of the PFP that that balance problem of theirs is precisely the factor that will ruin their entire policy. The whole idea of a convention, and the question of whether it will succeed or not, collapses due to this approach of theirs. Accordingly I wish to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, when appointing these additional five members, not to take any account of whether they are Black, White, Yellow or Brown. The only consideration that ought to be considered is whether the people in question are able to serve the environmental conservation efforts effectively. That is all; nothing else.

The hon. member for Kuruman also made a speech here. He advanced two main objections—two reasons why the CP could not support this legislation. His first objection was that enlarging the council by five members would, according to the hon. member, mean that the cost incurred in respect of this council would increase by 25%. The hon. member adds that the cost would increase because this enlarged council would inter alia require more facilities and more administrative posts. I really do not believe that the hon. member for Kuruman can be quite serious in advancing such an argument here.

The extra facilities—I must say this for the edification of the hon. member for Kuruman—are not to be established. They are facilities that already exist. There are several venues that can accommodate not merely 25 but 50 and even 100 members. Therefore those facilities need not be created. As far as the extra administrative costs are concerned, I do not believe that we will need more than one secretary, for the sake of argument, for a council of 25 members. Therefore I really do not believe that the hon. member’s argument holds water at all.

Air tickets for five people to attend a meeting can cost a considerable amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member for Kuruman is quite serious when he discusses the cost aspect. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member really believe that if we can improve the environmental conservation effort in any respect by adding five additional members to the council, we shall not effect an overall saving as well? I really think the hon. member ought to agree with this.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman asked me a question on a previous occasion. It was not a good question. However, I shall give him another opportunity to put his question. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. member whether the council itself decided that its number of members was too few to perform the task of environmental conservation properly, and that their membership should accordingly be increased by five.

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the council took such a decision at its first meeting—I do not believe they have held more than one meeting. However, I do not believe that it is for the council itself to reach a finding of this nature relating to its membership at such an early stage. If, in the view of the hon. the Minister who deals with this department, it is necessary to extend the number of members of this council then I believe that there are probably solid grounds for the hon. member for Kuruman to support him in this regard. One solid ground—the hon. member even referred to this in the course of his speech—is the large variety of aspects of environnental conservation; the many specialized aspects of environmental conservation that also have to be served. When one looks at the members of this council who have already been appointed, it is striking that there are some very important spheres that have not been represented. However, I concede the point to the hon. member that one would not be able to appoint a representative of all spheres and of all bodies concerned with environmental conservation, to this council. However, let us try to achieve the widest possible representation in this council. I believe that would be meaningful.

The hon. member’s second major objection derives from the report. The hon. member must excuse me for having to come back to this now because I realize that for him it is a sensitive point. As I said, his second objection arises from the report that we submitted as a commission. This report reads inter alia—

Who was the chairman of that commission? [Interjections.]

That, of course, is an important question. Who was the chairman of that commission. [Interjections.] The hon. member must realize that this question will be asked. I just want to say that it was not the hon. member for Bryanston, who served on this commission. It was not that hon. member.

Is that not power-sharing? [Interjections.]

We are coming to that. The chairman of this commission was in fact the hon. member for Kuruman.

Now he is leaving all the “verkramptes” in the lurch!

Now the hon. member is no longer even welcome in Oudshoorn! [Interjections.]

Now the problem is this. In contrast to the situation a few months ago, those hon. members now see power-sharing in the Council for the Environment. We shall come to that later. [Interjections.] The hon. member is now in something of a comer. Let us first dispose of his comer and then come to my corner. [Interjections.] As I say, the commission recommended that members of all population groups are considered for appointment to this council. Now the hon. member sees power-sharing in this council. Now his party tells him: No, but we are now no longer in favour of power-sharing. I think we should set those hon. members’ minds at rest.

We have never been in favour of power-sharing.

Nor are we.

The old United Party supporters were, yes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I take cognizance of that interjection which indicates that there were indeed some of those hon. members who were in favour of powersharing. However, we have never been in favour of power-sharing, not of that type of power-sharing of which those hon. members are now afraid. Not at all. [Interjections.] I should like to test this standpoint of the hon. member for Kuruman and that of his party a little. Is it a point of principle of that party that any consultative statutory council should no longer have members from all population groups and that they will fight that? Is that their standpoint? [Interjections.] Is that a point of principle for them?

We do not want any council in which the interests of the Whites are in danger.

Mr. Speaker, that is typical of the reaction of those hon. members—nothing that will endanger the survival of the Whites. The hon. members of that party are fearful. This Council for the Environment which is now being opposed by those hon. members will pose no threat to the survival of the White population. That assurance they have already been given by this side of the House. If, then, those hon. members cannot oppose this legislation on that basis, then they will have to change their standpoint. [Interjections.] I have not yet received an answer from those hon. members. Is it now their official standpoint that any statutory body in which people of colour serve, will no longer be accepted by them? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Kuruman says yes, and I now ask him whether that is a point of principle of his party. Is it an important point of principle?

Yes.

The hon. member says that to them this is an important point of principle.

Is powersharing that kind of standpoint for you?

Not the kind of power-sharing of which the CP accuses me, certainly not.

Stop sitting on the fence; climb down.

No, I am very, very far from that. [Interjections.]

Order!

I can see very, very clearly that somewhere we have touched on a sensitive nerve; the hon. member for Kuruman is getting angry, but that is unnecessary, because after all, we are speaking to one another in a friendly way. [Interjections.]

But surely he is the author of this entire idea.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay says that the hon. member for Kuruman is the author of this—it is almost too dreadful to say—mixed council. [Interjections.]

The hon. members of the CP have at this stage made it a point of principle that they will not support statutory councils in which people of colour may also serve. That point of principle is now being adopted by them because by doing so they want to create a separation which, initially, did not exist. I do not think that that standpoint was adopted on a basis of principle.

There is no doubt about where you are heading.

There is indeed doubt about where you are heading.

I am pleased that those hon. members entertain no doubts about me. [Interjections.]

The hon. members of the CP have now adopted this point of principle, but I want to know from them why they did not put forward this point of principle, through their chief spokesmen, on the occasion of the no-confidence debate. At that stage they did not state as a point of principle that the CP was opposed to statutory councils on which people of colour served.

.Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I recall that you addressed me in very strong terms when I wanted to discuss this matter, Consequently I should like to ask what clause the hon. member is discussing.

I shall permit the hon. member first to develop his argument somewhat so that I may determine where it is heading.

Sir, I thank you for having permitted me to proceed thus far. I do think that the hon. members have perhaps endured enough punishment now.

The hon. member for Mooi River spoke on behalf of the NRP, and I want to congratulate him on a good speech. I must say that the hon. members who served on the commission at the time will probably recall that Mr. Wood—at the time he was an NRP MP—submitted a minority report from which I should like to quote briefly—

Basically, that is what the minority report amounted to. To protect this small and dwindling minority party, I want to say that the NRP dissociated itself from that minority report. I think that they were wise to dissociate themselves from that standpoint and express their unqualified support of the legislation. I think we should take cognizance of that.

[Inaudible.]

I have just praised the hon. member for Mooi River; I hope that the remark that I was unable to hear, was not unnecessarily unfriendly. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by pointing out that at the time the commission of inquiry recommended inter alia that when the Council for the Environment was appointed, consideration should be given to a sound balance between the private and public sectors.

In conclusion, I want to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. When one looks at the people who are serving on the Council at present, one is struck by the fact that certain Government departments—for example the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health—have no representatives there. I think that these departments have a special link with environmental conservation efforts. This, then, is my question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: If he is considering other persons for appointment to this Council, will he please consider those departments as well?

Mr. Speaker, on this the first occasion on which I am introducing legislation in this House, let me just say what an honour it is for me to be acting here on behalf of an outstanding department, led by a very able and enthusiastic Director-General.

*The hon. the Minister himself is an old friend of mine. He is a good South African with a very real feeling for everything affecting the soil of our country.

†We have begun an era, in the history of the Republic, in which environmental issues are going to play an ever more important part. We are entering a field which has, not only many problems, but also limitless opportunities, and I hope that all of us who are, in reality, trustees for future generations, will prove worthy of our trust and that we will keep politics out of matters relating to the environment.

I thank all hon. members for their congratulations, and I should like to thank all those who spoke in this debate for their contributions, especially those who have seen their way clear to supporting this legislation.

*The Council for the Environment was appointed in January this year. I should like to congratulate Prof. Roelf Botha and other members on their appointemnt and wish them well in the very important task which awaits them. The first meeting of this board took place earlier this month. In the composition of this board we tried to maintain a balance between the private and the public sector and I believe we succeeded in doing that. We also tried to keep pressure groups as such, and their representatives, out of the council and I believe that we were also successful in that respect.

†With regard to statements made during the debate about there only being 19 members appointed to the Council for the Environment, it gives me pleasure to make known the acceptance of our offer of appointment to the council by a twentieth member a little while ago. I am referring to prof. Siegfried of the University of Cape Town. The professor is the director of the Percy Fitzpatrick Institute of Ornithology at the university and is the twentieth member to be appointed to the council.

I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia, who has tendered his apologies through the Whip for not being able to be present here, for his contribution, his congratulations and his good wishes. He raised a number of points that I should like to deal with. He would like to know what the Government’s intentions are with regard to the establishment and chairmanship of committees of the council. In terms of the Act, the council may, with the approval of the hon. the Minister, establish committees consisting of such persons as may be determined by the council. It is further more the responsibility of the council to designate a member of committees as chairman of the committee. It therefore does not necessarily follow that the chairman of the committees will of necessity be a member of the council.

He then makes a plea for the council to be “given teeth” and the necessary support in terms of finance and personnel. In this regard it should be borne in mind that the object of the Council for the Environment is to advise the hon. Minister on environmental matters. One can hardly think therefore of the council requiring “teeth” for this particular objective. In fact, the Minister is the one who has the teeth.

Or thinks he has. [Interjections.]

The staff position as far as environmental conservation is concerned is already receiving the necessary attention. We are in fact engaged in discussions at the moment with the Commission for Administration.

Then the hon. member made reference to his 10-point plan. Most of the issues he raised can already be accommodated within the terms of reference of the council. He referred also to solid waste and littering, as well as to noise pollution. These are matters that will obviously receive high priority, as is confirmed by the fact that specific provision has been made in the legislation itself for the Minister to make regulations relating to these issues after consultation with the council.

Naturally we recognize the importance of environmental impact studies. The announcement I made yesterday that there would be an impact study done in respect of a controversial matter in the South Cape is evidence of the sort of occasion on which we would think fit to have an environmental impact study done.

It may interest hon. members to know that committees are already being established under the Council for the Environment. One of the committees, which I urged the council to appoint and which I am pleased to say has appointed, is a committee to go into the question of the administration of the coastline of South Africa. There are, as I have said before, a multiplicity of authorities with overlapping functions and I hope that this committee will fulfil a long-felt need and will be able to report to the council which will in turn advise me on how the situation can be better handled.

All the other points mentioned by the hon. member are recognized by the Government as being valid points. Most of them are referred to in the White Paper or in the legislation itself. Those matters will of course be given attention by the council and, through the council, by me.

*Next I come to the hon. member for Kuruman. He came to see me personally and apologized for what he said about me personally. I accept his apology and I shall not elaborate on it.

In his speech the hon. member referred to the Forestry Council and the number of members on that council. All I want to say to him is that there has never been a need to extend the representation in the Forestry Council as in this case. As far as the Council for the Environment is concerned, I may say that it is a different case.

Then the hon. member has a problem in regard to people of colour. The objective of the amendment before the House is not only to appoint people of colour. That we could have done already. Under existing legislation that could have taken place already.

But I said so.

However, that is one of the efficiencies of the limited membership of the board and it is now being resolved by means of this legislation.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech in connection with further appointments to this council—

Those are the sort of people we will appoint to fill the vacancies we are creating on the council by means of this legislation.

The hon. member asked me whether we are specifically looking for Coloureds, Indians and others to have seats in the council. He asked whether we were negotiating with those people at the moment. The answer is simply no. In this Bill we are merely making provision for the appointment of more people as members of the council. However, if one takes a look at the aims and the objectives of the Council for the Environment, then in my opinion, it is absolutely essential that people of colour will also have to play their part in the very important work which the council has to do.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No. I now come to the question of numbers. At present the council is made up of 20 members. We are now providing for that number to be increased to 25. It is an arbitrary figure of course, and we are taking an arbitrary decision now. Up to now we have come to the conclusion thus far that there are not enough members to serve on the council. For that reason we hold out the prospect of a further five members to be appointed to the council. The commission was of the opinion that 20 was a manageable number. However, we feel that 25 is not too large a number either. In the light of our experience so far—we shall obviously be getting more experience in the days ahead—we believe that we are making a fair proposal here, albeit an arbitrary proposal.

†I now come to the hon. member for Mooi River. I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his congratulations, his support and his contribution. I want to tell him that we are just as concerned as he is about all the various aspects of pollution, the different kinds of pollution of which we are well aware. He referred to coastal pollution, marine pollution in particular, and we are, through the council, giving our immediate attention to that matter.

*I want to conclude by thanking the hon. member for Fauresmith for his contribution. He replied appropriately to the various questions which the hon. member for Kuruman put to him in the course of his speech. I do not consider it necessary to react to that any further.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments to the Sea Fisheries Act, 1974, proposed in this Bill are of a minor nature and scope and are primarily aimed at regulating and facilitating the administration of the Act.

†The Marine Development Branch of the former Department of Agriculture and Fisheries was transferred to the Department of Environment Affairs, with effect from 2 August 1982, as a further step in the functional rationalization of the public sector. Clauses 1 and 2 are technical amendments resulting from the transfer of the branch to the Department of Environment Affairs.

The aim of clause 3 is to eliminate any ambiguity regarding the purview of section 19 of the Act in respect of the proposed financing of certain facilities from the Sea Fisheries Research Fund.

*Mr. Speaker, although a legal opinion which was obtained indicated that the proposed facilities could in fact be financed from the Fund in terms of the section in question, it is nevertheless deemed advisable to eliminate all ambiguities by duly amending the section concerned as proposed in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the official Opposition will support this Bill. Perhaps the most important aspect is the fact that the matter is transferred from the former Department of Economic Affairs to the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. This has not had the necessary acclaim. It is not even mentioned in the short title of the Bill. We consider this to be a very important shift of responsibilities because the legislation makes provision for the exploitation of one of our natural resources. The fact that the fishing industry is experiencing grave difficulties may be a direct result of the fact that it used to fall under the Department of Economic Affairs, where short term economic advantages and the pressures of economic considerations may have been given preference. We sincerely hope, therefore, that by transfering this to the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries due consideration will also be given to the environmental aspects to save this natural resource for the country for a long time to come.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Greytown for his support of this Bill. This side of the House obviously supports the proposed amendments to the Sea Fisheries Act. As this is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s first legislative action in respect of Fisheries—his main responsibility—I think it would be appropriate to congratulate him on his appointment and to wish him well in this very sensitive and important portfolio. His appointment was very well received and was generally welcomed as he is widely known for his knowledge and views on marine conservation. Consequently there is a country-wide expectancy that this important resource will now be properly managed in the interest of all South Africa’s people. I am sure that included in that will be the tourist potential of this great resource. I am also of the opinion that his much-maligned department will come into its own under his stewardship.

I was suprised when his first policy announcement in October last year did not receive the attention that it deserved. One example I want to mention was the extension of the Seaward boundary of the Tsitsikamma Marine Park. This extension gives this park internationally the status of a true marine park and, more important, it ensures a pristine marine environment for 75 km of coastline. This again gives ample opportunity for meaningful scientific research on prime angling reef fish and this can now be done on a comparative basis.

Also the closure and part closure of False Bay and Walker Bay to certain commercial exploitation is again a novel approach in fishery management in South Africa. We know that purse-seine netting and certain crayfish activities have been curtailed, and this approach emphasizes the recreational use. It also has a very close resemblance to the wilderness idea on land where limited exploitation is allowed to the public, contrasting with the idea of pristine national parks.

This hon. Deputy Minister recently appointed a scientific committee under the chairmanship of a member of this House, Dr. Theodorus Alant, to advise the Government in respect of the pelagic fishing industry. This, in my submission, underlines the determination of the hon. the Deputy Minister to obtain all expert advice available and in this way to attempt to manage this resource in the best way possible. We have very high expectations that this committee will make a valuable contribution in the search for the right response to this management problem.

In amending section 19 of the Act, the idea is, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has explained, to remove any ambiguity as to the use of this Fund. The value and importance of research and scientific knowledge is again emphasized. Effective fishery management requires amongst other things a knowledge of the status of the stock, accurate timing and statistics on catch and effort, on both recreational and commercial fisheries. These statistics are essential tools in the management process. They help in the choice of management solutions and they monitor the impact of these decisions. Social and economic research is needed in relation to its effect on the industry and its general impact. Planning and management of this resource can only be done properly with the best available scientific information, which should be extensive, accurate and up to date.

All this, of course, requires a great deal of finance and this fund is partially funded by way of levies imposed in terms of section 20 of the Act. I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that only certain commercial fishermen contribute to this fund at the moment. No line fisherman or net fisherman contributes in any respect, nor do recreational anglers. There is another side to it as well, in that skiboat anglers are today selling the greater part of their catch, and all this exploitation, the extent of which is not known even to the department, should, in my opinion, be utilized in effecting a contribution to this fund. Licence control of seagoing vessels seems to be essential. This will add a control mechanism in order to monitor exploitation, and it will further also provide useful catch data for use by scientists, quite apart from other compelling reasons.

*Mr. Speaker, to give this House an idea of the extent of skiboat angling, I refer to an article in Die Burger of 4 March this year, under the heading “Kompetisie lewer 40 ton tuna”. I quote—

†I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously to consider extending the levies to cover all fishermen as set out in the Act. Every effort should be made to improve techniques for compiling statistics, not only in regard to commercial fishermen but also in respect of recreational anglers. I therefore strongly support the hon. the Deputy Minister in his views as set out in the report in The Cape Times, also of 4 March 1983, in which he is quoted as saying—

*In the light of all these things it is imperative that we adopt a scientific approach to this matter. Because of all the positive aspects contained in this measure we support it with pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Uitenhage made a very neat speech about this subject. We find no fault with it. Indeed, we agree with what he said in respect of fish which are caught for food as well as in respect of angling fish in South Africa.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, who is responsible for this section, is someone who is, in our view, suited for it. After all, over the years he has very clearly shown his interest and his involvement in the fishing industry. Therefore in this respect, too, we want to wish him every success.

This Bill entails that the sea fisheries fund may be utilized on a broader basis than has been the case up to now. The CP believes that the fishing resources are a very important asset for South Africa, an asset which, on the one hand, can be exploited, and on the other, should be protected in the interests of South Africa. In our view research in this field is essential, and we also believe that there is an acute need for research. Accordingly we readily support every measure which promotes research in this field. For these reasons we regard it as good legislation and we are happy to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to thank the hon. member for Kuruman for his party’s support of this Bill.

I should now like to address the hon. the Deputy Minister. Right at the outset I want to congratulate him very sincerely on his handling of his first piece of legislation in respect of fisheries in this House. If you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the first discussion I had with the hon. the Deputy Minister in this House in respect of the conservation of and research into marine resources. My seat was the one presently occupied by the hon. member for Newcastle and I had a very fine view of the official Opposition of that time. I am referring to 1970 or 1971. The dignified leader on that side was Sir De Villiers Graaff, a true gentleman. Among the members on that side I also saw people like Marais Steyn, Vause Raw, Myburgh Streicher, André Fourie and the hon. the Deputy Minister. What I shall always remember about the discussion is the fact that it became a little heated, and that I had some difficulty in persuading the Chief Whip at the time, the hon. member for Brits, to let me have a turn to speak. He did not think I was quite equal to the task of attacking the hon. member for Simon’s Town. Eventually I got the green light, and when I had risen, I felt rather nervous and had butterflies in my stomach. When the debate began to engender some heat, however, the hon. member for Parow, the present hon. Minister of Community Development, came and sat down next to me. He egged me on and suggested to me what I should say, and before long I was in trouble with Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] At first I remained standing after Mr. Speaker had called for order, because I did not quite know what to do, but then the hon. member tugged at my jacket and I sat down. Mr. Speaker scolded me and the hon. member for Parow had a word of advice for me. The hon. member for Parow said to me: “Do not worry, withdraw it and then repeat it.” [Interjections.] So I tried it, and that was very nearly the end of my career in this place! [Interjections.] That night I realized that with friends such as these, one did not need enemies! Since then I have come to know the hon. the Deputy Minister. While he was a member of the Opposition, he and I had many discussions on matters of common interest and I came to appreciate greatly his sincerity in respect of the conservation of our resources and related matters. Immediately after his appointment as Deputy Minister, he paid a visit of three days to Walvis Bay, during which he had discussions with the executive committee of the fish factories, the boat owners and the Fishers’ Association. Naturally, there was some apprehension in Walvis Bay with regard to the appointment of this Deputy Minister, as a result of the discussions I have referred to. However, we were tremendously impressed by the hon. the Minister and very grateful to him for having taken the trouble to visit Walvis Bay. I also want to thank the hon. the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries, who also went to the trouble of visiting Walvis Bay.

This Bill which is before us concerns sea fisheries, conservation and research. For this reason, I should like to draw hon. members’ attention today to the need for more intensive research in respect of Walvis Bay. In order to do this, hon members must please allow me to give them some background information. Up to and including 1969, control measures, conservation and so on, including the granting of licences, were all in the hands of South West Africa, and during the re-organization in 1969, when the departments falling under the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa were taken over by Parliament and Ministers of this House, the territory’s Department of Sea Fisheries was also transferred to the Department of Economic Affairs of the Republic, and the Minister of Economic Affairs of the Republic obtained full control over research, exploitation and all matters affecting the resources. This Department of Sea Fisheries, which had its seat in Walvis Bay—I am referring to the Department of Sea Fisheries of South West Africa—employed an able team of researchers who did research from Walvis Bay in co-operation with the Sea Fisheries in Cape Town.

I am referring to “Sea Fisheries” in order to distinguish clearly between the subdivision of the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries and the Sea Fisheries to which I am referring.

The department at Walvis Bay continued its research as though nothing had happened, but unfortunately the Department soon found itself in the position of having to play the role of policeman as a result of the appearance of the two factory ships in the fishing waters off the coast of South West Africa. They had to act as policemen because the research boat and even rented boats were used in a fruitless attempt to keep the boats which did the catching for the two factory ships outside the 12-mile zone. I have said that it was a fruitless attempt, but that is a long story, an old story, and I would only tire the House if I said any more about it.

In the process, however, research was neglected; this was inevitable. It was neglected for many years. Finally, around 1974 or 1975, the department decided, to our regret and against our wishes, to close the research station at Walvis Bay and to transfer it to Cape Town, where control was vested for a few years and from where research was also done in Walvis Bay and in the territorial waters off Walvis Bay. Several years later, these functions of control and research were transferred back to South West Africa. At the moment they fall under the Department of Agriculture of South West Africa, and we understand that they are soon to be transferred to the Department of Economic Affairs of South West Africa.

Are you talking about research or inspection?

I am talking about sea fisheries, which includes everything as far as South West Africa is concerned. At the moment, it falls under the Department of Agriculture in South West Africa, but I understand that it is soon to be transferred to the Department of Economic Affairs.

I wish to state, with all due respect, that after this, the research in Walvis Bay was no longer effective enough. I think it would be wrong to speak of full-scale research. The researchers from Cape Town who do operate there have also found themselves in the position of having to play a subordinate role. It probably has an inhibiting effect on any person when he realizes that what he says is not receiving attention, or at any rate, not sufficient attention. From the nature of the case, the researchers of the Department of Sea Fisheries advised their department. The Sea Fisheries Division in Cape Town acted in an advisory capacity vis-à-vis the Ministers’ Council of South West Africa, but that Ministers’ Council has since been abolished. I take it that the advice will now be conveyed directly to the Administrator-General.

As far as the Department of Economic Affairs of South West Africa is concerned, they have the services of a very competent person, the Secretary for Economic Affairs, Mr. Kruger, who has many years’ experience of sea fisheries and fisheries. Unfortunately, he does not have any researchers of his own to furnish him with first-hand observations. Therefore we find that ad hoc decisions often have to be taken.

I want to make a serious plea. Walvis Bay is part of the Republic of South Africa. I want to make a serious plea for joint control over those resources and research to be assumed by South Africa. I am referring to joint responsibility for everything—the resources and the research. In speaking of resources, I am not referring to pilchards and anchovies only, but to all the enormous resources in that ocean. We must not concentrate only on the species we have been exploiting all these years. Hence my plea to the department, which is equipped to do this, because the department has the manpower, the facilities, such as boats, and the funds available. All these things are established beyond any doubt by the amendment of section 19. What I am advocating is that the department should resume control, in co-operation with South West Africa, and also that the research station at Walvis Bay should be reopened, that research should be done from Walvis Bay. Sending a boat from here to do research in Walvis Bay during certain periods is expensive and time-consuming. It can be done much more effectively from Walvis Bay. I know the question of staff is often raised, but I just want to point out one thing. During all the years it was done from Walvis Bay, whether by South West Africa or by South Africa, staff was always available. There were always people who cared about the cause and who were prepared to live there. After all, Walvis Bay is not such a bad place.

Certainly not! It is a wonderful place.

Yes, a wonderful place! I thank the hon. the Minister. I have been living there myself for 31 years, and all I have lost is my hair. [Interjections.]

Perhaps that is due to the high salinity of the water.

Yes, the salinity of the water, and all the fish we eat. The fish do not have hair either. [Interjections.] I think there are only advantages attached to having the research done from Walvis Bay again by this department which is equipped for this.

Our position in Walvis Bay is intolerable. To think that these factories, which are on South African territory, have no say in the quota they are allowed to catch. They have no say. Everything is regulated and controlled by South West Africa and those resources are important to Walvis Bay as well as South West Africa. It is in the interests of both those resources be established, exploited and stabilized. However, it is in South Africa’s interest, too, that this neighbour of ours should not be impoverished.

In order to emphasize how essential research is in that area, I also want to refer to the Icseaf meeting which was held there in November and December last year. I want to draw attention, among other things, to representations made there to Icseaf by the South African delegation. Firstly, it advocated that the fishing zone should be extended from 12 miles to 20 miles, and I am speaking now of nautical miles. This is more or less 20 km. However, this request was rejected out of hand. These rich fishing resources should be protected and they can be protected. In my view, this can best be done by extending the fishing zone off the coast of South Africa to 200 nautical miles, as it is in the rest of the world. This area is the only fishing ground in the world of which the fishing zone has not been extended to 200 nautical miles. For that reason, these rich fishing grounds have become the hunting ground of the vultures of the sea. The only alternative is efficient patrolling, but even if one patrols the area efficiently, on the 12-mile border, the rich resources outside the 12-mile area remain unprotected. Patrolling is being done at the moment by a boat from South West Africa and another boat or two that are rented. However, this effort is far from effective. In my humble opinion, the funds that are being spent on it should rather be used for research. If any question remains of patrolling, therefore, there is only one organization which would be able to perform this task effectively, and that is the S.A. Navy. That would be a service with teeth. As far as catches by the other powers are concerned, mesh sizes have been laid down, for example, for the catching of hake and other species. I do not know exactly what the size of the mesh is supposed to be for hake, but I think it is around 75 cm. There is sufficient evidence that before that net is lowered into the water, it is lined with a “stocking”, as it is called; this is a net with a 2 cm mesh. Then the sea is swept clean; tiny fishes are caught and nothing is left for the future.

These activities in South West Africa, and the research which is being done on behalf of South West Africa, are funded by means of a levy imposed on the factories. This research fund is controlled from South West Africa, and the contribution made by the fish factories amounts to approximately R300 000 a year. It is extremely important that these funds be correctly utilized for research, for rebuilding the research plan.

We may examine some further disturbing examples mentioned at the Icseaf meeting. There is the example of large shoals of pilchards which had been observed at a depth of between 10 and 20 fathoms, approximately 20 to 25 miles off Möwe Bay. The estimated mass of that resource was between 50 000 and 75 000 tons. In February, this shoal of pilchards moved closer to the shore, and when they were between 10 and 20 miles off-shore, they had a maximum mass of approximately 50 000 tons. The foreign trawlers kept operating on that resource. By March, no trace was left of these pilchards, except for a few isolated patches close to the shore. Some of those boats operated only four miles off-shore. The fishing industry in Walvis Bay began catching on 20 March last year. Now I ask: Who caught those pilchards?

Furthermore, I want to draw attention to the fact that South Africa mentioned that between February and October—that was before this Icseaf meeting took place—there were approximately 83 proven violations of the fishing zone of 12 miles, of which 52 were committed by Rumania, 12 by Russia and the rest by countries such as Poland, Bulgaria, Cuba and the German Democratic Republic. I repeat, therefore: Only South Africa can exercise effective control, only South Africa can operate an effective patrol service.

Then I want to refer to the Icseaf quotas which were granted there in November/De-cember, in order to indicate the magnitude of the resource which I am pleading for. In the case of hake, the Icseaf quota for the foreign countries for 1982 was 352 000 metric tons. For this year, they have increased their own quota to 413 000 tons. What were the quotas for mackerel? For 1979, the quota was 318 607 tons; for 1980 it was 474 951 tons; for 1981 it was 566 432 tons; and for 1982 it was 500 000 tons. We know that they are exceeding this quota, but for 1983, a further quota of 641 000 tons has been allocated. These figures are alarming.

You must allow, Sir, to indicate briefly to which countries quotas have been allocated. They are Angola, Bulgaria, Cuba, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Japan, North Korea, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, South Africa, Spain and Russia. As a matter of interest, I want to indicate the size of some of the quotas that were allocated. In the case of South Africa, the quota was 26 924 tons, for Spain it was 106 955 tons and for Russia it was 132 021 tons. Most of these people work for Government institutions. These are people who come to exploit fishing resources on behalf of the Government and with Government money, on a very small salary, and who take the fish home to serve as food for their people. These Government institutions get their fuel at a very reasonable price. They get their supplies at sea and they get them at absolutely minimal prices. Even if South Africa were placed in a position to compete with these people, it would still be difficult. We are very grateful to the South African Government for its aid measures in Walvis Bay. A beautiful new white fish factory has already been erected in Walvis Bay with the aid of the State, by means of subsidy schemes, rebates, and so on. I want to put it to the House that the landed cost of the fish caught for the fish factory at Walvis Bay is almost 300% higher than the cost incurred by foreign powers in catching it, as a result of the high inputs, such as diesel, which are involved. Therefore this is a very difficult problem.

I want to make it clear that I am not advocating that the people who fish there should be driven away. I am only advocating order. I am advocating control, so that quotas may be allocated to these people as is the case in South Africa. There is even a possibility that these people may pay a percentage to South West Africa, that they may make a contribution to research, to effective patrolling, etc.

To sum up: I am pleading with the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it that talks are held with South West Africa as soon as possible and that this levy which accrues to South West Africa is paid over to the Sea Fisheries Division. I also want to make a plea for research in consultation and co-operation with South West Africa to be conducted by the Sea Fisheries Division at Walvis Bay and for control to be exercised from Walvis Bay. South Africa should also have a say in the allocation of quotas to the on-shore factories at Walvis Bay. I want to point out to the House that even if it wanted to, South West Africa does not have the means of exercising effective control. It does not have the means or the ability to exercise control within the 12-mile zone. Nor does it have the means of enforcing quotas that have been allocated, mesh sizes, and so forth. It cannot exercise any control at all in respect of the foreign boats operating there.

There is a further aspect of the fishing industry at Walvis Bay which I want to mention to hon. members in order to prove that research is extremely important. Pilchards, which are canned for human consumption, are our most valuable resource. In 1981 as well as in 1982, a quota of 30 000 tons per season was granted to the factories. Then the canning factories had to close and the other factories could continue catching anchovies and additional catches such as maasbanker and other species. After the canning industry had closed down, additional pilchards, etc., were still being caught. The total catches of pilchards were 52 000 tons in 1981 and 51 000 tons in 1982. If the total tonnage could be used for canning purposes, jobs could be provided for hundreds of unemployed in South West Africa, and the fishing industry would be able to show a greater profit. In this way, they could make a bigger tax contribution. This year this quota has been increased to 35 000 tons. I want to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to discuss the matter with South West Africa in good time, so that we may not have to close the canning factories again when we reach 35 000 tons, but may continue to can the additional pilchards that are caught. In this way, we could obviate the need for South Africa to import pilchards, as it did this year, and we would be saving valuable currency. There are only advantages attached to this, Sir.

Then I do want to say that we should take cognizance of the popular cry we are hearing to the effect that Walvis Bay is going for maximum catches. As far as the pilchards are concerned, there is no question of going for maximum catches. The catching strategy is extremely controlled, in an attempt to protect the pilchard resources. For whom are we protecting these resources? For the foreigners to take home? That is why I advocate control. We should not accuse Walvis Bay and the industry of depleting our resources. We should guard against this mistaken view, for if we want the overall picture of the fishing industry in Walvis Bay, we must add the catches made by the foreign powers to the fish that is caught in Walvis Bay.

Speaking of Walvis Bay, I should like to give the hon. the Deputy Minister some interesting statistics. Hon. members will recall that the fishing season in Walvis Bay began on 15 March this year. Last week, the first catch was landed, and yesterday, a week later, the catches were as follows: Pilchards, 2 966 tons and maasbanker, 4 234 tons. So we are very impressed with the catches up to now. We also look forward to assistance, sympathy and positive action.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Walvis Bay on his speech. I think he has covered a wide area. He has given a very clear indication to those of us who are not fully conversant with the situation in Walvis Bay and off the coast of South West Africa of the problems that have been encountered. However, I do want to emphasize that those of us who have followed the sea-fishing industry off South West Africa over many years have realized exactly what the exploitation of the fishing reserves and resources off the South West African coast has done and what effect it has had on the present fishing industry. From that point of view I think it would be clear to say that we have a very strong lesson to learn. We must at all times ensure that those lessons that are to be learned from South West Africa are borne very much in mind with regard to the future research that has to be undertaken along the coastline of the Republic.

It is clear that the motivation for this Bill that is before the House emanates from the report of the commission of inquiry that was undertaken to inquire into the conservation and utilization of the living marine resources. We appreciate that this Bill is actually a spin-off from that report in that the report emanated from the inquiry itself underlined the need for research.

We see that impetus is being given to research through the medium of this Bill. I believe the need for research has also been amplified to a very great degree during recent months by the controversy that has surrounded the present quotas for pelagic fish catches, and also the scheduled seasons for fishing. We have witnessed the conflicting series of views expressed by scientists and other experts in this field, and there is little doubt that as a result of the variance of opinion amongst the experts, it is very difficult indeed to come up with an obvious solution. We also realize that the pelagic fishing industry is in serious jeopardy. It is a matter of extreme urgency that the research be extended to sea life if it is to be preserved in the long term.

There are many facets to this, and I do not intend to go into these to any considerable degree. However, I would say that one of the aspects that requires scrutiny is the part that is played by ski boat anglers and by spear fishers. This is, as it were, not such an obvious threat to the fishing industry. It is important to realize that breeding grounds have to be established, and this is where it is so important that our research should be on the correct line of action.

I should just like to give an indication to the House of a situation that occurred along the Western Australian coast involving a species of fish similar to the elf that we have in this country. As a result of the exploitation by ski boat fishers and by spear fishers of the breeding areas of these species, one virtually finds that these migratory species of fish have now been utterly and completely destroyed. This shows how necessary it is that we avoid any recurrence of a situation like that in our country.

From the point of view of this legislation itself we welcome it that the hon. the Minister has the authority to appoint a director to assume the responsibilities of monitoring this Sea Fisheries Research Fund, and also that authority has been given to empower the fund to acquire, to establish and to maintain certain equipment, and to make possible and to carry out special research projects. The hon. the Deputy Minister, I believe, is to be complimented and congratulated on appointing the Scientific Committee of Inquiry into the Pelagic Fish Industry. It shows that he is not as it were obsessed with any particular viewpoint, and that he is prepared to look at this in the broader sense.

It is necessary, I believe, to recommend to the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries that the Sea Research Institute should co-ordinate an overall research plan, and here I also bring in other organizations that do similar work, as a means of expediting the drawing up of a research blueprint incorporating the whole of the South African coastline. This is absolutely essential from the point of view of preserving the assets, those magnificent assets that we have off our coastline. If they are to be preserved, this will have to be done in a scientific manner and in a very positive manner indeed. I want to support the hon. member for Uitenhage in his suggestion that all sections of the fishing industry whether in their private capacities or not should be required to contribute in some manner to a research fund or towards research in respect of the whole sea fishery industry in this country.

With these few words it gives me very great pleasure to support this Bill on behalf of the NRP.

Mr. Speaker, in replying to the Second Reading debate I wish in the first instance to thank the hon. member for Greytown, who spoke in the absence of the hon. member for Constantia, for his congratulations and his support. In fact, I am not so sure that it would not be a bad thing if he were to take this group portfolio over! He welcomed the transfer of this important industry to the Department of Environment Affairs and Fisheries. In fact, the Department of Fisheries has had a somewhat chequered career. It has over the years been the responsibility of various departments but we like to think that it has at last found its proper home in its present department.

The hon. member referred to the need to emphasize environmental aspects but what I would like to say is that we have to find a balance between conservation and exploitation. It is no good standing still and trying only to conserve; one has to conserve with a view to expansion, and that is the policy that we are going to try to follow.

*I also want to thank the hon. member for Uitenhage for his contribution and to congratulate him on his appointment as chairman of the Fisheries group on this side of the House. I think it is a responsible position which he now occupies and I have no doubt that he will make a success of it.

†The hon. member was quite correct in saying that the Fisheries portfolio is a sensitive one. I am in entire agreement with his thinking that it has to be “managed” properly. To manage a department properly requires research and contributions not only from the department but also from people involved in the industry such as the industrialists, the fishermen themselves and the scientists. I am pleased that the hon. member appreciates what the department has done about the Tsitsikamma. We are going to extend the seaward boundary of the Tsitsikamma and the proposal in this regard is 5 km or what corresponds to the old territorial waters limit of 3 sea miles. Some people feel that it should be extended further and we are giving consideration to this matter at present.

All I want to say in connection with False Bay is that it happens at the moment to be teeming with fish. Whether this is as a result of exceptional natural circumstances or whether it is because the bay has been closed over the past three months to trawling, is something I would not like to forecast. The fact remains that there are greater numbers of fish in the bay at the moment than I can remember for the past 30 years.

I also think that the pelagic fish scientific committee is a step in the right direction. There has been for a long time a difference of opinion among scientists as to how to exploit, conserve and manage the various marine resources. In relation to the appointment of this scientific committee, I am grateful to all those people who are prominent academics and scientists for being willing to serve on that committee. I hope that this committee will be the forerunner of similar other committees that will be able to consider the various problems that we are experiencing in what is a very, very difficult industry indeed to manage and to understand. Therefore, if we can obtain advice from special ad hoc committees of that kind, I think it will probably be the right thing to do. We need research—this has been referred to by all the hon. members who have spoken—and we need advice.

I agree with the hon. member that there are a number of branches of the industry that are not making a contribution towards research. The pelagic industry makes a contribution of so much per kilo or so much a ton to the Research Fund and there are only one or two other branches which also make a contribution, but there are a number of areas in the exploitation of our marine resources where no financial contribution is being made to research although all of those branches of the industry have to be patrolled by the department and research has to be done in respect of those particular marine resources by the department.

As I have told the hon. member, we are looking at the question of the licensing of ski-boats. I share his resistance to the idea of ski-boat competitions being held with a view to catching the maximum amount of fish. In America they have a better system. There they limit the number of fish of a particular species that can be caught in ski-boats or angling competitions. They allow one to catch as many fish as one likes, but one is only allowed to keep in the boat or on the rocks a certain number of a particular species; the rest must be put back. In fact, funnily enough, in the latter stages of competitions they use a hook without a barb so that the fish can easily be unhooked and be put back into the water. I also like the idea of compiling catch statistics.

*I must be careful not to get carried away in discussing this subject, because I have to reply now to the various points raised in the speeches. First of all I come to the hon. member for Kuruman. I thank him for his support. I have already pointed out that it is absolutely imperative that a balance be found and preserved between exploitation and protection. He also referred to the need for research. So his views are in agreement with those of all the various speakers who participated in the debate.

Then there is my old friend, the hon. member for Walvis Bay. He really is an expert on fish. He began to take an interest in this subject years ago, when he was a member of the Du Plessis Commission which was appointed in the late sixties and which produced a report in the early seventies. He is able to recall very clearly the debates which took place in this House, but that was in the days when there was a responsible and a reasonable Opposition. [Interjections.]

He also pleaded for better research and research facilities at Walvis Bay. I am aware of the problems and I am giving attention to them. Actually I am negotiating with the people of South West Africa and with our own department to pay another visit to Walvis Bay and Windhoek in the near future. Of course, I shall let the hon. member know when I shall be there, and I hope he will be able to join me.

Walvis Bay is indeed a part of South Africa. Research should be done there, and not here in Cape Town, as it is at the moment. I think there are shortcomings in the present system and we are giving attention to these. The purpose of this legislation, however, is to make better and more effective use of the Research Fund, with regard to Walvis Bay as well.

The hon. member also referred to patrolling and the problems with foreign boats. I do not want to go into this subject today; we shall discuss it privately. Nevertheless, I want to assure him that we are giving attention to it and that talks are in fact being held about it at the moment.

I am glad that the hon. member succeeded in having everything placed on record in this House. I shall not be able to reply to everything now, but I am glad it is on record. We shall discuss it in other circles as well.

He pleaded for co-operation and consultation between us in the Republic and not only Walvis Bay, but the South West African Administration as well. We are giving attention to this.

Finally, he asked for assistance and sympathy. Well, he will certainly receive both assistance and sympathy from us.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Mooi River, who has again made a good contribution this afternoon. I want to thank him for that. I am glad he referred to the pelagic fish controversy. The old, old problem with scientists is like the old, old problem with economists. As many scientists or economists as one has, as many opinions will be forthcoming from them. The committee, I think, is going to be the forerunner of other committees I have already mentioned.

The hon. member is also concerned about spear-fishing, whilst the hon. member for Uitenhage was concerned about ski-boating. I am concerned about both spear-fishing and ski-boating. The problem with the ski-boater and spear-fisherman is that they can concentrate on bank-fish, on reef-fish. In America, I understand, they have a system whereby the ski-boats do not anchor over a reef. They have to keep on drifting and they catch as they drift. In that way there is then a possibility of preventing the reef-fish from being over-exploited.

Lastly the hon. member made the point about the problems in Australia involving what they call the blue fish, which is called the shad in Natal and is the same as the fish we call the elf in the other parts of the Republic. We are aware of those problems. We are watching that situation, and I hope that it will not be long before what restrictions there are on shad-catching in Natal will also be applied here and in other parts of our other maritime province.

Natal leads the way!

I should like to close by saying that we think that this Bill will, effectively or more effectively, help us to utilize the Sea Fisheries Research Fund, and I am grateful to all those people who have taken part in this debate for having given support to this very worthwhile idea.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Virtually every country has its quota of unique agricultural pests which no other country in the world would want. Scrupulous control over imports, which serve as a medium for the spreading of such pests, is therefore international practice. The reasons for this are obvious. Once a new plague or pest has established itself in a country, it can cause great damage to cultivated crops. The combating thereof could entail heavy expenses and exports, particularly of products by means of which they could be spread further, could be seriously affected.

Fortunately our country is still relatively free of any of the plagues which occur generally in certain other parts of the world. This is largely attributable to our thorough phytosanitary control over imports. In addition we have made statutory provision for acting rapidly and efficiently whenever an alien pest appears.

†The Republic is kept informed of the plant pest situation in the world through the International Plant Protection Convention, of which it is a member. This information facilitates effective control over imports moving along the recognized trade routes. In fact, there is little chance of a new pest being introduced into the Republic along these routes. The real threat of such introduction lies in material which is stowed away by individuals in their baggage when entering the Republic.

Certain shortcomings, both technical and administrative, have recently been exposed in the Republic’s legislation regarding phytosanitary control. It seemed opportune to come along with a new Bill rather than to introduce the extensive amendments which would have been required to rectify the situation. The basic principles of the Agricultural Pests Act of 1973 are retained in this Bill, but they are presented in a more meaningful sequence. It also includes certain new provisions aimed at facilitating control and ensuring the maintenance of our good record to prevent the introduction and spreading of plant pests in the Republic.

In the first instance the Bill provides for the designation of an executive officer. He will be charged with the administration of the legislation and will have to act in accordance with Ministerial instructions.

The Bill also authorizes the Minister to exempt certain imports from the permit requirements. This provision will obviously be used only where phytosanitary risks are minimal, but could induce a considerable relief in administrative work. The executive officer is also empowered to prohibit the off-loading of goods infected or probably infected with plant pests, and to make satisfactory arrangements to prevent the possible escape of harmful plant pests from port areas.

*The origin of most alien agricultural pests in the Republic can usually be traced back to some illegal import or other. When such pests display visibly, it is essential that the occurrence thereof be localized to confine the difficulties and costs involved in combating them. The Minister is therefore being empowered to promulgate control measures to prevent agricultural pests from spreading and to enforce the combating of such pests. Moreover, provision is made for the Minister himself to undertake the combating of a pest where the user of land concerned neglects to comply with a control measure, and that the user of land concerned shall in such a case have to make good the expenses incurred by the State.

The Bill has the support of the S.A. Agricultural Union and the responsible organizations in the seed and plant industry.

Mr. Speaker, before I start on the subject matter of the Bill, I want to tender the apologies of the hon. member for Albany, who is our new spokesman on agricultural matters, because he is unable to be here to deal with this Bill today. Unfortunately, he had a long-standing arrangement for today. He has also asked me on behalf of himself and our agricultural group to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the new and very important portfolio placed in his charge. Unfortunately for the Minister, I believe, he is taking over this portfolio in extremely difficult times for agriculture and it is going to fall largely on the hon. the Minister’s shoulders to try to see agriculture through the problems facing it during these difficult times. We all know that the hon. the Minister is a farmer himself so he has both his feet in agriculture, and is fully aware of the problems farmers face. I believe he is also sympathetic towards them and, if anybody can sort out the problems agriculture faces, it will be this hon. Minister. From our dealings with him in the past we have found him to be extremely approachable and we look forward to co-operating with him on one of the portfolios where we do not differ all that often.

The Bill before us deals with measures by which agricultural pests may be prevented and combated. We have studied this Bill in some detail and we can find no fault with the provisions of the Bill. It repeals the Agricultural Pests Act of 1973, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister in his speech. It also repeals sections of the Plant Improvement Act of 1976. There are very strict provisions in the Bill relating to the importation of any injurious organism, be it plant, pathogen, insect or animal. In spite of similar legislation which has existed up to now, we have unfortunately experienced, very serious problems in South Africa which have been brought about by the importation of different diseases and plants in the past. In fact, one can hardly think of a pest in this country which has not originated from outside. I want to quote just a few examples. All of us who have been involved in agriculture realize the problems that have been experienced with jointed cactus, and also the problems which are being experienced at the moment with nasella grass and the cost of eradicating and keeping it under control. There are also problems with burrweed species, thistle species, wattle species and bramble species. As the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech today, many of the problems which we experience do not occur through the recognized trade routes but in many cases it is a question of somebody smuggling into the country a pretty house or garden plant which may carry some pathogenic organism. The bramble species is an example of a house plant.

As far as diseases are concerned, brusellosis and European red water are examples. When we think of animals, there are the European starling which many of us are familiar with in Cape Town, and trees such as the ghwarrie on Table Mountain and the pine which we are trying to eradicate at present. Incidentally, I understand that all these were introduced into the country by Cecil Rhodes. I have no idea why he did so but I am sure that when he did, he did it with the best of intentions. There was no way of his foreseeing the problems they would cause in the future.

There are of course also many insects which have been imported and which are causing serious problems. There is the Argentinian fire ant which is causing problems in the fynbos in the Cape, the European wasp, and also two pests which most of the fruit farmers in the Western Cape will be familiar with, namely the codling moth and the Mediterranean fruit fly. I do not want to dwell on these but name them by way of example. I am sure there are many hon. members in the House who could devote an entire speech to any one of these particular pests. Incidentally, I hope they do not.

Having mentioned these examples people could think that we are perhaps closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. However as the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech today, we are still relatively free of the large numbers of pests and other harmful organisms that exist in other countries. It is up to us to ensure that those do not ever become established in this country.

The relative executive officers who will be entrusted with enforcing the provisions of this Bill have been given wide-ranging powers in the execution of their duties. The offences and penalties are heavy. We are in full agreement with this. As I mentioned earlier, one has only look at the problems which jointed cactus and species like that have caused. It is very necessary that the penalties be heavy and that the powers which the officers have, be wide enough to enable them to effectively perform their duties. We also have to look at what eradication and prevention is costing us and the threat which, for example, nasella grass is posing to our grasslands.

With those few words we have pleasure in supporting the legislation before us today. It is very necessary. We hope the hon. the Minister will use all the powers which this legislation gives him to achieve the object of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my speech it is a pleasant privilege for me to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to that portfolio. He took over the portfolio at a very difficult time, although these difficulties were not as a result of human instrumentality. However, we have every confidence that the hon. the Minister will make a success of the portfolio. I do wish to point out that it is important to note that the hon. the Minister also hails from the Eastern Transvaal. This means that the latest three Ministers of Agriculture all came from the Eastern Transvaal region. I think the House should take note of this and that in respect of agriculture greater confidence should be reposed in the Eastern Transvaal.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South very much for indicating that there is support for this legislation from the official Opposition. It is true that this is not a contentious Bill and consequently one can expect co-operation from that side of the House.

In 1973 the Agricultural Pests Act was redrafted. It was basically a consolidation Act which also made provision for the registration of nurseries. Since 1976, however, the registration of nurseries has been dealt with under the Plant Improvement Act. Because there were technical and administrative provisions in the Act which were obolete, it was necessary to take this opportunity to revise the Act. Although the registration of nurseries is now dealt with under the Plant Improvement Act, this Act still remains of very great importance for the control and limiting of pests. Because there are numerous pests in plants which occur in certain areas, it is important that there should be measures to limit the spread of such pests. It is always easier to control and combat pests in a limited area. That is why the Minister is now being empowered to prescribe control measures aimed at preventing the spread of agricultural pests.

Provision is also being made for plants to be cleansed in order to prevent such a spread, and even destroyed in certain circumstances. This is not a new provision. The sale and conveyance of plants infested with pests has always been prohibited and even in the case of nurseries, nurseries can be compelled to destroy plants or place them under quarantine if diseases exceed certain limits. In order to prevent an combat the spread of pathogens, insects and exotic animals, the Minister may by notice in the Gazette prescribe control measures which have to be complied with. These control measures may relate to the destruction of plants; the cleansing or destruction of plants infected with pathogens or insects; the combating of pathogens, insects or exotic animals; the keeping, planting or cultivating of plants, and the keeping of pathogens, insects, exotic animals or any particular thing. They may also relate to the removal of plants, pathogens, insects, exotic animals or any particular thing from any land within a specified area, to any other land within the same area, or even to another area, and also the notification of the occurrence of specified pests. This Bill also makes provision to empower the Minister to allow exotic animals of a specific kind, or insects or pathogens to be imported by way of a permit when the importation thereof is desirable in order to combat the occurrence of undesirable pests, or even when it is in the interests of a specific branch of agriculture. The Act will be administered on behalf of the Minister by an officer of the department appointed for this purpose by the Minister and the executive officer shall be vested with certain powers to enable him to implement the Act.

Clause 13 provides what acts are offensive under the Act, and the maximum penalties for such offences are provided.

In clause 16 provision is being made for the promulgation of regulations in which the technical details on the implementation of the Act are set out. This will facilitate the implementation of the Act considerably.

With these few thoughts I should like to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me and for my side of the House to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Agriculture. As a person he compels my respect and I expect great things of him as Minister of Agriculture because he is a farmer to the core. The hon. member for Middelburg said he was an Eastern Transvaler. I want to improve on that saying that he is a Transvaler. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he has taken over this portfolio at a very difficult time, I could almost say a time of crisis for agriculture. Recently very important announcements were made by the Prime Minister on assistance to agriculture. We wish to believe that the hon. the Minister played a great part in the acquisition of that assistance by means of his pleas to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance, and we trust that he will see to it that what was held out in prospect to the farmers will soon become a reality. The financial implications are tremendous and we trust that the Government will be able to afford it, because great promises were made here. I say thank you for that.

I come now to the legislation before us, and I wish to express my appreciation to the department for coming forward with this legislation. It is a great improvement on the existing legislation. In the second place I wish to express my appreciation for their having consulted organized agriculture and other organizations, for example the Seed and Plant Breeders Association, in the drawing up of this Bill. Those are people who are involved in the practical side of this matter.

Mr. Speaker, of all industries the farming industry is probably the one which is by far the most exposed to risks. Just think of drought, floods, untimely frost and hail, overproduction, poor produce prices and many other problems. But today we are thinking in particular of agricultural pests. Agricultural pests have brought many a farmer to his knees and have caused the downfall of some. The Bill before us is aimed at the prevention and combating of agricultrual pests. The two most well-known agricultural pests are probably locusts and commando worms. I want to thank the departnent very sincerely for having over the years succeeded in visibly curtailing these two pests. Many of us still remember how, in earlier years, locusts totally destroyed the crops and grazing of many farmers. The farmers of those days, if they became aware of the locusts in time, built huge fires in the hope that the smoke would prevent the millions of pests from settling on their lands or grazing. Alternatively, farmers employed spraying methods under difficult circumstances.

Clauses 5 and 8 of this Bill deal with locusts. Clause 5 obliges the farmer or user of land to notify the police, a justice of the peace or the department itself immediately upon observing any locusts. In clause 8 provision is being made for the Minister to be able to employ State funds for the combating of this pest. Clause 9 gives officers the right of entry for the purposes of inspection or combating of pests or to ensure that the provisions of the Act are being complied with.

I referred to commando worms. Over the years this pest too, as far as I know, has been virtually wiped out. I find it an interesting phenomenon that the small white moths which, so the old people believed, were forerunners of the commando worms, regularly make an appearance every few years in the Transvaal Highveld. This usually happens during December. Fortunately it seems that what the old people believed is not true, because commando worms no longer put in an appearance.

Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to dwell for a moment on an interesting piece of history in regard to agricultural pests. In earlier years it happened, and still does, that these small white moths appeared in their millions on the Transvaal Highveld during December every few years, They really appear in, I would almost say, their hundreds of millions, and on the day on which they made their appearance in the Transvaal Highveld they covered thousands and thousands of morgen of land. It is a strange small white moth; it flies low over the ground. They fly only a little way, settle for a moment, then fly further. The moth themselves do not do any visible damage. The old people believed that when those moths make their appearance in December, equine distemper will be extremely bad that year, and that a plague of commando worms will break out in the early autumn months. Of course I believe that it has already been proved that the commando worms do not follow upon the moths. I do not know about the equine distemper—so far we have no proof about this. However, I doubt that it can be true.

Then, during the months March and April, when there are heavy falls of dew for the Transvaal Highveld, the old people usually said that the white moths had flown and the horses should be brought into stable. Then the horses should be brought out of the low-lying and marshy areas. Those farmers who could not keep their horses stabled during those two months—these are the months in which the dew was heaviest—usually sent their horses away to higher ground; away from the low-lying and marshy areas. During March and April, therefore, the farmers do not have their saddle-, carriage-or draught-horses for at that time all the horses were sent to the highlying areas.

As soon as the first frost occurred in May, however, the old farmers believed that the danger of equine distemper was past, and the horses could be brought back. What is interesting, however, is to think that 40, 50 or 60 years the young men did not have motor cars in which to go calling. In those days the saddlehorse was the thing. Just think what an injustice this superstition of the old people cause to hundreds, perhaps thousands of young ladies who waited in vain in the evenings with yearning eyes and hearts for their young men to turn up, but waited in vain because the horses were still in the hills. [Interjections.]

The Bill at present under discussion provides that the Minister will in future be able to exercise strict control over import from abroad. Here I have with me last week’s edition of the Landbouweekblad. From this I should like to quote a very recent example to illustrate what can happen when there is no proper control over imports. The title of this article is: “Keer die skadelike nag-muise.” I quote as follows—

The article continues inter alia as follows—

If one makes a few sums and calculates how rapidly these animals are going to multiply it is clear that they will soon be a pest in South Africa if their presence is not immediately brought under control.

It is a very great pleasure for us to give our wholehearted support to the legislation under discussion. We consider it to be a great improvement on the previous legislation, and we trust that this Bill will also be to the benefit of the farmers and of the agricultural industry in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak after the hon. member for Meyerton, and also to convey our thanks to the CP for supporting this legislation. I noticed that the hon. member for Meyerton, regardless of any political differences which we may have with them, conveyed his appreciation to this side of the House for thè aid measures which have been announced for farmers. This reflects an attitude to agricultural problems which, I think, can only have positive significance for agriculture in general. We thank the hon. member for doing so.

The Bill at present before this House is primarily substituting legislation. It substitutes the Agricultural Pests Act, 1973, which in itself was a consolidation Act in that it consolidated the Orchards and Cultivated Plants Cleansing Act, 1947, and the Agricultural Pests Act, 1957. Furthermore, that Act contained provisions which made the registration of nurseries possible. We know that at present provision is made for the registration of nurseries in the Plant Improvement Act.

A few of the provisions of this legislation which perhaps deserve our attention are, firstly, that the administration of the Act will primarily be in the hands of one officer. In view of the great powers which this officer will have, we wish to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that it will be a senior officer who will have knowledge of not only the theoretical, but also the practical side of agricultural pests. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could even consider appointing the Director of Plant Pests and Seed Control to this office.

A second principle in this legislation which one finds significant is that any person who is not an official may be used in the service of the department for the combating of agricultural pests. This is no new principle. The hon. member for Meyerton referred to the combating of the locust plague, and the hon. the Minister will know that in the past general use was made of the services of individual farmers to combat this pest during times of crisis. This method was used very beneficially, and therefore I am pleased that this principle has been retained in the legislation.

In the third place there is a principle in the legislation which is perhaps different to that in the previous legislation and that is that in future it will be possible to import certain declared goods without ministerial authorization permits. Consequently this appears to be a relaxation in agricultural pest control, but the fact of the matter is that it is specifically provided in clause 3(4) that if certain organizations or persons are exempted from this permit authorization, it will be subject to certain conditions. Consequently we ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to these conditions entailing, inter alia, that such imported goods shall in the first place be accompanied by phytosanitary certificates from the country of origin and in the second place that these goods are required to be offered for inspection in this country.

A fourth principle for which provision is being made in this legislation is that quarantine areas may be declared. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that as I understand the legislation, the provisions affecting such areas are applicable in the first place to nurseries. Confusion could easily arise between this type of quarantine area and the quarantine areas which may be introduced for the control of animal parasites. One will therefore be able to consider extending the definition of “insect”. At present it reads—

I think that this definition should perhaps be extended to exclude as well pests for which quarantine areas may be declared in terms of this Bill.

As has already been indicated, the Bill has the support of organized agriculture. Therefore I believe that it is a good Bill. We know that the existing Act has certain structural problems, as well as certain obsolete provisions which will now be replaced and substituted in terms of this Bill. We gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches would like to associate ourselves with some of the comments made previously in regard to the hon. the Minister and his new appointment. It gives us great pleasure to congratulate the hon. the Minister and we very much look forward to working with him in the cause of agriculture and assisting where we can to overcome some of the problems with which the industry is confronted. It is very true to say that he now occupies what might be called a hot seat and it looks as though that hot seat is going to get warmer and warmer. However, I want to assure the hon. the Minister that those of us who will have the privilege of working with him look forward to doing so in a positive and practical manner.

We on these benches will be supporting this legislation before the House. We welcome the provisions of the Bill in that it encompasses such a wide field and involves a very wide spectrum of functions. We appreciate the fact that this is an effort to control, as far as man is able, a problem which is in itself almost uncontrollable. One accepts the fact that the problems of pests and insects as well as of noxious weeds and vegetation are problems that affect all walks of life and particularly the agricultural sector. When we consider the means at our disposal to combat this problem we come to the logical conclusion that there are only two ways in which this can be done—the chemical way and the biological way. It follows therefore that our starting point must be the imposition of strict control measures in respect of any ingredient that can be associated with the possible spreading of insects and pests in this country; in other words, the strict supervision of any plants, pathogens, insects or animals and so forth that might be brought into this country.

There is no doubt that this Bill has come at a very vital stage. It is true that the menace from pests is on the increase as a result of the more intensive agricultural methods that are being adopted in agriculture. It is also true that the problem of the pest menace throughout the world can generally be regarded as being largely cyclical, and insecticides and chemical control methods offer only a short-term solution. The long-term solution must be found by means of biological control, and this is where the essence of this legislation comes in so forcibly. This includes the use of micro-organisms in the form of bacteria, fungi, etc., as well as the use of resistant plant varieties. There is also the use of parasitic and predaceous insects. One of the problems that has been experienced in the biological control of indigenous pests, i.e. those pests naturally occurring in this country, is that generally speaking there is a balance existing between these pests and indigenous predators and parasites. For this reason it is necessary in many cases to find exotic parasites and predators to kill indigenous pests. One can look, for example, at the problem my colleague the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has in regard to the Eldana borer which is found in sugarcane.

He has a problem with another sort of borer too.

Yes, well, the hon. member’s chance will come. Is he perhaps a “windpomp” borer? [Interjections.] Anyhow, I think it is as well to bring to the attention of the House the losses that are suffered as a result of insect and pest infestations. It is estimated that in the storage of agricultural products alone the loss from insects and pests amounts to 10%. Of the total crop harvested by man, the loss as a result of damage caused by insects, plant diseases and rodents amounts to 25%. It is accepted that integrated control, i.e. chemical and biological control, can only provide a midterm solution. It is for that reason that we must look further ahead. One example I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister is the question of the Karoo caterpillar, which is one of the worst pests in the extensive dry grazing areas of this country. It is regrettable indeed to note that Grootfontein has discontinued the research on its control.

In dealing with aspects of the legislation itself, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister basically to clause 3 and to clause 3(4) in particular. This concerns the restriction on imports by way of import permits and the conditions to be complied with. I would stress that the hon. the Minister must ensure that, when those regulations and conditions are drawn up, they must be drawn up in the strictest sense. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to exercise extreme discretion when applying the provisions of clause 3(4) relating to the importation of certain ingredients relating to pest control without a permit. As I have said, I think extreme discretion must be exercised in agreeing to any such measure.

I should also like clarification from the hon. the Minister in regard to the position of the independent States. What is the position in regard to co-operation with the independent States with a view to having a common approach and policy with them in this connection?