During the Second Reading we voiced our objection to this Bill. There are certain clauses to which we take particularly strong exception, but we will deal with those clauses as we come to them. Instead of indicating our disapproval of the Bill by voting against every clause, we will merely pick out certain clauses and deal with them when we come to them.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

May I just ask the hon. the Minister why the provision in connection with Rehoboth was omitted from this Bill, but not from the one which was introduced at the end of last year? In this Bill you will notice in clause 14, on page 8, that reference is made to the Rehoboth Baster Community. Bill No. 104 of last year contains a provision in connection with the Rehoboth Basters which definition has now been omitted here.

When statutory provisions were made applicable in the past, it was customary for them to be made applicable to the Caprivi and the Rehoboth area as well. As a result of a court decision it is no longer necessary to make them applicable to Rehoboth. In other words, there has been a decision by the High Court. A year or two ago I gave a full explanation of the matter in the other Place, and as a result of the judgment of the court it is no longer necessary, and that is why it has been omitted.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

This clause, when read with other clauses of this Bill, has the effect that the Administrator of the Territory may no longer administer those matters which are excluded from the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly. These are later in the Bill to be placed in the hands of the various Ministers of the Republic. We are opposed to that. This is quite different from the attitude of mind that we have as to what the future constitutional relationship of the Territory should be. In fact, it goes right against what we feel should happen in South-West Africa. We feel that the Administration of the Territory should have more power so far as the white people are concerned to deal with those matters which concern them. This clause is one of several in the Bill which violates the principles that we ourselves espouse in relation to the future of South-West Africa. We shall vote against this clause, together with that clause which places the administration in the hands of Ministers of the Republic, and which takes it out of the hands of those persons who are elected by the white people of South-West Africa to conduct their affairs.

I do not think it is necessary to hold a discussion on this clause. To my mind, the principle embodied in this clause is one of the important principles accepted at the Second Reading, namely the taking over of the administration of certain matters by Ministers of the Republic. As a result of that, the administration which was previously in the hands of the Administrator of South-West Africa, is to fall away when the administration is taken over by the Ministers. Personally, I think this is such an important part of the whole, that it would be completely destructive of the whole if it were to be omitted.

Clause 8 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—103: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetzee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—33: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield. G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides what in fact is a definition of an office of profit. It does so in a rather negative manner, but the meaning of it is that a member of any council, board, committee or similar body established by or under any law who will receive payment or allowance at a rate not exceeding R11 a day shall be deemed not to hold an office of profit under the Crown. The position is that if a member of those bodies receives R11 or less than R11, he is not holding an office of profit under the Administration. I think it is a great pity that a special provision is made in this law dealing with a matter of that kind. There is a general law dealing with the question of an office of profit and this is an exception. I can foresee the possibility that we are going to have this type of exception in further legislation. So that instead of having a general law which will apply to all and where people are debarred from certain positions if they hold an office of profit, various exceptions are going to be made. I think it is a bad principle. I think we should stick to one common principle, one law, and make that applicable under all circumstances, so that if one is holding an office of profit, one shall be debarred from holding certain positions. This kind of exception I think is very regrettable, and we are not prepared to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain that the adjustment which is being made here, is in accordance with the position in the Republic. This is being done at the request of South-West Africa, i.e. to bring the position into line with what already applies in the Republic. I therefore cannot understand why the hon. member is objecting to it.

Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. member for South Coast raised was a matter of principle, and not whether South-West Africa asked for it or if they did not. What we would like to hear from this hon. Minister is an explanation on the question which was raised by the hon. member for South Coast, namely that either it is an office of profit under the State or that it is not. If you do not receive any salary it is not an office of profit under the Crown.

Under the State.

Yes, an office of profit under the State. I think that the matter which was raised is an important one of principle. If you do not receive any salary at all, but merely receive an allowance, that is not an office of profit under the State. The allowance is fixed at R11 per day and I know that R11 a day is the usual sustenance allowance that is allowed in many cases, whether it is members of this House or whether it is Judges, and so on. Why is the amount fixed at R11 in this case? This clause is being invested in the Act and is not subject to regulation or change. If you therefore get an allowance in the special circumstances of South-West Africa, where it may well be necessary to pay more than R11, it is an office of profit. An allowance is not a profit. This is the point. Why is it then fixed at R11? We have the situation that it is an office of profit depending upon the allowance that is payable, but the allowance that is payable is payable as sustenance and together with that, in terms of this clause, there is also a travel allowance. I think that this is the point that the hon. member for South Coast raised as a matter of principle. It seems to be a new principle to fix the office of profit under the State and regarding it as something which is determined by the amount. It is not a case of the principle of the thing, whether you get an allowance or you do not; it is a matter of what the amount of that allowance is. I think that this Committee deserves a better explanation than that given by the hon. the Minister, namely that it is something South-West Africa asked for. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give this Committee his views on this matter of principle as raised by the hon. member for South Coast.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has been playing with words. In fact, all it amounts to is a matter of the choice of words, whether it should be called an allowance or whether it should be called a salary or remuneration. All that is really being done here, is to bring the position into line with the position already prevailing in South Africa. Does the hon. member now want to unearth the principle of this matter and make an argument of it? He asked whether the principle that it should be R11 or some other amount, was the right one. I want to refer the hon. member to our Standing Rules and Orders and, indeed, to section 55, paragraph (d) (vi) of the Constitution, which reads as follows—

This provision is exactly the same as the one we are now making applicable in South-West Africa, and that is the reply to the whole question raised by hon. members opposite. If the hon. member now wants to argue with me as to whether it should be R10, R11 or R12, we can discuss the matter, but all we are doing here, is to bring the position into line with what we already have here in South Africa.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

You will realize, Mr. Chairman, that those of us who are simply farmers have some difficulty in understanding the provisions of a rather involved measure such as the one we are dealing with now. In any event, from para, (d), sub-para, (dd), of clause 14, it appears that matrimonial matters is to be a scheduled matter, i.e. a matter which can be dealt with only by this Parliament in future. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, what are these matrimonial matters in respect of which legislation can only be introduced by this House. A scheduled matter is a matter which can no longer be dealt with by the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa. Are we to understand under “matrimonial matters” everything associated with the maternal and paternal affairs in the domestic sense of every family, matters such as child maintenance and child care, social welfare—matters associated with the paternal and maternal care of any inmate of the household or with any other domestic aspect? Are all these “matrimonial matters”? These are matters which are now to be subjected to control by law and, therefore, I would be grateful to the hon. the Minister if he could explain this to us.

Well, “matrimonial affairs” relate only to matrimonial affairs. In other words, we are restricted to the word as it stands here. Consequently, I cannot see how the hon. member can interpret the word as meaning all sorts of things such as fatherhood, motherhood, child care, and so forth. All that is being dealt with here, is matrimonial affairs, that is, the marriage between two people.

Can’t you explain it?

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to para, (d) (v) of clause 14. The wording of this sub-paragraph is somewhat different from that of its counterpart in clause 13 of the Bill which was published last year. The reference to the Population Registration Act has been omitted from this sub-paragraph. Does that mean that the Population Registration Act is not going to be applied in South-West? If it is indeed going to be applied in South-West, is race classification going to be applied there as well?

There is nothing in this Bill which may be construed as meaning that the Population Registration Act is going to be made applicable to South-West Africa.

My question is then whether, in view of the fact that matrimonial affairs in South-West will now fall under this Parliament, the Government intends to apply race classification in South-West Africa.

The hon. member wants to anticipate the future now. Naturally I cannot say what the Government may do in future. All I can tell the hon. member at this stage, is that the Bill we are dealing with now, does not contain any provision which may be construed as meaning that the Population Registration Act is going to be made applicable in South-West Africa. What may happen in future, is something about which the Government will still have to decide.

This clause is one of the clauses which, if I may put it that way, is the guts of this Bill, in the sense that it increases the number of matters being excluded from the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly of South-West. I have already indicated, when we dealt with clause 8, that we are opposed to this restriction because our thoughts on the future of South-West Africa are quite different from those of the Government. We shall, therefore, vote against this clause, it being, as I have said, one of the essential clauses constituting the principle of this Bill.

But I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate what he means when he says that “matrimonial affairs” means “matrimonial affairs”. After all, this is an important matter, because we are taking away from the Legislative Assembly of South-West the right to legislate upon this particular item. Just how far does the Minister want to go? “Matrimonial affairs” include, as we know, the question of getting married. This is understandable. It also includes divorce, which is also understandable. But it includes all sorts of other things, things such as maintenance; the living apart of husband and wife and whether, how and where maintenance should be paid. It also includes children. This too is, I would say, a “matrimonial affair”. There is the question of places of safety which are being provided for them. As a matter of fact, one does not have to be a lawyer to appreciate just how far “matrimonial affairs” can go. Consequently, I wonder whether the Minister could not indicate rather more clearly and specifically what is meant by “matrimonial affairs”.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members opposite should do their homework more properly. If they had done so, they would not have put such nonsensical questions to me. If the hon. members had read the White Paper in this connection, they would have found the answers to most of their questions, if not to all of them. This matter is specifically dealt with on page 18 of the White Paper. For instance, para. 54 reads as follows:

This is then the reply to the question put by the hon. member.

I am pleased that the Minister has mentioned the White Paper. I presume he is referring to the White Paper, numbered W.P.N.N.-’68, with the title “Decisions by the Government on the financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa”. If this is to be accepted as a White Paper on this Bill, then I should say the ways of the Government in this connection could with advantage be changed. Here we have something which is alleged to be a White Paper although it does not deal with the Bill with which we are dealing now. Neither does it deal with the 1968 Bill. When one looks at this document, one finds all sorts of thoughts which the Government has and all sorts of decisions which the Government has taken. But, this document is not related to this Bill. When one has specific legislation, like the legislation we have here, it would be appreciated by everyone in this House if the White Paper could relate directly to such legislation. Here we have a sprawling document dealing with the decisions by the Government “on the financial and administrative relations” between the Republic and South-West Africa. These are the Government’s decisions. Last year we had a Bill; now we have another one, one which is different in material respects from the Bill that was published last year …

Order! The hon. member is now making a second-reading speech.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did refer to the White Paper.

Yes, but not to the White Paper as a whole.

Then I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister wants us to have a look at this document published last year and determine therefrom what this Bill means? I submit that that is an impossible thing to do. The decisions that have been taken by the Government and the provisions in this Bill, provisions upon which this House has to decide, are two things which do not necessarily relate one to the other. However, if the Minister says that para. 54 of this White Paper contains the answer to our questions on matrimonial affairs, then we are indebted to him for the answer.

I just want to apologize to the hon. member for having called this document a “White Paper”. In fact, this document is not really a White Paper; it is a memorandum which contains the decisions taken by the Government and which was made available to hon. members of this House to inform them fully about the motives as regards the decisions of the Government to which this Bill will give effect.

That is much better.

Nevertheless, I shall be very glad if it is going to make a difference to and satisfy the hon. member for South Coast. If that is the case, it is easy to satisfy the hon. member. In this memorandum in which the decisions of the Government are set out, explanations are given of nearly all the matters dealt with in this Bill, and what I read out a moment ago is the reply to the question asked by the hon. member.

Clause 14 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—101: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 17:

Would the Minister explain why it is that when the State President now issues a proclamation which makes laws for the territory in relation to those matters on which the Assembly may not make laws, he does not have to publish this in the Official Gazette, i.e. in the South-West Africa Gazette, but only has to publish it in the Government Gazette? We have in the Republic Gazettes in each of the Provinces and we also have one in South-West Africa, hut we also have a Government Gazette for the Republic relating to all these provinces. When one makes a provincial ordinance, it is published in the Provincial Gazette, and when a proclamation of the Legislative Assembly is made it is published in the South-West Africa Gazette. The purpose of this procedure, as far as I know, is that that Gazette circulates in that province only and you make people in that area aware of the provisions of that proclamation by publishing it in that Gazette. Here this is being removed. When the State President makes proclamations relating to South-West, making laws in respect of matters in regard to which the Legislative Assembly may not legislate, applying only in South-West, it is now provided that these should not be proclaimed in the Official Gazette but only in the Government Gazette, whereas before they had to be published both in the Government Gazette and in the Official Gazette, for very good reasons. I wonder whether the Minister will explain why they will no longer be published in the South-West Africa Gazette, and perhaps the Minister can also explain what the purpose of the Provincial Gazette is.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will probably appreciate that the matters which will be advertised in the Government Gazette will be only those in regard to which South-West Africa may not make ordinances. The hon. member wants to know why these matters will not be published in the Official Gazette of the territory only. In the first instance I want to point out to the hon. member that provision is not being made here that this should only apply to legislation which is to be made applicable to South-West Africa alone; in other words, this relates to laws which this Parliament is going to make and which will probably be applicable to both the Republic and South-West Africa. However, I may further reassure the hon. member that it will, in any case, be advertised there as well. But it cannot always be published at the same time as it is published in the Government Gazette. What the hon. member probably did not appreciate is that the legislation referred to here, is legislation which relates to matters in regard to which South-West Africa may not make ordinances, and which, consequently, is not necessarily applicable to South-West Africa alone. This legislation will, therefore, be legislation which will probably be applicable to both the Republic and South-West Africa. From the nature of the case, I think it is obvious that those laws will have to be published in the Government Gazette as well as in the Official Gazette of South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, surely these laws that he makes are laws that have effect only in South-West Africa, because it is provided in sub-section (1) that “The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette … " and, as it was, in the Official Gazette, “… make laws for the Territory …”, only for the Territory and for nowhere else, to apply only in the Territory. They are the only people who are affected. He cannot make laws for the Territory which have effect anywhere else but in the Territory. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. Does the Minister now suggest the State President may make laws in terms of section 38 of the South-West Africa Constitution Act which have effect elsewhere but in the Territory? Surely it cannot be for outside the Territory. He can only make a proclamation in terms of section 38 which applies to the Territory of South-West Africa as defined in the Act.

Yes.

Because of that and because of the reasons I have given, every provincial authority which makes ordinances having effect only in that province must have them published in its Provincial Gazette, and likewise laws made for the Territory must be published in the Official Gazette, i.e. the South-West Africa Gazette. What I want to know is this. Because it only applies in South-West Africa and nowhere else, why does the Minister want to take away a little extra bit of notice to the people of the territory? Surely that is the object and the purpose of having a Provincial Gazette or an Official Gazette, and if that is not the purpose of the Official Gazette then why does one have it at all?

I hope the Minister will appreciate that in fact what he said just now is not quite the position and will indicate to us now with his new appreciation of the situation why it is in fact not going to be published in the Official Gazette.

Mr. Chairman, as I see the position the Gazette is the medium used by the State President to proclaim an Act of Parliament with regard to the Republic or in regard to any other territory, including South-West Africa. The medium is not the Official Gazette; the Official Gazette is the medium used by the local Legislative Assembly, the same as a provincial council uses the Provincial Gazette. I think it is to bring it in line with the whole spirit of the administration that it is now provided that “The State President may by proclamation in the Gazette make laws for the Territory …”, and it is not necessary to include “the Official Gazette”. As the hon. the Minister has stated, it will be the practice also to advertise laws so made in the Official Gazette, but that is merely for information purposes. However, for the purpose of making the law officially effective, the Gazette should be sufficient. It has been found in the past that the time factor is important, and it is not often possible to have these two advertisements simultaneously. I am talking about the same hour. Sometimes it is necessary that this law should be made applicable with effect as from a certain moment. But as I have pointed out, I think the main reason is to bring it into line with the practice followed in the Republic. Any act in connection with South-West Africa, whether by this Parliament or by the State President, should be published in the Gazette to give effect to that law.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. and learned member for Omaruru has given an explanation which is a more reasonable one, if I may say so, than that given by the hon. the Minister, but it is still not an answer. It is not adequate. What is the object of having an Official Gazette, a Provincial Gazette? This is the point. Why are there two Gazettes, the Government Gazette and the Official Gazette? The object of the operation, as the hon. member so rightly points out, is to give information to the people as to the law. It is a means of bringing it into operation, but it also gives notice to the people that it now is in operation. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. That is why we make provision for it to be published, so that one may come to know of it by reading the Gazette. Goodness knows how many people there are that do in fact read the Gazette or the Official Gazette. But I should think that in South-West Africa the Official Gazette has been designed for people in South-West Africa to read, so that they could know by looking at that Gazette, what the laws are that affect them and them only. When they look in the Government Gazette, they there see the laws that affect them and everyone else in the country. This is how one distinguishes, and this is how we distinguish; this is the distinguishing aspect. Now we have the situation that the State President may make laws by proclamation in relation to matters upon which the Legislative Assembly may not make ordinances, and which apply only to those persons in respect of whom the Legislative Assembly may make ordinances, in other words, the people of South-West Africa. We now find that publication is no longer to be in the Gazette affecting the people of South-West Africa. We want to know from the hon. the Minister, why? The hon. member for Omaruru says that it may be difficult to publish these measures on the same day. But has there been that experience, that difficulty? We would like to know. I am sure the people of South-West Africa would like to have the laws affecting them put in their Official Gazette. This is notice to them of that fact. We heard here that this was what distinguished the Acts of Parliament which were passed applying to South-West Africa from proclamations made by the State President applying to South-West Africa. The Acts of Parliament did not have to be in the Official Gazette. They only had to be in the Government Gazette. Those proclamations had, however, to be in both of these Gazettes. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate to us why this has been done and whether, in fact, it is really necessary. Surely, he should have it in both, and surely he can withdraw this amendment. Perhaps the hon. the Minister, after hearing all the reasons that have been advanced, would, there being no reason brought out against it by his advisers, ask the committee, in fact, to vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, there are technical reasons why it is necessary for this amendment to be effected. I think the hon. member should look for the solution in the coming into operation of the Act. The hon. member would know that, according to the Interpretation Act, the coming into operation of an Act takes place at the time of publication thereof. In this case the Act has to be promulgated in the Government Gazette. The other practical problem is that the Official Gazette in South-West Africa appears at irregular intervals, while the Government Gazette. appears more frequently. Although, as has been explained by the hon. member for Omaruru, legislation in terms of section 38 will still be published in the Official Gazette there for the purpose of notifying the people in South-West Africa, it is solely intended for notifying the people in that area. The proclamations made in terms of section 38 are, however, published in the Government Gazette. They have to be published in the Government Gazette for the purpose of their coming into operation. This is the reason why provision is now being made for the proclamations to be published in the Government Gazette. The hon. member need not be concerned that, in doing this, we are taking away some of the rights, privileges and opportunities of the inhabitants of South-West Africa. It is still intended that they be notified of this by means of their Official Gazette.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, this is another one of those clauses on which the principle of the Bill rests and to which we are opposed, namely the transfer of the administration of the affairs of the Territory in regard to certain matters to Ministers in the Republic. As has been indicated by my hon. Leader earlier, we have quite a different idea for South-West Africa, namely that it should have more powers on a federal basis. This clause cuts right across the principle of our thoughts and plans for South-West Africa and in these circumstances we will vote against this clause as it involves a principle which we voted against at the second reading.

Clause 19 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—100: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—34: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell. D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton. W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell. Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 20:

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

1. (4) Any proclamation issued under this section shall be laid on the Tables of the Senate and of the House of Assembly within 14 days after promulgation thereof if Parliament is in ordinary session or if Parliament is not in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall cease to be of force and effect on 30th June, 1971, but any proclamation issued under this section and in force immediately prior to the said date, shall remain in force as if the said provisions had not so ceased to be of force and effect.

Mr. Chairman, I do not at this stage wish to raise any objection to the hon. the Minister’s amendment. As the hon. the Minister is aware, there is an amendment on the order paper standing in my name. The effect of the amendment is that all new proclamations which are made and which alter an Act of Parliament, should be laid upon the Table and that they should cease to have any effect if they are not validated by approval vote of both the separate Houses of Parliament. The hon. the Minister has moved an amendment which makes provision for the first part of the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Therefore I propose only to move in effect the second part of the amendment which stands in my name. That is to say, I should like to add another subsection after the subsections which the Minister intends to add, namely subsection (6). I move—

1. (6) Unless the Senate and the House of Assembly by resolutions passed in the same session (being a session during which a proclamation has been laid before Parliament in terms of subsection (4)) approve of any such proclamation or of any provision in any such proclamation, such proclamation or such provision thereof shall thereafter cease to be of force and effect to the extent to which it is not so approved, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such proclamation or of such provision thereof up to the date upon which it so ceased to be of force and effect, or to any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred as at the said date under and by virtue of such proclamation or such provision thereof.

What is involved here, Sir, is the simple, important paramount principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the principle that this Parliament is sovereign. As the hon. members who argued during the point of order which was taken before the second reading of this Bill kept stressing, there is a principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and no member of this House can possibly allow himself to be party to a situation where this Parliament loses that sovereignty to a member of the Executive. This is what our system is all about. This is what our parliamentary democracy rests upon.

The hon. the Minister conceded, when he replied to the second reading of this Bill, that he in fact appreciated that difficulty. He then indicated that he would propose the amendment which he has now moved. We have no objection to that amendment, but it does not go far enough. All it provides is that the proclamations must be tabled and that the power to make such proclamations will terminate in 1971. But the proclamations that are made nevertheless continue in force.

The point I think the Committee must appreciate about this clause is that here the power to amend Acts of Parliament is being placed in the hands of the Executive. The Executive is given the power to amend Acts which this House and the Other Place, in other words this Parliament, has made. This power is being expressly applied to South-West Africa. The Executive may amend those laws and then apply them on certain conditions. It goes even further. It provides that a law which this Parliament has passed and which it did not intend to apply to South-West Africa, may in fact be applied to South-West Africa by the Executive, with amendments and upon certain conditions. This is a very far-reaching power. My amendment merely concedes that the hon. the Minister may have difficulty and that there may be occasions when the laws will have to be changed to suit South-West African circumstances and that this will have to be done at once in some circumstances. But it provides that whatever changes are made to the will of this Parliament by the Executive those changes will come back to this Parliament for its approval of what was done in changing its will at that time. I do not think this is unreasonable because the amendment provides that anything done in terms of such proclamation shall nevertheless have force and effect, and any obligation created, etc., will remain up to the time when it ceased to have effect. I put this in the form in which it exists so that there has to be a positive resolution of this House and the Other Place rather than a negative resolution. You see, Sir, in terms of section 38 of the Act the State President may make proclamations in relation to the same matters in resepct of which Parliament may make laws in relation to South-West Africa namely the scheduled matters, but his proclamations must not be repugnant to an Act of Parliament and all the other restrictions which there are. But the law provides now that every such proclamation must be laid on the Table of this House and the Other Place and that it may be negatived. There is not even a provision like that in relation to this power which is a much greater power than the State President has in terms of section 28, because here the State President has the power to change Acts of Parliament applying to South-West Africa, so surely there should at least be a laying on the Table and a provision for a resolution. I have deliberately framed it as a positive resolution rather than a negative resolution so that this House and the Other Place will apply their minds to it during the session in which it is laid upon the Table. Otherwise, as we all know, after the last private member’s day is gone, the initiative rests with the Government as to whether the matter will be debated or not. Does anyone in this House remember a negative resolution ever being debated? Of course not. In the nature of things, what the Government has done it does not want undone. But, Sir, if this is a positive resolution, in other words, if it is provided, as I have proposed in this amendment, that the proclamation should cease to be of effect unless both Houses apply their minds to it and approve of it, then it will be debated and will have the attention of the House. If the circumstances in which the hon. the Minister proposes to use it, are as reasonable as he says, then there is no doubt whatever that the House will give its approval. At least it will be debated; at least we will not have abandoned our exclusive sovereign right as a Parliament to determine what laws shall be made, how they shall be changed and to whom they will be applied. Sir, it is not only a reasonable amendment but it is one to which every hon. gentleman, who regards himself as a member of this House first and a member of his party second, will agree.

In our legislation as we have it to-day numerous cases are found where it is provided that regulations or reports are to be tabled in this Parliament, as is envisaged here in the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister in regard to proclamations. The hon. member for Durban (North) now wants to introduce a new provision which is really foreign to this Parliament, i.e. that if such regulations are not approved by Parliament, they should cease to be of force and effect. What are the implications of this amendment? The implications are that every year, after the commencement of the parliamentary session, this Parliament would first have to approve all the proclamations issued in the interim, within 14 days after Parliament has met. There may be numerous such proclamations. It may be necessary to promulgate an infinite number of proclamations in order to put these adjustments into operation. In that case all those proclamations—perhaps hundreds of them—would first have to be approved within the first fortnight of the session, and if that does not happen, they would simply cease to be of force and effect. Mr. Chairman, you can imagine what would happen to this Parliament when it meets every year. You can imagine the way in which the Opposition would be able to hold up the discussion and the approval of each of those proclamations. You are also aware, Sir, that when this Parliament meets every year, Parliament has to give preference to the no-confidence motion introduced by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, one week would already have gone, and in the second week this Parliament would have to occupy its time with the approval of proclamations. It would not be possible to discuss each of those proclamations at length.

Why not?

That is simply impossible in practice. This is a completely new provision which has never before formed part of any legislation adopted by this Parliament; this is something completely new; nothing of that nature exists at the moment, and I say that it would render the functioning and proceedings of this Parliament utterly impossible. Now I want to make this statement: The objection raised by the hon. member for Durban (North) is probably that this Parliament will not have the opportunity to discuss proclamations that are promulgated. That is probably the hon. member’s major objection. But, of course, he will be afforded that opportunity. He will be afforded that opportunity in the course of the debate on the no-confidence motion; he will be afforded that opportunity during the discussion on the Part Appropriation and the general Estimates. He will be afforded ample opportunity in this Parliament for discussing any of these proclamations. The hon. member can even introduce a private motion. He is in no way restricted as far as discussing such proclamations is concerned. I therefore fail to see what useful purpose his proposal would serve.

I think the hon. member who has just sat down has missed the point altogether. He makes great play of the fact that the matter must be dealt with within 14 days of the opening of Parliament. Sir, that is not the law of the Medes and Persians. There is no reason why that should not be changed if there is any difficulty. But, Mr. Chairman, he proves our point. He paints a picture of every one of 100 regulations being debated in this House and then he says: “See how long that is going to take.” If he is satisfied that the 100 regulations so made are each going to be debated, then surely that is the answer; it is necessary to do so. He is proving our point. He is showing that he contemplates that the regulations which the State President will make will have to be debated; that is why he made that speech.

No.

Yes, of course. He does not think that they will be so innocuous and so generally acceptable that they will be accepted by this House without debate. He says every one of them will be debated.

You want to force us to discuss every one.

No, that is not what is before us. What is before us is that a decision should be taken by the House; that Parliament should apply its mind to those regulations. I want to bring to the hon. member’s notice the reports that we get from, say, the Select Committee on State-owned land or from the Select Committee on Water Affairs and so forth. We do not debate every single one of those matters when they come before us in Parliament; it is the rarest thing for them to be debated. There can be a long list of 18 or 20 items and not a single one of them will be debated when they come before Parliament because thought has been given to them and the debates have taken place previously. The very fact that the hon. member is afraid that it is going to take a lot of time in this House to debate those regulations, shows that he contemplates that the regulations will be of such a nature that they will demand debate, and he is hoping that the procedure which is now being laid down, following the terms of the Minister’s amendment, is the kind of procedure which will inhibit debate taking place in the House because of the very procedure and the rules of the House we have to follow under the present circumstances. He proves the case for us that time should be made available for this House as such to debate the measures which are laid on the Table by the Minister, after having been published by the State President.

The hon. member for Middelland raised the objection that this is a quite extraordinary amendment, but, after all, we are also dealing here with an altogether extraordinary clause which is totally in conflict with the meaning and the spirit of parliamentary government. I wonder whether there are many authoritarian states which have a measure of this nature in their statutes or their constitutions. Even if all the other clauses in this Bill were acceptable to us, we would still have had to vote against this Bill because of this clause. The hon. the Minister must bear in mind that the report of the Odendaal Commission was published a full five years ago, and the Government has had five years in which to work out its plans. Now, why this terrible haste when a difficulty or a hitch arises? Parliament sits for one half of the year and the other half of the year passes very quickly. Why does the Government find it so difficult to be able to plan properly in advance and to wait for just a few months in the recess and then to come to Parliament and say that there are certain problems which have to be solved before it can implement a specific measure? Why should there be such a hurry that for the sake of half a year it now has to take these terrible powers and is in effect adopting a principle here which is in conflict with the whole concept of parliamentary government? I simply fail to see why the Government cannot plan properly in advance. After all, here in the Republic we have instances where problems arise which cannot be foreseen. A Bill is passed here, and when it is recess and the Government has to implement it, it finds that there are hitches. Then it waits for a few months and comes to Parliament and introduces an amendment. Why should a different procedure be followed in the case of South-West?

And then you are the ones who are saying that we are implementing our policy too slowly.

The new Administrator in South-West, who has after all had a great deal to do with this measure, recently made this statement in regard to the implementation of this Bill (translation)—

If it is the case that he has given South-West the assurance that no step will be taken before it has thoroughly been worked out beforehand, why should we have this provision in this Bill? It is of such an objectionable nature that we must oppose it entirely.

The hon. member for Durban (North) raised the point here of the sovereignty of Parliament, but this legislation does not detract in any way from the sovereignty of Parliament because Parliament can always repeal any proclamation passed by the State President. Now, we of course appreciate the point. We know that very wide powers are being entrusted to the State President. Section 38 of the existing Act also gives the State President very wide powers, because of the particular position of South-West Africa. In this case we again have certain peculiar circumstances and this measure, as already explained by the hon. the Minister, is only for the purpose of applying certain laws for the proper administration of South-West Africa. It is in regard to administrative measures and nothing else and there will only be minor adjustments of the law as regards South-West Africa. Now, of course, if the Government is not trusted at all, then one would be suspicious and we also would not like powers like these to be entrusted to the Government, but we in South-West Africa know this Government. We have had this Government for the last 20 years and we know that we can rely upon this Government not to abuse its powers. Therefore, because we know that this legislation is necessary for practical reasons, we do not object to this provision. More especially now we thank the Minister for the amendment which terminates these powers within a certain period.

The hon. member for Middelland, as I understood him, indicated that this was an unusual request to make of Parliament, and he did not think it had ever happened before. The hon. member nods his head in approval, so that is correct. I recommend to the hon. member that he read the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation of this House and printed by order of this House in 1948, S.C. 8 of 1948, where he will find a summary in tabulated form of statutory instruments to be laid on the Tables of both Houses within various periods for various sorts of sanctions by Parliament. He will find on page xlv that there is a list tabulated of statutory instruments which will lapse unless approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses within a specified period. Listed there are the Currency and Exchange Act of 1933, certain sections of the Customs Act of 1944, the Coloured Persons Settlement Act of 1946 and various other Acts. This is an acknowledged parliamentary device for Parliament to keep control where it delegates its authority. There are lots of precedents for it, but I just wish to point to this in particular so that the hon. member can have a look at it before he speaks again, when he will perhaps concede that that is not a good point to make. This is an acknowledged parliamentary procedure and a very necessary one when one comes to legislation such as this.

The hon. member for Middelland says that we can debate it in the no-confidence debate, in the Budget debate and under the Part Appropriation, but that is not the point. We do not want to debate it, but what we want is for this Parliament to have the right once again to examine and decide upon what has been done on its behalf. It is not a question, as the hon. member for Omaruru says, that we trust the Government. Sir, we are permanently abandoning our function and our sovereignty unless we have some safeguard like this. It does not matter how much you trust the Government. Trusting the Government is not a function of this House. The function of this House is to see that the Government in fact does its job. It is not only the function of members on this side, but it is the constitutional function of all members. Are they prepared to abandon it and to vote against a provision which says that the Minister may change the laws made by this Parliament, and which this Parliament intended to apply in the way they were framed, and then say: We do not even want you to come back and give us an account of how you changed the laws we have passed and how you have substituted your intention for our intention? Surely we have not got to that stage. Surely there is no hon. member of this House who prides himself as a member of this House and as a representative of the people, and who is not eager to uphold the sovereignty of this Parliament? Surely, the hon. the Minister, his successor or whoever it is, will have to come back here. We, as a House, must then decide upon that issue. If I were to follow up the argument of the hon. member for Middelland, what is the issue when we debate a no-confidence debate? Do we divide on the particular issue when the division bells ring, or do we divide on all the issues that were dealt with? This is not an argument. The hon. member for Omaruru must surely appreciate the way in which legislation is initiated. He said that this Parliament may, in fact, repeal any of these proclamations. But who initiates legislation in this House? It is the Government; it is the Executive. They are not likely to initiate legislation to repeal something that they have done. It is all very well for the hon. member to say that someone on this side of the House can initiate that legislation. That is true because we can introduce a Bill. We can have it set down on private members’ day and after 2½ hours that motion will lapse. There is no provision for a Committee Stage or Third Reading to get the Bill through. Therefore it can only be initiated by the Government. No private member can get a Bill through this House unless he has Government time given to him. So these arguments mean nothing. We sit here, not as two political parties, but each and everyone of us sit here as a member of this House. We on this side are not prepared to abandon our rights as members of this House and this Parliament unconditionally to any member of any Executive, no matter how trustworthy he may be.

Mr. Speaker, if I were to play back to the hon. member for Durban (North) the speech he has just made, he would, having listened to it attentively, admit to himself that his was really a very wrong presentation of the matter and that one could not, so to speak, relate it to clause 20. He said that we were signing away our sovereign right of Parliament for ever. At least, that is one of the things he said. He said that we were now granting this right to the State President to make, by proclamation, any law. One would fully believe that what we are doing here, concerns the Republic of South Africa. In my introductory speech at the second reading I tried to explain what the object and the practical implications of this clause are. In my reply to the second reading I went even further. On that occasion I also explained to this House that I did not anticipate that this clause would be used much. It is, however, necessary for practical purposes and there is a possibility of its being used in the future. If one looks at the history of South-West Africa, one can see to what a large extent the hon. member for Durban (North) is now wresting this clause from its context. He suggested that this was a terrible sin. Until recently South-West Africa was governed by proclamation. The National Party has given the hon. member the right to exercise control over the legislation affecting South-West Africa.

In 1919.

No, not in 1919. The position was only changed in 1949 when the National Party came into power. It is not the United Party that has given you the right to make laws about South-West Africa.

But it could not be repugnant to an Act of Parliament, That is the difference.

If we look at section 38 of the principal Act to-day, we see that this presentation of the terrible thing this Government is allegedly asking for here, has been wrested from its context to an even greater extent by hon. members on that side of the House. As I explained yesterday, the clause, as it is printed in the Bill at the moment, is already subject to certain restrictions, since it does in any case merely concern matters in terms of this Act. In all probability subsection (1) (a) will never be used. In fact, the legal advisers had their doubts as to whether it was really necessary to insert subsection (1) (a). The possibility that we shall apply an Act of the Republic there by means of amendments, does exist. I suppose that South-West Africa will initially be administered in accordance with the ordinances applicable to it. However, I have made it very clear that we shall have to bring those ordinances, even if it is merely in regard to certain appellations, into line with legislation which is applicable to the Republic of South Africa. That is why it was necessary for us to insert subsection (1) (b) which grants the State President the power to effect amendments to existing ordinances in South-West Africa. Surely, I made it very clear that this was exclusively a temporary measure for putting this re-adjustment into operation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout wants to know why we are in such a hurry. It is not a question of haste, but a question of our having to do here with a theoretical Bill which has to come into force on a specific day. As from that specific day, when this Bill becomes law, it has to be put into practice. With a view to all the ordinances which exist in South-West Africa as well as the fact that we want to apply in South-West some of the Republic’s statutory arrangements in order to facilitate the practical administration of that territory, it is necessary for us to be placed in a position where we can make these adjustments by proclamation. If this should happen later in the year when Parliament is not in session, it may mean that we shall not be able to proceed with the administration, unless the State President has these powers. Hon. members opposite know just as well as I do that it is not being envisaged under this clause to effect legislation for South-West Africa. In the wording of this clause it has been stated explicitly that these powers will only be used for the implementation of these re-adjustments. At this early stage it is impossible for one to say for what circumstances one may need this provision, but it is possible that one may need it. I am sure that subsection (1) (b) will probably be used more often than subsection (1) (a), because I envisage—I may be making a mistake—that initially we shall continue with the ordinances of South-West Africa for the administration of that territory. However, since one wants to apply an Act of the Republic there, it will probably be necessary in addition to make adjustments before there can be compliance with the special circumstances of South-West Africa. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout knows that. In order to facilitate the administration and to put this re-adjustment into operation in a proper manner, it will be necessary for us to make those adjustments. The retrospectiveness to which the hon. member for Durban (North) referred a moment ago, and which is to be found in subsection (3), will apply where an amendment is effected, by ordinance for instance, in order to facilitate the practical effect of this re-adjustment. The weakness may only be found when it is already too late, and in order to legalize the administration it has to be declared to be of retrospective effect. That is all. There is no sinister meaning or ulterior motive in this; it is merely for the purpose of causing the readjustment to take place in a practicable manner. I have now gone so far as to prove my bona fides to hon. members opposite by saying that the proclamation will be tabled. I admit that this does not mean much, but to show that this is merely a temporary arrangement, I said that I would make provision to the effect that this clause would no longer be in operation after 30th June. 1971. It stands to reason that the proclamations that will be issued before that time, will remain in force. This is also being provided in the second part of the amendment I moved here this afternoon. But to come to Parliament next year or the year after with these trivialities, these minor adjustments and additions, would be impracticable. The hon. member suggests that such trivialities should be raised in and approved by Parliament beforehand, but to me this sounds like a totally impracticable suggestion. I am sorry, but I cannot agree to accepting the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister is trying to make this provision appear more trivial than it is in actual fact. If one reads this clause properly, it appears that it grants the Government the power to amend any provision of any Act of the Republic and to apply it there “with additions”. That side is continually referring to “minor amendments”. I think the hon. the Minister referred in his second-reading speech to a possible “change in wording” here and there. But here the power is taken to make additions, in other words, to create new legislation in effect.

To me there is a certain measure of contradiction between what the hon. members for Middelland and Omaruru had to say. The hon. member for Middelland suggested that there would be so many things which would have to be submitted to Parliament, that the amendment would be quite an impracticable matter, whereas the hon. member for Omaruru referred to “minor amendments”. What certainty does this House have that these will only be “minor amendments”? In the clause reference is made to “additions”, the power to create legislation in place of Parliament. The crux of the matter is that as far as we are concerned a principle is involved here.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the principle, because it has already been accepted at the second reading.

No, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention at all of discussing the principle of the Bill.

You said a moment ago that you were discussing a principle.

I am discussing the principle that Parliament should not surrender those powers in the clause.

But that has already been agreed to at the second reading.

No, Sir. The principle of the Bill as a whole, namely that South-West …

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair; he must return to the point.

My point is this, Mr. Chairman. The entire object of parliamentary procedure is that there should be criticism before a step is taken. There is no point in doing things first and then submitting them to Parliament. We as members of Parliament know that in practice, once legislation has been passed, it is too late for criticism—a government does not easily withdraw a measure. The whole object and essence of Parliament are that before action takes place there must be the benefit of criticism. The Government can still do as it pleases because it has the majority. Parliamentary government implies that legislation should be subjected to criticism before it is passed.

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause; he is discussing general matters now.

It amazes me that the hon. members for South-West are prepared to sacrifice the rights they have as representatives of that Territory, namely to afford the Government the benefit of criticism before it takes steps. In other words, they sit here as South-West members and they say, “It does not matter, we trust the Government,” but once it is too late and the steps have been taken, what can they do then? We cannot support this clause at all.

Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of the record I wish to put something straight. The hon. member for Durban (North) stated there was a difference between section 38 of the Act and this particular clause because under that section the State President was not empowered to make any laws which were inconsistent with the laws of Parliament. Subsection (2) of section 38 reads as follows—

In other words, this only applies to acts which already apply in the Territory and not to any Act of the Republic. The State President has the right under section 38 to make any law for South-West Africa as long as it is not inconsistent with an Act which already applies there. Therefore, under section 38 of the 1968 Act the State President already has the wide powers also provided for in this clause to make fresh laws for South-West Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I was not going to rise again, but I think after the hon. member for Omaruru has pointed this out, perhaps it is necessary for me to rise once more. Section 38 of the 1968 Act provides specifically for a concurrent right to make laws in respect of the territory. Without any doubt Parliament has had that right since 1949. The White Paper of 1949 puts it more clearly than any lawyer can put it. It says in relation to the then section 22 of the 1925 Act—

But that was changed by Act 55 of 1951.

What you find in the 1968 Act is the consolidation of all those measures, and here you have still two concurrent jurisdictions. Does the hon. member suggest that Parliament by some amendment abandoned its power to legislate in respect of South-West Africa? Because of the practical difficulties of an area the size of South-West Africa, with all its physical difficulties, it was provided that there should be another form of legislation for South-West Africa, and in its wisdom this Parliament decided the State President would have that power, provided it was not repugnant to an Act of Parliament. It must be remembered in this context that no Act of Parliament applies in South-West Africa unless it is specifically stated to so apply.

We are not in any way satisfied with the explanations of the hon. the Minister as to why he will not allow this House properly to re-examine, with the power, if necessary, to abrogate whatever the Minister has done so far as his power is concerned to amend Acts of Parliament. The hon. the Minister says it is impractical, but he has not convinced me why it is impractical. He is given the power to do it and we do not propose he should not have this power; he may do it. Up to the time that this House, in that unlikely event, disapproves of what the Minister has done by proclamation everything is valid, anything that has been done, any assurances given, any obligations entered into, everything is valid up to that point. That is why it is framed this way. There are no impracticalities at all. He may do just what he likes. He can do just what he now proposes to do, just what he wants to do. All we say is when he has changed what was the express wish of Parliament, he should come back here and tell us what he did so that we can approve of it or otherwise; that is all.

Then the Minister went on about laying on the Table. The only reason why in the original amendment which I placed on the Order Paper I said there should be laying on the Table at all, was that the second part is related to the first part. In other words, one laid it on the Table within a certain period after the beginning of a particular session, and unless during the session when it was laid on the Table, it was approved, it lapsed. The hon. the Minister does us no great favour by providing here that it should be laid on the Table of the House, because the Interpretation Act provides in any event that every proclamation shall at any rate be laid upon the Table of this House. So, that part of the clause which he wishes to put in is really meaningless, because it has to be laid on the Table anyway. I am very sorry. The hon. the Minister has tried to give some explanation of the matter, but …

Would you rather not have the second part?

No, we would like it. We would like the hon. the Minister’s amendment. We will accept it. Half a loaf, generally speaking, is better than none. But it does not satisfy us, even so.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to one point that was raised by the hon. member over there. The hon. member has once again done what he did before. He said that we now wanted to effect by proclamation amendments to the specific wishes of this Parliament, i.e. wishes previously laid down in legislation. Surely, that is absolutely wrong. Suppose—and this is what the hon. member means—that there is certain legislation in the Republic, and now we are granting the State President the power to apply that legislation, with amendments, in South-West Africa by way of proclamation. In other words, in the proclamation that legislation will be amended. Now the hon. member says that in passing that legislation, Parliament had a specific aim in view. Now we want to grant the State President the power to change it. That is not the case. When this Parliament made laws in order that they might be applicable to the Republic, it made them with a view to their implementation in the Republic. We do not want to change the position in as far as it applies to the Republic. We are only asking for this power to effect changes by proclamation so that they may be applied to South-West Africa. In other words, we do not want to interfere with the wishes of Parliament as expressed in legislation which we may want to apply to South-West Africa. The hon. member’s statement in respect of the ordinances of South-West Africa is wrong, too. Those ordinances were made by South-West Africa. All we are asking for here, is to effect those changes for the sake of practical adjustments, as I have said. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but these are the circumstances and I must persist in refusing to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and the Committee divided:

AYES—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

NOES—99: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided. During division—

The rule states that members who are in the House when a division is called must vote.

Should hon. members not sit on this side of the House?

Order! I have given my ruling.

Result of division:

AYES—92: Bodenstein, P.; Botha H. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—31: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

1. (4) There shall be paid into the Post Office Fund all revenue from the Territory relating to matters referred to in item 3 of the Schedule, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, any moneys in that fund appropriated by Parliament for the service of the Territory, shall be utilized for the administration of the affairs of the Territory relating to the said matters.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side again find ourselves in the difficulty referred to by my colleague the hon. member for Durban (North) in connection with the memorandum. I have the document before me which was erroneously called a White Paper by the hon. the Minister and which was also called a White Paper by us. We find ourselves in the difficulty that this document is not in its substance related to the Bill before us. We have had a very great deal of difficulty in relating the clauses in the Bill to some of the statements that are made in the memorandum which state that it is Government policy and that provision is made for certain things. In clause 22, which we have before us, provision is made for certain financial matters and in the absence of any specific reference in the Bill before us to the financial matters that are referred to in the memorandum, we have to assume that the clause before us is all-embracing and that it deals with those financial matters. Having said this I want to deal specifically with a few financial matters which are dealt with specifically in the memorandum, but which are dealt with in general terms only in the Bill. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to look up clause 21 of the memorandum on page 10. Sir, to get the substance of what I want to say, I want to quote that clause in the memorandum. It says this—

Now, Sir, I interpolate and say that it is being used for the benefit of the farming community as a whole—

Sir, here comes the element of doubt in the memorandum. It is this element of doubt which is the point that I want to put to the hon. the Minister. It goes on to say—

Notwithstanding the schedule, it stays with the Administration of South-West Africa—

The crisp point therefore is whether in fact it is contemplated by the Government that there will be a scheme joining the karakul pelt interests in South-West Africa with those in the Republic; that the existing tax will fall away but that there will be a levy under the new scheme if in fact the contemplated scheme comes to fruition, and then who will get the proceeds of that tax? Because so far as I am able to see that is dealt with somewhere here in clause 22 but because of the “ifs” and “buts” and the uncertainty which is involved in the whole of this, the position is not at all clear. The matter is one which is of extreme importance to South-West Africa, and here I would like to appeal to the hon. member for Middelland, who may have specialized knowledge in regard to this matter, or to the hon. member for Omaruru. This is a matter of importance involving a large amount of money. At the present time the farming community as a whole and chiefly the karakul pelt producers in South-West Africa are getting the benefit of the whole of that levy; they are getting it all. Now apparently they are to lose it but under certain conditions, which are not at all clear. I refer to the final allocation of the levy, in terms of a scheme—not as a tax to the central fund which is being created here for the receipt of the revenues which come from the scheduled matters here in the Republic and which have to be spent back again in South-West Africa—not in terms of the provisions in the Bill, which make those revenues come to the central South-West Africa Fund here in our Treasury but in terms of a levy provided for in a scheme. Who gets the levy, Mr. Chairman? That is what I would like to ask the hon. the Minister. I will go on, if he does not mind, unless he wants to deal with that point first. I will go on to the second point. Would the Minister like me to go on?

Yes, please go on.

Then I want to refer to the memorandum, page 11. The wording in clause 23, dealing with personal tax and provincial income tax, is perhaps a little unfortunate. It says—

It will not be necessary to introduce “them”. What is represented by the word “them”? Obviously personal tax and provincial income tax. It will not be necessary to introduce “them”. Is the memorandum saying that it is the opinion of the Government, which has issued this paper as its decisions in regard to the Odendaal Commission’s report, that personal tax is not necessary in South-West Africa? Is that what this means? Because that is what it looks like, on the ground that the Assembly in South-West Africa will have the right to the proceeds of income-tax and therefore it will not need to levy personal tax. But that is not the position, Sir. Because they have the right to levy the one tax, it does not mean to say that they will not have the other. In South Africa the provinces get a certain amount from personal tax; they get a proportion. Initially they got it all. I think sometimes it is forgotten that income tax in South Africa initially was a provincial tax. At any rate, they get a proportion of it to-day but they also have personal tax, so it does not follow that because South-West Africa has the right to levy taxation on an individual, as income tax, they will not feel that they should levy a personal tax. Does this estop them from doing so? Is it the intention of the Government that they should not have the right to levy a personal tax?

Mr. Chairman, I shall deal with the last question first. The last question asked by the hon. member was in connection with paragraph 23 of the memorandum, under the heading “Personal Tax and Provincial Income-Tax”. Obviously the hon. member is aware of the fact that personal tax and provincial income-tax are levied by the provinces here in the Republic. In other words, they are not Government taxes. Personal tax and provincial income-tax are not Government taxes; they are taxes levied by the provinces. But the provinces in the Republic do not have the power to levy income-tax on individuals. The income-tax levied by the provinces is called “provincial income-tax” here, but in South-West Africa the income-tax on individuals remains with the Administration of South-West Africa; we call it an income-tax on individuals to differentiate it from other types of income-tax. The income-tax on individuals remains with the Administration of South-West Africa, and as a result—I think that is the conclusion to be drawn here—since South-West Africa controls income-tax on individuals and this control is not transferred to the Government of the Republic, it will not be necessary for South-West Africa to consider a personal tax or a provincial income-tax, because it already has the right to levy income tax. Therefore the provincial income-tax, as we have it here in the provinces, is eliminated. The personal tax which we also have in the case of the provinces, will not be necessary. That is all that this provision means.

But will they be legally prevented? Never mind whether it is unnecessary. That is not the point.

No, they will not be legally prevented from doing so, because they retain the right to tax individuals. Whether they call it an income-tax or give it another name, they will retain the right to tax individuals, and that tax on individuals will in all probability be an income-tax.

The Farming Interests Fund, which is referred to in para. 21 of the memorandum, was instituted in South-West Africa by ordinance. The ordinance also provides how the karakul pelt export duty is to be distributed. The aforementioned ordinances are not amended or affected in the present Bill. These are the ordinances relating to this Farming Interests Fund, as appearing in para. 21 of the memorandum. Those ordinances will therefore be continued for the time being until other arrangements have been made in South Africa. In other words, the ordinance providing for the Farming Interests Fund, as provided in para. 21 of the memorandum, remains as it is in South-West Africa for the time being, and this Farming Interests Fund will be administered in terms of that ordinance until such time as it is perhaps provided in future that the circumstances should be altered.

Will it require further legislation to change it?

Oh yes. If there is to be another arrangement, other than the arrangement for which the ordinance provides to-day, then it will become necessary to change the ordinance.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clauses, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—99: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring. F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—33: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Remaining clauses put and agreed to.

Schedule put and the Committee divided:

AYES—100: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet. J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann. W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek. J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall. J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall. M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—33: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson. J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Schedule accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

It is probably not necessary for me to say a great deal in connection with this Bill. As a matter of fact, I think if I were to try to explain its motives, I would probably be under-rating the intelligence of this House. Briefly, what it amounts to is that when our Constitution was adopted in 1961, sections 150 and 151 of the South Africa Act of 1909 were not repealed, so that those two sections remain on our Statute Book, together with the schedule. These sections provide that the Republic may, subject to certain provisions, incorporate the Protectorates and the Rhodesias. You will agree with me, Sir, that in the present circumstances this is no longer in accordance with the spirit in which we form part of Southern Africa, and accordingly it has been decided that these sections should be removed from our Statute Book. I think this is also in accordance with our relationships with our neighbouring states and will also promote good relations with our neighbouring states. In the circumstances this Bill merely provides for the repeal of those two sections of the South Africa Act.

May I say at once that we support the Government in this measure before us. It may not always be the case that with regard to what the Government considers are good relations which are necessary between our neighbours and ourselves, our attitude will coincide entirely with that of the Government, but in this case we do agree. We think that the repeal of those provisions in the Constitution may well create a better appreciation of the fact that here in South Africa we do not have any territorial claims on our neighbours, and that fears which may for political purposes have been aroused in the minds of the Governments of some of our neighbours can perhaps be allayed by not only the repeal of these provisions in the Constitution Act but by the speech made to-day by the hon. the Minister in charge of this Bill, who has now clearly stated the position of South Africa. In this matter I think it is very necessary and desirable that we shall speak with one voice and make it quite clear that there is no difference of opinion and that there is not a lingering idea in the minds of some section of the political set-up here in South Africa that in the years to come perhaps old ideas of getting control of the territory of our neighbours shall still linger. Let us make it clear once and for all that we are unanimous in Parliament that that is a thing of the past, something which came to us from history, and that it goes now without regret so far as we in this Parliament are concerned. We want to make it clear to our neighbours that any territorial claims we may have had for either geographical or old legal reasons are being done away with once and for all. Therefore this side of the House supports the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This measure is a very short one and is taken mainly as a result of the decision that the Directorate of Civil Defence will not continue as it was previously, but will become a division of the South African Defence Force. As I said earlier on in a statement in the Other Place last year, this would also result in greater efficiency being attained with cooperation as an integral part of the Defence Force and the civil defence services existing in the country.

In order to attain these objectives, legal form has to be given to the relations between the former Directorate and the S.A. Defence Force. As a result, clause 1 of the Bill is necessary to integrate the Directorate of Civil Defence with the S.A. Defence Force. This is virtually what it amounts to. Furthermore, clause 2 is necessary because the proposed integration will have the effect that there will no longer be any legislative necessity for the establishment of a Directorate or the appointment of a Director. We shall now take one of the members of the Defence Force and he will be designated to manage that division, just as all divisions of the Defence Force are managed.

The provisions of section 22 B and 22 C will not disappear from the Statute Book, but are being included in the proposed clause 3 A and clause 4. Furthermore, provision is being made in clause 3 for the preamble to the present Act to be deleted, but the objective of civil defence is being retained. The preamble provided for the situation that existed previously. As regards subsections (1) and (3), which are affected by clause 4. these are matters which result from clause 2. We are just making it consequential. As regards subsection (2), the South African Defence Force is being charged with the proceedings, the functions and the duties required under this Act. Provision is being made for the continuation of existing service contracts which are already in operation. Clause 5 provides that certain work may be delegated. It is essential that the right of delegation should exist. Clause 6 is consequential upon the abolition of the Directorate of Civil Defence because the designation of specific authorities is now falling away, as I have explained. The amendments proposed under clauses 8 and 9 are mainly of a consequential nature In conclusion I may perhaps just say that the civil defence services will henceforth be organized in each command of the South African Defence Force in the closest possible co-operation with the Defence Force. Provision is now being made for an officer to serve on the staff of the commanding officer of the command. This officer will be in charge of civil defence services. He will also be in charge of the commandos in that command. A specific officer will now be designated in each command to be responsible for these services and to establish the necessary links with the public and other bodies. I therefore believe that this measure will contribute to facilitating these functions and to making them more streamlined.

Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of this Bill. We realize that administratively it will be able to lead to greater efficiency and also a certain measure of economy, because it will be possible to make better use of persons who can accept temporary duties where otherwise a full-time officer would have had to be employed. According to the old Parkinson’s law every person then appointed would have to have his own secretary and every secretary would want to appoint his own secretary, and so forth.

We also realize that there is another possibly wider implication in regard to this Bill, since under the present Civil Defence Act far-reaching powers have been granted to the Minister. For example, I am thinking of the powers which enable the Minister to interfere with private businesses and industries in order to find out what machinery they possess and what their turnover is. The hon. the Minister also has other powers of that nature under the present Act. Provision is even made for authority to set up a government, to remove population groups in times of emergency etc. These are powers that in the normal course of events will not be granted to a Minister or a Government without very strict restrictions and conditions. We realize, however, that in times of emergency it is essential to have these powers on the Statute Book. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that with the incorporation of civil defence with the Permanent Force he will remain in charge of the execution of any of those duties more specifically intended for times of emergency, but which could also be applied in peace time. In other words, the change should not be so great that when registration takes place and people are called up for training, civil defence training will form part of the military training. I think that there should continue to be a difference between ordinary military training and service and civil defence training. Therefore it will be necessary to see to it that, even if it is incorporated, there will continue to be a measure of separation. In this connection I am not using the word which the hon. the Minister used, because some of his friends do not like the word “integrate”. Even if it becomes integrated with military control, there must be a measure of separation. It must be separate. Even if there is no division and even if the duties on each level are not separated, the control should nevertheless be separated to some extent.

I now come to another point which bothers us. The original section 5 which authorizes the delegation of powers contains a proviso, which reads as follows—

In the new clause there is no proviso. The proviso refers to consultation with provincial administrations or Government Departments where they already have certain powers or authority. In the new clause that proviso of consultation falls away. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to explain to us why the proviso has been omitted and what the position is in connection with the consultation formerly contemplated.

I now come to the question of the possible damaging of effects or the injuring of people. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a person who is injured or even killed as a result of serving in the Civil Defence Force will enjoy the protection a soldier would receive. This Bill provides that damages shall be excluded in the case of a person undergoing his civil defence training, except of course in the event of a deliberate crime. If a person is injured during his civil defence training, is there no possibility that he will in fact enjoy the protection which members of the Force are afforded under the Defence Act? If the hon. the Minister will inform us on those two points, we may be able to support this Bill as it stands at present.

Mr. Speaker, the object of this legislation is to promote efficiency. Because of that we on this side of the House, as has already been mentioned, support the Bill. However, I do not think that I am doing the Department an injustice when I say that it has had rather a tough existence. While this department was under the Department of Justice it did not seem to be able to get off the ground. The same still applies although the department now falls under the Department of Defence. They do not seem to be able to make any headway. I do not blame the department for this at all. The various people who have been charged with this very difficult task have done their best but a great difficulty is of course the apathy of the public. I do not think that the public believe that any great disaster will ever strike us.

The testing of the sirens in Pretoria was given much publicity at the time, but in spite of all this publicity I was surprised to find what I did find. I happened to be there when the sirens were tested some months ago and I made it my business to inquire from people what was going on, what it was all about. You would be surprised to hear, Sir, that very few even connected it with civil defence.

This organization will have to deal not only with trouble and disaster in time of war, but also with natural disasters, like floods, earthquakes, fires, and things of that nature. One can take it for granted that a natural disaster strikes in a certain area only and assistance can be brought to that area from outside, but when it comes to a real hot war, trouble can be caused at a number of spots. What the public do not seem to realize is it is then too late to try and organize, it is then too late to train. Mr. Speaker, the training must be done now. I rise to tell the hon. the Minister I think some way must be found to make the public of South Africa, John Citizen and the rest, aware of the fact that these things can happen to us, that it is a very serious matter, and we should all take the matter very seriously. Once the public realize that and give the department their whole-hearted support, I have no doubt they will be able to make headway, undergo the necessary training and undertake the necessary preparation for that day which we all hope will never arrive.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support this measure has received and I want to thank the hon. members for their approach to the matter. I want to say at the outset that the civil defence organization, just like the divisions of the Surgeon-General and the Quartermaster-General, will be a subdivision of the Defence Force, and consequently quite a number of the posts in that division will have to be militarized. To what extent this will happen, I cannot say at this stage. There are certain posts we will not militarize. This matter is still being investigated at the moment. I do not want to discuss the policy now, because I think we can do it better under my Vote, when I shall be prepared to give more information. I just want to say in passing that we have had a very thorough investigation conducted in Europe during the past few months and that we have received a very thorough report from a person who investigated the whole question of the organization of civil defence in loco there, as well as the application thereof and the training required. We now have those documents at our disposal and they are being studied at the moment. If hon. members want to discuss that aspect I suggest it should rather be done at a later stage under my Vote. At the same time this is also a reply to the hon. member for North Rand. The entire question of propagating the matter and drawing the public into it is a complicated one, because as long as there is no danger people tend to play with their toes, but when danger descends upon them, panic arises and then everyone wants to blame someone else for no preparations having been made. Recently we had the case of the floods that hit Port Elizabeth very suddenly, and I just want to say that if it had not been for civil defence, I do not think proper control could have been established so quickly.

Our point of view is—and at the same time this is a partial reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point)—that two kinds of emergencies can arise. There is the one kind that occurs suddenly, such as a flood or a great fire or something of that nature, and in that case Civil Defence must simply act and do what is immediately required. In such a case it must use any agent or instrument or element that may come to its disposal in order to cope with that situation. But as soon as what is immediately required has been done, and the immediate danger has passed, it should be left to other bodies to carry on with the clearing, the repair work and the relief of distress. This is the one kind of emergency that can arise. The other is the emergency that can arise in time of war, and for that Civil Defence must have all the powers. Then one cannot waste time in negotiating with people; then one simply has to have the power to say what must be done. So we are trying to organize civil defence in such a way that it can be used for both these purposes. The one is a prolonged state of emergency and the other an emergency of short duration, and I think one should differentiate between the two.

The hon. member asked about the question of training. The idea is not that civil defence training should follow the same pattern as, or should form part of, the training of persons liable to military service.

Not the administration either.

No, not at all, because our object with civil defence is not to establish a second defence force. I think I said this on a former occasion already. What we want to achieve in the case of Civil Defence, is to have a very small and efficient unit of the Defence Force which has the necessary means at its disposal to handle a situation, in other words, the leader group, the people who know what they must do. For the services to be performed we must try to make use of voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross, the St. John’s Ambulance Service, the Noodhulpliga and other organizations which will join us in doing this work. We must help them to improve their training, that I concede. However, the idea is not that it will form part of the normal military service, because then the matter would become completely unmanageable.

The hon. member asked, and I hope I understood him correctly, whether there would be any compensation in the case of somebody being injured in the execution of his duties. Yes, I think there will be, but if it is not clear, we can consider putting it more clearly. The other question that was asked is why there is a small difference between the wording of clause 3 (2) as it occurs in the original Bill, and the present wording. This relates to the proviso, i.e. that you must consult first. I do not think there is any specific aim behind this; I think the legal advisers simply put it in this way. It never occurred to us that this makes an essential difference, because our point of departure is that for civil defence one must obtain the co-operation of other bodies and persons. But if the hon. member feels very strongly about this, I am quite prepared to meet him in this regard during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, it affords me great pleasure to introduce this Bill whereby the Griqualand West Local Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa is being raised to a court with the status of a provincial division. The Bill is divided into two chapters. Part 1 establishes the Northern Cape Division, eliminates the last traces of the Griqualand West Local Division and contains transitional provisions. Part 2 makes adjustments in various other laws as a result of the proposed new dispensation. Although the Bill is divided into two chapters and consists of quite a number of clauses, the various provisions have the same basic principle and in the main therefore I can confine myself to the broad principle of the Bill.

The establishment of this Division dates back almost 100 years. After the establishment of British authority in Griqualand West, at the request of the Griqua Chief Nicolaas Waterboer, in 1871, a proclamation was issued on 27th October, 1871, whereby the “High Court of Griqualand” was established. It was an independent, one-Judge court with Griqualand West as its area of jurisdiction, and its Judge was known as the “Recorder of Griqualand”. The jurisdiction of the court was the same as that of the Supreme Court of the Cape Colony.

The court had its own registrar, master and sheriff, as well as other officials who were necessary for the performance of its functions. The court could admit advocates and attorneys and from 1872 and 1874 also conveyancers and notaries, respectively. The court could also make its own rules. In passing it may also be mentioned that at its inception the Griqualand West Area consisted of the districts of Pniel, Klipdrift and Griquastad, which extended over an area of 17,800 square miles. These districts are to-day known as Kimberley, Barkly West and Hay.

When Griqualand West was incorporated into the Cape Colony in 1880, the High Court of Griqualand forfeited its independent existence, and the Supreme Court of the Cape Colony obtained concurrent jurisdiction in Griqualand West. By the Administration of Justice Act, 1882, the Cape Court was enlarged so that it had the services of a Chief Justice and eight Judges at its disposal. Of these Judges three served in the High Court of Griqualand, one of them acting as Judge-President. However, Act No. 39 of 1906 provided that the court concerned would once again be a one-Judge court. With the establishment of the Supreme Court of South Africa in 1910, the court concerned became a local division of the Supreme Court.

The area served by this court has been considerably extended since its establishment. As previously mentioned, the area originally consisted of three districts with a surface area of 17,800 square miles. For the sake of interest it may be mentioned that the area served by this court formerly included Bechuanaland, which extended over an area of almost 50,000 square miles.

In 1955 the area of jurisdiction of this court was enlarged by a further 30,000 square miles when the districts of Britstown, De Aar, Hopetown, Kenhardt, Philipstown and Prieska, south of the Orange River, were added on the recommendation of the Watermeyer Commission. To-day the area of jurisdiction of the court comprises no less than 18 districts.

But apart from the extent of the area served by it, the Griqualand West Local Division occupies an exceptional position in terms of the present dispensation by comparison with other local divisions. In contrast to the other local divisions, but as in the case of a provincial division, the court has the power to hear and decide appeals from all inferior courts within its area of jurisdiction, and to review the proceedings of all such courts. The Judges of this court are appointed for the division, while the functions of other local divisions are performed by the Judges of the provincial division concerned. The court has at its disposal a senior Judge who in various respects performs the same functions as a Judge-President. Thus he may, for example, divide the area of jurisdiction of the division into circuit districts; he may also make rules with regard to certain matters in terms of which the proceedings of that division are regulated. All these factors indicate that it was envisaged that this court would in due course develop into a full-fledged provincial division.

As in the rest of the country, development in this area has not stood still. On previous occasions representations were made to my predecessors to convert the Griqualand West Local Division into a provincial division, but it could not be done at the time. During last year similar representations were made to me, and I asked the Judge of Appeal the hon. Justice Rumpff to investigate the matter and to report to me. In a comprehensive and effective report, for which I am indebted to him, the Judge recommended that (translation)—

1. (1) the Griqualand West Local Division be converted into an autonomous provincial division to be called the Northern Cape Provincial Division and that a third effective Judge be appointed (at present the division consists of three Judges, but one has been seconded to Lesotho);
2. (2) an Attorney-General and a master, with his own guardian’s fund, be appointed for the area;
3. (3) the present arrangements which allow the Judges of the Griqualand West Local Division and those of the Orange Free State Provincial Division to act for one another as additional Judges, should remain in respect of the new Northern Cape Provincial Division; and
4. (4) the magisterial districts of Victoria West, Carnarvon and Richmond be incorporated into the new Northern Cape Provincial Division at a later stage.

Without burdening the House with a long drawn-out account of the development of the area in recent times, or of the development still in store for the area something which also characterizes the rest of the country and which we are all acquainted with, I want to inform you briefly as regards the considerations the Judge had in mind when he made these recommendations.

Mr. Justice Rumpff found that in view of the amount of work done at present in the court concerned, especially the number of reviews, which constitute a time-consuming but at the same time an important task, and the prospects of continual growth in commerce, industry, mining and agriculture, the appointment of a third Judge for the division is justified.

If a third Judge were to be appointed, it would not necessarily mean that the Division would have to obtain provincial status, but it would cause the court to a position where it can function as such. As a result the question immediately arises whether the court should not be afforded provincial status now, at the time of the appointment of a third Judge. It is immediately conceded that it is in the interests of uniformity in the administration of justice that there should be a minimum number of courts with provincial status, and that one provincial court in each province would consequently be ideal. For practical reasons, particularly the convenience of the population and the cost of litigation, this cannot be done, especially in respect of the Cape Province, which covers such a large area that two courts with provincial status already exist there. The Cape Province lends itself to a geographic division into three parts, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Mr. Justice Rumpff also found that the development of the area during the past decade and the growing awareness on the part of the population that the Northern Cape is an area with its own character and potentialities, are additional factors in favour of an autonomous division of the Supreme Court. In addition the Judge found that it is desirable that a full-fledged Attorney-General be appointed for the area, as well as a full-fledged master with his own guardian’s fund, something which is, of course, only possible if the division is a provincial division.

Interested parties have been consulted and the establishment of a court with provincial status meets with general approval. However, the Judges of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division entertain some doubts about the proposed step. They are supported by the Cape Bar. About this justice Rumpff has the following to say (translation)—

Justice Rumpff is also of the opinion that if provincial status is assigned to the court concerned, it is desirable that the court should develop into a reasonably strong court as far as the number of judges is concerned. It is therefore recommended that the districts of Victoria West, Carnarvon and Richmond, which form a geographic unit with the area of jurisdiction of the court concerned, should be incorporated in the area of jurisdiction of the court. In the opinion of the judge the removal of these three districts will not be significantly detrimental to the position of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division, and their incorporation would strengthen an independent Griqualand West. The recommendation is that the incorporation should take place at a later stage, but there seems to be no good reason why it cannot be done now.

Legislation is, of course, not necessary in respect of every aspect of the recommendations, since a number of matters can be dealt with administratively. Such matters are the appointment of a third Judge, an Attorney-General and a Master with his own guardian’s fund. So much for the general principles of the Bill. And now, Mr. Speaker, I want to express the hope that this measure will meet with the unanimous approval of the House, because by this we shall give back to the Northern Cape what it was deprived of a century ago by legislation, namely the independent existence of its Supreme Court. I recently had the privilege of opening the new Supreme Court building at Kimberley. Everything thus links up very well and I want to assure you that the community concerned will be very grateful to this House for this new development.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. the Minister at once that this Bill will have the unanimous support of this House. I think we are all indebted to the hon. the Minister for the very clear and interesting historical sketch he has given us of the history of the development of the Supreme Court at Kimberley. We are also very grateful to him for divulging to us the contents of the report of the hon. Mr. Justice Rumpff concerning this matter. I do not think there is any doubt whatever that the Cape Province, particularly, lends itself to a division of three parts with three provincial divisions of the Supreme Court. One understands that the Cape Bar Council has difficulties in this regard. Despite that we are giving this Bill our blessing. One of the thoughts that occurs to one is that the establishment of a proper provincial division at Kimberley may well help to establish what I think the legal profession needs, namely a stronger legal profession. I am now referring particularly to the Bar, which has never been a strong establishment for the reason that there was a varying pecking order amongst advocates as to who should go there and the fact that there was concurrent jurisdiction with the Cape Province so far as appeals are concerned.

Lastly I am sure that the students of civil procedure will be delighted to know that when this Bill is passed there will no longer be exceptions to the rule, namely that local divisions of the Supreme Court do not exercise appellate jurisdiction. We will therefore give this Bill our blessing.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make use of this opportunity to take up where the hon. the Minister left off when he told us that this announcement, which was greeted with so much appreciation on the part of Kimberley and the Northern Cape, was made on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Supreme Court at Kimberley. All who know Kimberley and its old Supreme Court and who have come into contact with the Judges from time to time, can bear witness to the difficult circumstances under which they had to perform their task as a result of a lack of accommodation and the cramped conditions in which they had to work and which probably did the great cause of the administration of justice no credit. However, in Kimberley we have surely now received one of the most beautiful law courts in the country. It is not only a very impressive and very effective building, but a building which will certainly prove its worth in that it will enable the Judges and all who assist them to work under very much better and more favourable circumstances and will thus enable them to work more efficiently. We want to express our sincere thanks for the establishment of such a worthy supreme court. We are also very grateful—and I am now speaking not only on behalf of Kimberley, but on behalf of the whole of the Northern Cape—and really delighted at the idea that what was taken from us about a century ago is now being restored to us and that the Supreme Court there is now to receive higher status. Not only does this mean a higher status for Kimberley, but the whole of the Northern Cape feels that its prestige has been enhanced thereby. We are very thankful for this great step forward as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. the Minister pointed out that the work which had to be dealt with by the one-judge court had increased to a great extent. He also pointed out that there was continuous growth as far as the Northern Cape is concerned. I foresee that this Supreme Court will never become a white elephant because the amount of work which they will have there will inevitably increase, because there are various factors responsible for the growth of the Northern Cape. We all know of the huge irrigation schemes, which will bring larger and denser populations in their wake. But I just want to mention one factor here, and that is a factor such as mining, which has meant a tremendous amount to the Northern Cape. In 1953 32,000 carats of diamonds were mined at Kimberley itself, and these were sold for nearly R751,000. In 1967 this increased to 128,300 carats. The value of the yield is estimated at R3½ million. In addition we think, for example, of the manganese being mined in the Northern Cape. According to the reports of the S.A. Manganese Corporation, 430,000 tons of manganese was mined in Vryburg, Kuruman and Postmasburg, etc., in 1953. In 1967 the production was 840,000 tons. Mr. Speaker, you may perhaps ask me what this has to do with this matter. I just want to motivate it. As far as iron ore is concerned, the production in 1953 was 300,000 tons …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now. Presently the hon. member will be incorporating the Supreme Court of the Cape with Kimberley!

… and in 1967 2 million tons. I submit to your ruling, Sir, but I just want to make the point that these tremendous mining activities have led to a very large increase in the population, and this inevitably means that there is a much greater amount of work.

Mr. Speaker, just one last observation. In the past, as the hon. the Minister indicated, cases often had to be dealt with in Cape Town, causing great expense to the people in that area. The fact that cases can now be dealt with in Kimberley, will inevitably result in a great saving. We are therefore grateful for this step forward and we believe that that area and the administration of justice in general will benefit by this.

May I say right at the outset that I hope that the references by the hon. member for Kimberley (South) to the production of diamonds at Kimberley are not going to result in a great deal of business being done by this particular court.

I rise, Sir, to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Durban (North), and to say that this side of the House will support this measure. I have been associated with the City of Kimberley all my life and I merely take the opportunity now to place on record the appreciation of every public body in the Northern Cape of the efforts of a number of men, three or four of whom I shall mention by name, who have worked for many years to get the jurisdiction of this court extended and to have its status raised. Sir, this is the result of over 20 years of pressure or public requests to the governments of the day that this particular step should be taken. My mind goes back to the late Jack Lange, known as J. H. Lange, who was a practising attorney at Kimberley nearly 30 years ago. He was one of the first men to put this proposition forward. This was carried on by a Mr. Russell Elliott, also an attorney and a prominent man in the Northern Cape Development Association, of which the hon. member for Queenstown was at one time the president. This Association, too, has done a tremendous amount of work in bringing this case to the notice of the Government. I think on this occasion it is only right that the efforts of these men should be acknowledged. Finally, a great deal of credit goes to two Judges, both grievously ill at the moment, Mr. Justice Otto Beyers and Mr. Justice de Vos Hugo. These gentlemen saw the need and the necessity for extending the jurisdiction of this court, and when Mr. Justice Rumpff put up his report they were delighted. I can only add, as the hon. member for Durban (North) has said, that we appreciate the fact that the Minister has told us what the recommendations were.

Finally, Sir, the type of building which has been erected is a credit to the Minister’s Department and a tremendous addition to the public and Government buildings of the city. I have pleasure in associating myself with this proposition and I would like personally to thank the Minister for his kindness to that part of the country.

I am just rising to express my gratitude to the House and especially to the two hon. members who represent that area for the words which they uttered here. I am very grateful that the hon. member for Karoo referred to Mr. Justice De Vos Hugo and the former Mr. Justice Otto Beyers. They strove for this cause and I regret that they are not well to-day. In conclusion I just want to say, as I said in my introductory speech, that Griqualand West is getting what belongs to it and what was taken away from them about 100 years ago.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The Public Health Act at present provides for the subsidizing by the State of the salaries of various categories of qualified health personnel, such as medical officers, sanitary inspectors and nurses employed by local authorities. In the case of a sanitary inspector the State pays one-third of the salary and in the case of public health nurses, seven-eights.

As we all know there is a shortage of sanitary inspectors and public health nurses all over the country. In order to encourage persons to qualify in this field, training bursaries are made available by the Department of Health, but unfortunately many persons, even with help of the bursaries, cannot afford to undertake full-time study in this field.

The Department of National Education has, in addition to full-time courses, also instituted part-time courses for sanitary inspectors and public health nurses.

A Committee appointed by the then Department of Higher Education found that the part-time courses, which, incidentally, are mostly taken by persons who are working for a living, are enjoying poor support. In order to enable more persons to take these courses and to encourage local authorities to appoint learner sanitary inspectors and learner public health nurses who may then take the part-time courses and at the same time gain valuable practical experience under the supervision of qualified staff, the committee recommended that the State should subsidize the salaries of the learners as well.

To give effect to the recommendations of the committee, it was proposed that legal provision be made for the subsidizing by the State of the salaries paid to learner sanitary inspectors and learner public health nurses by local authorities.

In view of the object of this proposal, it was decided to leave it to the Minister to decide about the basis of the subsidy. This would enable the Minister (a) to fix the subsidy on a level which, in his opinion, would encourage local authorities to employ learners; and (b) to change the basis of the subsidy without amending the Act, if it were subsequently found that the subsidy as fixed previously, was not sufficient to achieve the object of the Act.

I sincerely hope that this measure will make a substantial contribution towards relieving the present shortage of sanitary inspectors and public health nurses. I am furthermore convinced that, as in the past, we can rely on the co-operation of local authorities in our effort in this respect. I appeal to them accordingly.

This Bill is welcomed by this side of the House. It makes provision for certain assistance to local authorities, assistance for which we on this side have asked on several occasions, and we are gratified to find that this new Minister is studying what we have said in the past. Up till now the Health Department has acted rather as a drag on public health nursing and on subsidization for learners. This led to certain local authorities employing district nurses as health visitors, nurses who were not trained as health visitors, because the Department of Health subsidized district nurses at a lower rate than the rate at which they subsidized health visitors, whom we regard as an advance in public health treatment. The second clause, particularly, rights this wrong and we hope that the present very grave shortage of public health nurses throughout the country will be eliminated. There have been practically no recruits into this branch for several years.

I just want to mention one other thing to the Minister and that is that a new type of public official is now arising, particularly in Rhodesia. This has been found in Rhodesia to bring about a great saving in hospital fees. I refer to the health educator, particularly among the Bantu. I would like the hon. the Minister to study this matter and to consider if he cannot make provision somewhere for the subsidization of health educators. Sir, we welcome the Bill.

I thank the hon. member for Durban (Central) for the support he has accorded this Bill from that side of the House. I just want to reply to one point mentioned by him, viz. the possibility of subsidizing the health educator as well. It forms part of the task and part of the duties of the public health nurses to do educational work in regard to hygienic and other conditions. Provision is therefore being made in this case to subsidize this kind of work as well. I thank hon. members for their support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Hon. members will recall that when the temporary basis on which subsidies are paid to the provinces was extended for another year last year, my predecessor held out the prospect of submitting a White Paper as well as the Schumann and Borckenhagen Reports to the House within a year, if at all possible. I think the House will agree with me that the structure of financial relations among our various levels of government and particularly the basis on which subsidies are paid to the provinces, form a very important element in our national economy. The phenomenal development of South Africa during the past few decades, but especially during the past eight years, made increasing demands on our entire governmental structure and on government financing on every level. In a vital and vigorous state such as the Republic great changes take place within a comparatively short space of time. The demands to be met by our governmental structure in the interests of the country are becoming greater and greater. Calculated and balanced measures, also in connection with the arrangement of the financial relations between the Government and the provinces, are necessary in these circumstances in order to ensure a solid basis for sound, continued growth. Mr. Speaker, I can tell hon. members that no effort has been spared to make it possible to submit the proposed White Paper to the House at the earliest possible opportunity. The preparation of a White Paper on each of the reports and the formulation of fundamental principles for consideration by the Government are receiving our intensive attention and have in fact reached a very advanced stage. Furthermore, everything possible is being done to lay the two reports, together with a White Paper on each, upon the Table in the course of this Session. While we are endeavouring to achieve the aforementioned aim within the course of this Session, it is nevertheless realistic to accept that it will not be possible for, in the first place, the finishing touches as regards the technical details and, in the second place, the entire treatment of the matter by Parliament itself to be completed within the present financial year, of which less than two months remain. This Bill is therefore being introduced to extend the existing temporary arrangement, with which the House is already familiar, as an interim measure for another year on a similar basis to that of last year.

I may just mention again that where during the past few years a province found it impossible to balance its finances during any financial year, the Government supplemented the statutory subsidy with a special extra-statutory grant which was voted by Parliament.

The four Administrators have also been notified of the proposed extension.

I believe this is the first Bill which the hon. the Deputy Minister has had to handle in this House, and I congratulate him on the clear way in which he has put his case. I must say that listening to his speech I was reminded of the old children’s hymn which starts with the words: “Tell me the old, old story.” The fact that we have a new choir-boy, or perhaps I should say a base singer, performing here, does not alter the fact that what the hon. the Deputy Minister has called a “tussentydse maatreël” has been a temporary makeshift for the last ten or 12 years. So he must not blame us if we point out that we have been hoping year after year for some permanence to be arrived at in regard to the relations between the Government and the local authorities and the provinces; because these relations have really been in a state of suspended animation for years and years. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister has held out a gleam of hope to-day. He has told us that the matter is of extreme importance, which I may say we have already appreciated, but he has also told us that they are working day and night to get the White Paper prepared and he hopes to give us some definite information on the subject before the end of the Session, and if we do not get legislation this Session we may hope to have it, at any rate, next session. That being so, there is nothing for us to do but to accept this Bill and to express the hope that the Deputy Minister’s optimism, as a new Deputy Minister, will be translated into action and that we shall in due course, and before very long, see the results of his activities in his new Department.

I am glad to hear from the hon. member for Constantia that the Opposition will support the Bill, but I am sorry he spoke of the “old, old story”, as if the Government had not done its duty in this case. I just want to tell him that this matter is an extremely important and comprehensive one. These financial relations between the authorities are in the present circumstances outdated and it is important that we should find a new formula to the benefit of all. Therefore it is important that the report to be issued should be a properly founded and thorough one. Therefore I want to ask the Opposition to be patient, because I am sure that when this report and the White Paper have been issued this matter will have to be discussed, they will again ask that the discussion of the matter be postponed, because I doubt whether they will be able to digest it in the meantime. It is just that they like to cast a reflection. The Borckenhagen Committee brought out ten reports and sat for many years. The Schumann Commission also sat for four years. They dealt with an important matter, and I think this report they are going to bring out will shed new light on financial relations in this country.

I just want to express my appreciation for the unanimous support being accorded to this measure. I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia for the sentiments he expressed towards me personally on the occasion of my first handling of a Bill in this House, and on that account I appreciate the support and the lack of criticism the more. May I just say in passing before I sit down that there has perhaps not been the delay in this matter which the Opposition would like to suggest. The report of the Schumann Commission was finally completed in 1964. By that time the Borckenhagen Committee had been handing in interim reports and it became apparent, because these two commissions were investigating matters which were very closely related, namely the financial relations between the Government and the provinces and that between the provinces and the local authorities, that the reports of these two bodies had to be considered simultaneously. As you know, Sir, and as the country knows, the Borckenhagen Committee only handed in its final report in 1967. So I submit that it is only since 1967 that the Government has been in a position really to give its full attention to this whole matter, which it certainly has done. May I also inform the House that last year a highly qualified and very competent official was specially seconded to deal with this whole matter and he worked on it for practically a whole year. That is perhaps one of the reasons why we have made such progress and why we could to-day give the House the information that we have done.

Once again I wish to thank the House for supporting the measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will notice from the long title of this Bill, its object is to provide for the transfer of the assets, rights, liabilities and obligations of the Land Bank of South-West Africa to the Land Bank of the Republic; to apply the Land Bank Act of the Republic to South-West Africa; and to provide for other incidental matters. For the sake of convenience, I shall henceforth refer to the Land Bank of South-West Africa as the bank of the territory.

As appears from the report of the Commission of Enquiry into South-West Africa Affairs and the memorandum in which the decisions by the Government on the financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa were announced, the incorporation of the bank of the territory with the Land Bank of the Republic is included in the re-adjustment of administrative, legislative and financial matters relating to South-West Africa.

The merits of the re-adjustment as such were discussed by this House during the debate on the South-West Africa Affairs Bill, and consequently I shall not go into those merits again on this occasion. I may just mention that measures to provide for the envisaged incorporation of the bank of the territory with the Land Bank of the Republic could not, from the nature of the case, be included in that Bill because of the fact that the Land Bank is not a Government Department but an autonomous institution which was established by separate legislation.

The principal object of this Bill therefore is to abolish the bank of the territory as a separate institution and to extend the functions of the Land Bank of the Republic, which in essence corresponds to those of the bank of the territory, to South-West Africa. In practice this amounts to the bank of the territory being incorporated with and becoming a branch office of the Land Bank of the Republic. Where necessary, provision is being made in the Bill for the entrenchment of certain reservations imposed by the Government in connection with the incorporation, for example that the bank of the territory and its debtors will not be prejudiced as regards their existing rights and obligations, and that separate books have to be kept of the assets and liabilities of the bank in South-West Africa subsequent to this incorporation. Another aspect in this connection which this Bill covers is an amendment to the Land Bank in the Republic from six to eight members in order to appoint, in accordance with the Government’s decision, two additional members from South-West Africa to the board. The present staff of the bank of the territory becomes part of the staff of the Land Bank of the Republic subject to the provision that their rights and privileges will not be less favourable than those applicable to them at present. The bank will also be given the authority to pay members of the present staff of the bank of the territory who have retired from service on reaching the age of retirement, or to their dependants, the same allowances to supplement their pensions as those paid in the case of a member of the staff of the Land Bank of the Republic who has retired from service.

After incorporation new loan funds for utilization in the territory will, as in the past, be provided as far as possible from South-West Africa by way of annual appropriations by Parliament from South-West Africa Account to the Land Bank of the Republic. Statutory provision for the appropriation of loan funds to the Land Bank of the Republic and for the determination of rates of interest on its advances already exists in the Land Bank Act and consequently it is not necessary to make provision for that in this Bill.

The Bill makes provision for the repeal of all Acts relating to the bank of the territory, but the provisions of those Acts will remain applicable to existing loans which have been granted by the bank of the territory prior to incorporation. Although the provisions of those Acts correspond for the most part to those of the Land Bank Act in the Republic, there are nevertheless certain points on which they differ to a minor extent and which may impede the future administration of such existing loans after they have been taken over by the Land Bank of the Republic. Consequently provision is being made, where necessary, in the Bill to eliminate problems of this nature. In this way the same statutory powers with regard to the attachment and sale of immovable property mortgaged to the bank of the territory, are being granted to the Land Bank of the Republic as those the Bank has in the Republic, without prejudice to existing debtors of the bank of the territory.

A further point in regard to which existing debtors of the bank of the territory are being put on the same footing as debtors of the bank in the Republic, is the provision in the Bill enabling the Land Bank of the Republic to grant debtors of the bank of the territory the same assistance as it grants debtors in the Republic by way of extending the terms of loans, deferring capital redemptions, changing the due dates of instalments and consolidating arrear interest. Provision is also being made in the Bill to enable the Land Bank of the Republic to grant a further loan on second mortgage to a farmer who has already received an advance from the bank of the territory on first mortgage. In addition, in view of the fact that the Fencing Act of the Republic is not at present being made applicable to South-West Africa, the Land Bank of the Republic is being empowered to grant fencing advances to farmers in the territory in connection with the provisions of the Fencing Proclamation of South-West Africa. Where necessary, the Land Bank Act is also being amended to grant the bank the same powers with regard to the application of certain provisions of the Farmers’ Assistance Ordinance and the Administration of Estates Act of South-West Africa to a debtor of the bank, as those which apply in terms of corresponding Acts of the Republic. In this way, too, any reference in the Land Bank Act to the Deeds Registries Act is being supplemented by a reference to the corresponding provision of the Deeds Registry Proclamation of South-West Africa, which remains applicable there.

In conclusion the Bill makes provision for the transfer to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure of certain existing loans under distress relief and other schemes which have been administered by the bank of the territory on behalf of the Administration of South-West Africa. The few remaining provisions of the Bill do not relate to the incorporation of the bank of the territory. These provisions merely substitute expressions such as “State President” and “Republic” for “Governor-General” and “Union” in the Land Bank Act, whereas a reference in the Act to the Currency and Banking Act of 1920, which was repealed a long time ago, is being deleted.

The provisions of the Bill will come into operation on a date to be announced by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give the same measure of support to this second Bill of the hon. the Deputy Minister as we gave to the first one. The hon. gentleman points out that this Bill follows on the Bill which we have been discussing earlier to-day in the Committee stage. For that reason he did not think it necessary to deal at length with the reasons. The same applies to this side of the House. We have made our views on this whole question quite clear. We expressed them in both the Second Reading and Committee stages. The arguments which we used are all, I think, quite valid in respect of this Bill as well. I am not going to repeat our views any more than the hon. Deputy Minister expressed his. But suffice it to say that this Bill goes quite contrary to the views which we hold on this side of the House in regard to the future of South-West Africa, as to what it ought to be. We had hoped, at least I hoped, that the hon. the Deputy Minister would be in a position to give some fresh reasons why this Bill is really being introduced. The reasons which we had so far for the major measure does not seem to be in the least adequate for bringing in this Bill. The Bill, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has explained, is proposing to abolish the Land Bank of the territory, to do away with it altogether and, in its place, to centralize everything in the Land Bank of the Republic in Pretoria. I must say that the theme song of this Government seems to be “Marching to Pretoria” because everything that we do seems to be centralized there, a policy which we think is quite wrong. I have no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister in his heart of hearts thinks that too. Here it is being proposed to abolish a body which is well suited and situated; which has a good record and, as far as we know, nobody on the other side of the House has suggested anything otherwise. It is carrying out its functions fully and serving the needs of the people of the territory. Therefore, we want to know why it is necessary to upset this well established, thoroughly satisfactory organization, which has been supplying the needs of the agricultural community in the territory for many years at a considerably lower rate of interest than that of our Land Bank to our farmers. Why is it necessary, even assuming that the major Bill which we have been discussing was necessary, to do this as well. Surely, the general policy of this Government could be carried out without interferring with this very valuable and much valued instrument operating in the territory itself. We can find no reason. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the same reasons which have been advanced in the last few days are valid here as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out that it is proposed to enlarge the board of the Land Bank by two members so as to include two representatives from South-West Africa. That is in accordance with the memorandum. There is, however, nothing in the Bill that says so. All that the Bill says is that the board is going to increase from a minimum of six to a maximum of eight. I should have thought that the hon. the Deputy Minister, if it is really the intention that two of those members must be from South-West Africa, would have made provision for that in this Bill. Otherwise, there would be nothing to show what the intention of Parliament was in enlarging the board of the bank and nothing to show that Parliament had in mind protecting the rights of the present bank in South-West Africa. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will be well advised to consider amending the relevant clause to make it perfectly clear that these two new members should be from South-West Africa.

As I have said, having regard to the general lines of the policy which the Government is following towards South-West Africa, a policy which we think is far from being in the interest of the territory and which we have opposed so far, we shall also oppose the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as regards South-West Africa’s feelings about the introduction of the Act of which the hon. the Minister of the Interior was in charge, and in view of the fact that we have already advanced the reasons for closer co-operation and the re-adjustment of administrative and legislative matters, I do not want to cover for a second time the entire field of all the advantages we mentioned yesterday and the reasons why the members of South-West Africa and the inhabitants of South-West Africa feel that they can only benefit from these steps. I am going to try to avoid a repetition of those reasons and advantages. Whereas the inhabitants of South-West Africa have been given the assurance that the re-adjustment will be brought about with the least degree of disruption to the population of South-West Africa, I just want to say that I am extremely grateful for the fact that this Bill, which deals with the Land Bank and assistance schemes administered by the Land Bank, reflects that very same spirit. Consequently the inhabitants of South-West Africa are completely satisfied with this Bill, and they accept that this Bill contains nothing detrimental to farmers in South-West Africa. I want to point out that if hon. members opposite had made a thorough study of this White Paper, they would agree with me that the undertaking which the Government has given, as contained in this White Paper, is being redeemed in this legislation. I want to refer to everything that has been taken into consideration. Farmers’ associations in South-West Africa are opposed to the introduction of compulsory mortgage insurance, and this has been taken into account in this Bill. The bank is being placed in a position to give farmers advances on favourable conditions as the bank will be able to obtain loans from the Revenue Fund of the territory at low rates of interest. This South-West Africa arrangement will also make provision for sufficient funds to be made available, and funds from the territory will as far as possible be utilized for the farmers of South-West Africa. Existing rates of interest, which are lower than those of the Republic, will be maintained in South-West Africa until sufficient funds can no longer be supplied from the South-West Africa Account. Consequently we may accept with a reasonable degree of certainty, considering the spirit in which the Government is going to apply this legislation to South-West Africa, that the present dispensation will not be disrupted within the foreseeable future.

Objections were raised here because in future everything would allegedly have to go to Pretoria. But this will not be necessary. In view of the fact that two members are going to be appointed for the territory, as has been mentioned here in this House and is stated in the White Paper, and in view of the fact that two people are going to be appointed as advisors at the branch office in South-West Africa, I cannot see how there can be any disruption whatsoever. I do not agree that applications by farmers will inevitably have to go to Pretoria. As in the past, they will be able to go to Windhoek to put their case without their having to go to Pretoria or having to put up with any disruption.

Therefore I want to conclude by saying that the members of South-West Africa are fully acquainted with everything this measure implies for us. We are in favour of this measure and therefore want to express our gratitude to the Government for having taken into account in framing this legislation all the different circumstances to some extent in South-West Africa. We support this legislation wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Karas has just said that it was not worthwhile mentioning the reasons why this legislation would be beneficial to South-West Africa.

Because that has already been done.

Yes, he said that those reasons had been furnished, but I still want to know how South-West Africa will benefit once this change has taken place, i.e. when the Land Bank has taken the place of the bank of the territory. I want to deal with some of the reasons mentioned by the hon. member. He said it would not be necessary to make application in Pretoria. The hon. member probably knows what procedure the Land Bank follows with regard to applications. Applications are submitted to a board which deals with all applications. In spite of the fact that South-West Africa is going to get two members on the board, applications will still be dealt with in Pretoria. The board will be in Pretoria, and not in Windhoek. Surely this is a real difference. But I want to proceed. This legislation contains a whole number of other disadvantages, and these I want to bring to the special attention of hon. members of the territory.

In the first place, the funds of the bank of the territory will be reserved for utilization in South-West Africa. If the funds of the bank of the territory which are now going to be transferred to the Land Bank in Pretoria are inadequate, loans will be made to the South-West Africa Account by the Land Bank of the Republic. The hon. the Minister who dealt with the South-West Africa Affairs Bill earlier this afternoon specifically said in reply to a question that, in view of the fact that there is a difference of from 2 to 2½ per cent in the rates of interest, borrowers would have to pay the difference between the rates of interest if the funds of the bank of the territory were exhausted and loans had to be made from the Land Bank. I repeat the question, will borrowers who obtain loans when South-West Africa is operating on borrowed funds have to pay the higher rates of interest or will there be an equalization interest rate? I cannot conceive of some borrowers having to pay 4 per cent and others having to pay per cent. In addition there are other conditions which apply in the case of the Land Bank of the Republic but not in the case of the Land Bank of South-West Africa. This legislation also has other disadvantages, not so much for people in South-West Africa as for individuals in the Republic. It is true that an amount of R100 million is not a tremendous amount when compared to the Land Bank’s availability of funds, but there are large funds which have been made available to South Africa’s Land Bank by the boards of control of levy funds. This was done on the specific understanding that they were making the funds available to the Land Bank to be used for assisting the farming community of the Republic. Rates of interest are between 5½ and 6 per cent according to the term of the loan and the date on which it was placed with the Bank. Although there are not many of them, there are boards that collect levy funds in South-West Africa, and in some cases, for example in the case of the wool industry, they collect very little in levies because of the difference in quality between the wool of the territory and the wool of the Republic. There are boards, however, that have deposited as much as R10 to R20 million with the Land Bank. As far as this legislation is concerned, I do not see any major advantages to South-West Africa and even less to the Republic. I see no disadvantage in the bank of the territory continuing to operate as in the past nor in the Land Bank continuing to operate as in the past. I do not know why it is necessary to pass this measure. If this legislation is going to facilitate and improve the matter of financing the farmers of South-West Africa, or if it is going to simplify the procedure, somebody must tell me how it is going to do so, because I cannot find this in the measure. If the only reason for this is the forging of closer links between us and the Republic, I repeat what was said in this House before, namely that this is not the right time to do so and that this measure should be dropped, because at the moment things are still running smoothly and there is nothing wrong. If it were detrimental to South-West Africa to continue with the system at present being applied, that would have been a different matter. However, I have already mentioned two specific disadvantages as far as this legislation is concerned. In the first place there is the difference between the rates of interest on loans, and in the second place, large funds have been made available to the bank by various boards in the Republic to be utilized to the advantage of farmers of the Republic. It has never been the intention that that money should leave the borders of the Republic.

May I ask you a question? Cattle, inter alia, from South-West Africa are marketed in the Republic and certain amounts are levied by the Meat Board. Is that not money which comes from South-West Africa?

If the hon. member had listened, he would have heard that I had dealt with that matter. I said there were boards of control that collected levies on South African products. This applies to dairy products, meat and wool, but this is not general. There are 18 boards of control in this country, the majority of which has funds with the Land Bank, but not a single cent of that money has been collected from the farmers of South-West Africa. This money has been made available to the Land Bank on the specific understanding that it was to be made available to the farmers of South Africa.

I simply cannot see why this legislation is necessary. To me it seems untimely and needless. I do not see any advantages to the farmers of South-West Africa in this legislation, nor do I see any advantages to banking or to the farmers of South Africa, and I cannot see any harm in the present system remaining as it is. Consequently we find it difficult to give our support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia expressed doubt in connection with the two members from South-West Africa to be appointed to the board of the Land Bank. From the White Paper it is very clear indeed that the board will be enlarged to eight members of whom two will be from South-West Africa. This is a decision of the Government. The incorporation of the Bank with the Land Bank of the Republic is, after all, part of the Odendaal Report, which was adopted by the Government of the Republic as well as by this House and the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa. The entire Odendaal Report is being implemented, as we saw to-day during the discussion of the South-West Africa Affairs Bill. It surpasses my understanding how hon. members opposite can now expect this part of that report to be left in abeyance. For what reason would the Government want to do so? The point at issue is not so much the advantages and disadvantages of this legislation. This is part of the Odendaal Report which, as I have said, was adopted. It will not matter to South-West Africa whether hon. members opposite are opposed to this. They do not know what is happening in South-West Africa.

I already have a farming enterprise there.

The hon. member may have travelled through there, but he has no idea of what is happening there. Green Point is too far away from South-West Africa for the hon. member to know what is happening in South-West Africa. The inhabitants of South-West Africa have no complaints about the bank of the territory being incorporated with the Land Bank when the re-adjustments are made. It is a pity, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, that all these matters could not have been dealt with in one piece of legislation: otherwise this would have been included in the re-adjustment legislation. In that case it would not have required separate legislation.

Hon. members opposite are always very suspicious, and I now want to ask them the following question. The Republic, and the Union before, has always been in charge of quite a number of Departments in South-West Africa. I have in mind Railways and Harbours, for instance, which have never been under the control of the Administration of South-West Africa. Have those Departments not been run properly? Other Departments are Defence, Immigration, Foreign Affairs, as well as the Department of the Interior. What complaints do they have in this connection? Have they ever asked for these Departments to be placed under the control of South-West Africa as well? Have they ever asked that the Administration of South-West Africa must also take over that part which has always fallen under the Republic? Have they ever asked that the Administration itself should control its railways, its defence, its immigration, its department of the interior, its foreign affairs, its customs and excise, etcetera? If they are opposed to this re-adjustment, these closer links, is that what they wanted? No, no one has ever suggested that.

As I have repeatedly said, the people in South-West Africa have confidence in the Republic and the Government. In spite of the dangers on the northern boundaries of the Territory, peace and calm prevail in South-West Africa, and for that reason all people in South-West Africa, except a few United Party people here and there—there are not many of them in any event, and as we saw here yesterday their numbers are dwindling every day—are quite satisfied with the readjustments, including those relating to the Land Bank of the territory and the arrangements between the banks.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Opposition is opposing this measure is perhaps quite understandable in view of the opposition they have been conducting for two days to the South-West Africa Affairs Bill. Consequently their opposition is quite understandable. Their standpoint is logical and completely consistent. In view of the fact that they demand a logical and consistent standpoint from themselves, I am very sure that they will also find a logical and consistent standpoint on our side. On that basis this Bill is completely justified. In view of the fact that we have just passed the South-West Africa Affairs Bill in this House and that everyone on this side of the House voted in favour of that, it is understandable that we shall also submit the accompanying measure which relates to the financing of agriculture in South-West Africa and that we shall make that re-adjustment as well. I want to point out to hon. members that that was a unanimous recommendation of the commission of enquiry. I also want to point out to hon. members that this measure resulted from a unanimous decision of the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa. This is our justification for introducing this measure.

The hon. member for East London City tried to make an issue of this matter by asking what specific advantage this measure really had. The fact of the matter is that the Land Bank of South Africa has very wide borrowing powers, whereas financing by the Land Bank of South-West Africa has been very restricted in that it could obtain loan funds only from the Administration. We must admit that theoretically this constituted a restriction for the old Land Bank. Because the Land Bank of South-West Africa could obtain its funds only from loan funds of the Administration, I think a situation could have arisen in South-West Africa where this would have meant that a ceiling would have been placed on the Land Bank of the territory. In that case it would simply not have been able, because of a lack of funds, to have carried out those functions which might subsequently have arisen. Should such a situation ever arise in the future, South-West Africa under this dispensation will be under the wings of the central board of the Land Bank of the Republic. Our Land Bank is not dependent for its funds on the approval of this Parliament. It has free borrowing powers on the capital market of South Africa. Therefore I put it to the hon. member for East London (City) that this is a measure which has the potential of major future benefits to the farmers of South-West Africa.

The hon. member for Constantia said that the Land Bank of South-West Africa had been doing fine work. Not one of us will deny that. On the contrary, I think that to-day may be a suitable opportunity for addressing a word of gratitude to the bank as it used to be constituted. I also want to thank the officials for the way in which they have been serving the bank and for the fine work they have been doing for agriculture and the farmers of South-West Africa. Consequently this is not a point of difference between us and the Opposition. However, we want to give the farmers in South-West Africa the assurance that they are coming in under a land bank that has also been doing very fine work here in the Republic and is still doing so. They are not coming in under a dispensation about which they cannot rest assured that they will at least receive the same quality of service and administration in future as that which they have known in South-West Africa.

Hon. members also raised other points. The hon. member for Constantia referred to the increase in the membership of the board from six to eight members. He asked why that had not been included in the Bill and why we had not written that into the principal Act in order to specify such membership. My reply to that is that this is in any case based on the decision of the Government as contained in a memorandum at present before this House. Arising from this decision we have this Bill which is now under consideration and which implements that decision. I think that has some meaning too.

In addition I want to say that I have consulted our Land Bank Act. Our Land Bank Act does not provide that the members of the board of the Land Bank have to be appointed in pairs from all over the Republic. The Land Bank Act merely lays down that a number of members are to be appointed. If hon. members are not satisfied with the appointments, they have the following right. I quote from section 4 (4) of the following Land Bank Act—

1. (4) The name of every member of the board shall, within fourteen days after his appointment, be laid upon the Tables of both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament be then in session, or if Parliament be not then in session, within fourteen days after the commencement of its next session.

I think this is a guarantee which hon. members opposite and all hon. members have. The names of the members appointed are tabled in this House. Hon. members may discuss and criticize those appointments, and consequently I do not regard it as being necessary, nor can I give this undertaking, to amend this Bill in order to provide that two of the members should always be from South-West Africa. I think South-West Africa has adequate assurance from the Government, on the grounds of the White Paper, the decision of the Government and the present amendment to the principal Act, that two members will come from South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister the question to which he has not, as yet, given me a reply? I do not know whether he intended doing so. The hon. the Deputy Minister explained the additional borrowing powers which the Land Bank offers insofar as it is financially possible for us ….

If the hon. member wants to ask a question, he should not make a speech first.

When loans are granted by the Land Bank in the Republic, by the bank of the territory or from that special account, will that be done at the higher rates of interest applicable in the Republic? How is this then going to be collected on the other side?

Mr. Speaker, I intended dealing with the rates of interest, because hon members had raised the matter. I now want to deal with this matter. We can discusss the details during the Committee Stage. Because the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for East London (City) referred to the rates of interest, I want to quote from the White Paper, paragraph 25 (2)—

At present there are certain existing Land Bank loans in South-West Africa. These loans are contractual obligations existing between farmers and the Land Bank. The Bill provides specifically in clause 2 (2) that all the existing obligations of the bank of the territory will be taken over by the Land Bank in the Republic. In other words, under the old dispensation a contractual obligation will exist between the farmer and the Land Bank up to the date when the new Act comes into operation. That contractual obligation will be taken over by the Land Bank of the Republic and those rates of interest will continue to apply and may not be changed. This is exactly the same position which applied in the Republic prior to 1959. The rates of interest on loans entered into prior to 1959 may not be changed either, because at that time the Land Bank did not have the power to do so. The contractual obligations between the Land Bank and persons who entered into loans prior to 1959, may not be changed. In 1959 the Land Bank obtained the statutory power to adjust the rates of interest on any loans entered into to the current rates of interest. Hon. members know that during the past few years the Land Bank has not done so. As regards new loans entered into in South-West Africa after this Bill has come into operation, the White Paper states explicitly that current rates of interest will be maintained as long as adequate funds can be obtained from the territory itself. I think we have every reason to expect that it will always be possible to vote sufficient funds from the South-West Africa Account for the requirements of the Land Bank, as is the case at present. The board of the Land Bank is bound to this decision of the Government in any event. When there are no longer adequate funds; when the requirements of South-West Africa have increased to such an extent or when requests from farmers have increased to such an extent that the funds are no longer adequate, we shall have a new administrative situation with which the board of the Land Bank will deal according to its statutory powers derived from the Land Bank Act. This is all I can say in this connection.

I also want to give hon. members the assurance that there will not be any particular delay. Why should there be any delays? We in the Republic have been living with this system for many years. I represent a constituency which is situated far from Pretoria. My constituency’s nearest branch office is in Cradock. I can give you the assurance, Sir, that we are not experiencing any difficulty as far as delays are concerned. We can also give the farmers of South-West Africa the assurance, because of the fact that they have a branch office in Windhoek, that they need not have any fear about delays. If the hon. members of the Opposition want to move any amendments, we can deal with them in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—90: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet. M. W.; Diederichs. N.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—31: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.