Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am moving this motion in order to give effect to a unanimous resolution of the Committee. Although the Committee has reached an advanced stage as far as hearing evidence is concerned, it deems it desirable to take further evidence in respect of certain aspects of its investigation. It also wants to afford the Select Committee staff an opportunity of processing and making available to members of the Committee such evidence as has already been submitted. Naturally the Committee had to sit long hours in an attempt to report within the time laid down, with the result that the staff, who have to deal with other committee and Hansard work as well, could not keep up. Besides, the Committee itself still has to study the evidence given, as well as all the papers submitted together with it, in order to be able to prepare a report. In terms of the original instruction by the House, the Committee has to report before tomorrow, but under the circumstances the Committee regrets that it necessarily has to ask for an extension of time. Hence this motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since we are now discussing this legislation in its last stage, I want to inform the hon. the Minister that nothing happened during the previous stages which in any way caused the attitude of this side of the House to change. I must say that we are rather disappointed with the attitude the hon. the Minister adopted in regard to this legislation, for the simple reason that we do not think that the subdivision of agricultural land is such a great problem as the hon. the Minister tries to make it out to be. We are more inclined to believe that if there is one thing which the modern farmer realizes, it is the fact that he should not subdivide his land in such a way that any of his heirs will find it difficult to make a livelihood from any portion of that land. As far as we are concerned, therefore, we think that the solution to this problem does not lie in restricting the farmer of South Africa to any further extent than he is already being restricted by legislation which stands on our Statute Book or by powers which were or are in the hands of the provinces to deal with this matter.

The hon. the Minister introduced this legislation to extend his powers in this respect even further; in other words, to give himself further powers of deciding whether or not a farmer may subdivide his land. It is not only in that respect that the Minister went further; he also took additional powers to be able to say how that land may be utilized in future. In the second place the hon. the Minister even went so far as to accept an amendment moved by one of the hon. members on that side so that it may also be provided whether subdivision can take place or not in regard to land of a farmer who may have agricultural land in a municipal area.

I think that the effect of the clause in question will not only restrict township or residential area expansion in certain towns, but I also think that the hon. the Minister will in future, through his actions, prevent certain farmers who own such land from obtaining from such land what they would have liked to obtain from it. Many of the people who own this type of land may be in a position that it is not very good agricultural land and that they cannot obtain a decent dividend on their capital, but as a result of the power which the hon. the Minister will have in terms of clause 1, he can prevent such a man from obtaining a decent realization of his capital. The effect of this clause will also be that where a farmer thought of the future and envisaged a new development on that land, the Minister will be able to determine that the development of that land will lie only in the direction of agriculture. As a result of clause 1 the hon. the Minister will cause even the heirs of such a farmer to be given a raw deal, because they will not be able to use that land for township expansion or for industrial purposes because that hon. gentleman thinks that that land should be used only for agricultural purposes.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree that if he has that power in his hands, it is similar to a position where any other Minister takes the power to determine the future of a person, depending on whether he has shares, and how many garages, shops or flats he owns. This hon. Minister will, with this step, cause even people who thought that they could in due course build up a good estate to discover at a later stage that that estate had decreased considerably.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who is always pointing out and telling us how much sympathy he has for the small farmers of South Africa, to tell us whether this is an example of sympathy with and commiseration for the small farmers in this country. If the hon. the Minister had really been sympathetic towards them, he would not have been prepared to interfere in this way with the rights and privileges of these people. I am referring to clause 3, in regard to which there was a long altercation during the Committee Stage in this House, and also to clause 4. Is the hon. gentleman aware that previously it was in the hands of the local authorities and the provincial authorities to say in what direction town expansion could take place? This hon. gentleman is now going to say to those people that they cannot subdivide land without his permission if they should want it for town expansion. This is totally unnecessary, and the hon. the Minister can cause the development to go in a specific direction merely because he is of the opinion that if it were to go in another direction, it would include good agricultural land. This will once again cause the farmer who has good agricultural land to be placed in a weaker position than the man who has poorer agricultural land. This means further interference in the future of the farmer who is in the fortunate position that he is near an urban or peri-urban area where development is taking place daily. This legislation also means that the hon. gentleman can prescribe the conditions under which the subdivision of land may take place. In other words, it depends on him. If he says that that land cannot be used for a brick factory, or if he says that a large poultry farm cannot be established on 15 or 20 acres, then it will not be possible to do these things. It will all therefore depend on the goodwill of that hon. gentleman.

You are not able to do that at all today.

We on this side of the House are of the opinion that this is not a power which a Minister of Agriculture ought to have. As much freedom as possible in this respect should be given to the farmer of South Africa. Not only has the hon. the Minister restricted the powers and the functions of the local and the provincial authorities, he has gone even further. The hon. gentleman has seen fit, in clause 10, to deprive the provincial authorities of another power they used to have. They were able to restrict me if I wanted to subdivide land into sections smaller than 25 morgen. If I wanted to subdivide into larger pieces than that, I did not need their approval at all. Now the hon. gentleman comes and deletes that provision. That means that if I wanted to subdivide land into larger sections than 25 morgen, I must go to that authority to obtain approval for that. No reasons, no acceptable reasons, no well-considered arguments have been advanced from the side of those hon. gentlemen as to why these powers are necessary today. The only conclusion we on this side can arrive at is that the hon. gentlemen are not satisfied with the direction in which the agricultural industry is going today and that the hon. the Minister would like to have further powers in this respect. Why is it necessary for him to take powers in this respect? If the hon. gentleman would rather ensure that the agricultural industry in South Africa is a paying concern, there would be no reason why agricultural land should be subdivided. If the farmer makes a decent profit, the chances that he will want to subdivide will be much less than the chances of that are today with the present circumstances in the agricultural industry. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to that kind of thing rather. Then he will keep the farmers on their land; then the farmer will not want to make extra money from his land. If the hon. the Minister sees to it that the profit basis in agriculture and the remunerativeness of the agricultural industry rises, he will find that everyone will be satisfied with their land, regardless of the size. That is why we object to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while we are dealing with the Third Reading debate of this important measure which is now before the House, the hon. member for Newton Park comes once again with an argument in which he expresses his dissatisfaction with the contents of this measure. It would seem as if the hon. Opposition has not, during the past decade and more, taken stock of the farming industry in South Africa. I want to aver that with the Third Reading of this measure we shall have reached a milestone in respect of the control over the subdivision of agricultural land. I want to tell the hon. member that if he had gone about in this country with his eyes open during the past few decades he would have seen how a great deal of good agricultural land, which was valuable to the agricultural industry, was being subdivided into small units. What did this lead to? It led to farming being practised on small units which were totally uneconomic, so much so that most of the occupants of those small subdivided units adjoining our towns and cities could not make a good livelihood. The hon. Opposition always poses as the friend of the farmer, but here it is opposing a measure the precise purpose of which is to prevent that position in which many farmers find themselves as a result of subdivision. With all the laws the hon. the Minister has up to this stage had at his disposal, we were still not able in any way to prevent or counteract this uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. What does the Opposition want? Do they want this situation— which became rampant not only in the peri-urban areas but everywhere in the country, where people perhaps out of ignorance and perhaps for reasons of sentiment, made subdivision possible by way of testamentary disposition and in that way created precisely the position in which so many of our small farmers have found themselves and were therefore not able to make an economic existence—to continue? That hon. member and his party object to these powers being bestowed on to the hon. the Minister. But who else can exercize control over this matter of the subdivision of land? The hon. Opposition does not have the courage to stand up and say that it should be left in the hands of a council or of officials. They will not do that; they simply criticize this legislation because they begrudge the Minister the power to be able to act when it is absolutely necessary. I have already said that conditions such as are discernible throughout the entire country today are sufficient proof that a stop should be put to this situation and that no further uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land should be allowed. That hon. member must also bear in mind that what is involved is not always the size of the unit, for even a small unit can be an economic one for a small farmer. In these cases the hon. the Minister must exercise his discretion, on the advice of his department. It is absolutely essential that he should have this discretionary power. In the very first clause of this Bill it is stated very clearly that what is involved here is all land, with the exception of certain land. A great fuss was kicked up here about land which belongs to city councils, municipal councils and other councils, but when I look at clause 1 I can state quite unequivocally that this matter refers specifically to all land except land which falls under such councils. The argument advanced by hon. members opposite during the Second Reading and Committee Stage, i.e. that the Minister can interfere in a municipal area, with regard to the subdivision of land, is not the actual position as contained in this Bill. In clause 1 land which is situated “in the area of jurisdiction of a municipal council, city council, town council, village council, village management board, village management council, local board, health board or health committee” etc., is excluded from the provisions of this Bill. This deals therefore with agricultural land and not with land within a municipal area, or other land. For everyone who has the interests of agriculture at heart, there is ample proof of the threatening dangers which have already to a large extent impoverished many of our small farmers.

At the end of his speech the hon. member also stated that the hon. the Minister, and of course the Government as well, should ensure that the profits of the individual small farmer should be such that he can gain a good livelihood. I should like to hear from the hon. Opposition what powers and methods one can apply, whether it is price manipulation or anything else for that matter, so that small farmers can be helped to farm in such a way that they will be able to make a profit. It is impossible for a Government or a department to ensure this. They can help with information and to a certain extent with price manipulation, but then it is not yet an indisputable fact that the small farmer will in fact be able to make a decent living on such a unit. In this case I could mention examples. There are cases of people who began farming on large economic units, which they had inherited, and then sold those properties after a few years because the liabilities had become too heavy. I also know about units which were declared uneconomic units, and where those farmers, after a few years, were farming so progressively on those so-called uneconomic units that they were able to purchase further units. The argument based on the supposition that an agricultural unit is uneconomic purely because of its size is really a very poor argument. It is not the exclusive reason. That is why the hon. the Minister and his department can exercize their discretion, and they have these powers through this measure. In clause 4, to which hon. members on the opposite side objected so vehemently, it is quite definitely stated that certain powers shall be bestowed on the Minister. In terms of that clause he receives discretionary powers. He may determine whether or not a unit may be subdivided and he may also determine for what purpose that unit may be used. These are powers which are necessary today. This is for the guidance of the person who wants to continue a practice on a certain unit. I do not want to take up much of the time of this House. However, I am certain that contrary to what the hon. member for Newton Park asserted here this afternoon, the agriculturists and the farmers in South Africa will be greatful to the Government for the control which is being taken here today and the powers which are being bestowed on to the hon. the Minister. These powers will not be applied in a cruel and unreasoning way, but will be exercized after consultation, and taking into consideration the circumstances. We welcome this legislation and think that it will save the small farmers from a very difficult time in future. This guidance which they need is indispensible and it will prevent agricultural land, which is only becoming increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive, from being subdivided indiscriminately in future by ignorant and perhaps wilful persons to the detriment of the agricultural industry. We are very grateful that we have progressed to this stage with this legislation which is now on the point of being passed.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House reject the contention that we are not concerned with the proper use of agricultural land. We have shown, not only in the present debate, but also in many other debates in this House, that we have not only sound and practical policies for the future of farming in South Africa, but policies which also will provide a far better future for the farmers of South Africa than those of that side of the House. We are opposed to this legislation, not because we are in favour of uneconomic use of agricultural land—we have made that clear —but because it is bad legislation. It has already been proved to be bad legislation by the very fact that the original Act, passed only about 18 months ago, has had to be amended again this year in several very important respects. I do not wish to go into details. We have already debated the amendments in the previous stages of this legislation. We pointed out that it was not correct to describe these amendments, as did the hon. the Deputy Minister, as merely to remove a few administrative problems.

There are some fundamental changes effected by this Bill. First of all, the Minister is being given the power, not only to decide on applications to subdivide agricultural land, but also to determine how the land which he allows to be subdivided shall be used and for what purpose. This legislation is, in our opinion, bad, because it does not deal with the fundamental problem which the Government wished to deal with in the original Act, namely the uneconomic subdivision of land. The Government was unable to find a proper formula for this problem, and therefore brought in a Bill simply giving blanket powers to the hon. the Minister to deal with applications as he chooses. I want to ask the hon. member for Harrismith who has just sat down, whether he and the farmers in his area are satisfied that the hon. the Minister should have complete discretion in regard to applications for subdivision of agricultural land, without Parliament having set any norms or bases upon which to decide an application of this sort. He is entirely free to grant one application and to refuse another on the same basis if he wants to do so, and he could not be challenged. It is bad legislation, furthermore, because it gives the hon. the Deputy Minister a complete and unfettered discretion. There is no power of appeal to any authority of any sort. The Minister’s decision is final.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Harrismith that he is quite wrong in suggesting that the Bill excludes all land under the jurisdiction of local authorities. He has obviously overlooked the very important amendment which was introduced by a member on his own side of the House, namely the hon. member for False Bay, and which was accepted by the Government. If he looks at the Bill which is now before him, as it has been amended during the previous stages, he will see the exclusion which now appears at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of “agricultural land”. That means that the Minister now has the power to bring back into the definition of “agricultural land” any land whatsoever which he chooses within local authority areas. I made the case, and I repeat it briefly at this stage, that this is going to place local authorities in the position where they will not be able to finalize any plans satisfactorily because at any time this Minister can take out of their local authorities any land he chooses and declare that to be agricultural land under his control.

There are other aspects of this Bill to which we have strong objections. We have made them clear during the previous stages of this legislation, and I do not wish to labour the point at this stage. However, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell us something regarding the point which I discussed with him in the Committee Stage, namely the question of the registration of servitudes. I believe that in the case of servitudes which are in the process of being registered, a similar provision to that contained in section 2 (f) of the original Act should apply. I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has given this matter consideration and what his attitude is in this connection.

In conclusion I wish merely to repeat that we do not regard this Bill as one which merely introduces a few administrative changes. We believe they are fundamental changes and we have strong objection to these. We believe that this in no way improves the original Bill, to which we had strong objections. On the contrary, we believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister and this House will find that the amendments which are being introduced will create many new problems. I predict that the Government will be coming to this House to further amend this Act, if not next year, then the year thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I just want to inform the hon. member for Musgrave that, with regard to the suggestion which he put forward in respect of servitudes, we are discussing the position with the law advisers to see whether we can give effect to this. If it does appear to be the case, and if it is in any way practicable, we shall move the necessary amendment in the Other Place. In my opinion it seems that we will in fact be able to do this.

I now want to reply briefly to those two hon. members. The hon. member for Newton Park asked: “What about the heirs?” Sir, we thrashed out this entire position in the Second Reading. The hon. member claims that the Minister of Agriculture wants powers to enable him to say how land may be utilized. These are all popular stories, which go down well outside Parliament where people are not always well-informed. However, let us take the case of a piece of land which is under irrigation, situated near a town, and where his friends, the township developers, want to utilize that land. The hon. member was speaking for the township developers. Sir, I made up my mind that I would not become angry; I am going to remain perfectly calm. The township developer says, for example, to the owner of that land : “I offer you R2 000 per morgen.” Now, say that is the only land below a dam near that town which can be irrigated. Adjoining it lies broken country which cannot be irrigated. It is so unthinkable now that a person should have the power to say to that owner: “You have irrigation land; we can utilise the water from that dam only on that specific piece of land.” And is it so unthinkable to say to the township developer : “Plan your development just a little further away.” The hon. member said that with this legislation we were going to cause delays with the establishment of residential areas. Our aim is in fact not to do this. The hon. member said a person will now have to come and ask the Minister for permission if he wants to subdivide 10 morgen on which to start a poultry farm. But, until an hour ago, before the ratification of the Act, there was no authorization in terms of which he could subdivide 10 morgen, because we prohibited this in 1970. The hon. member for Musgrave said that the fact that we have to amend this legislation after 18 months is in fact proof of how unpractical it is. But with what purpose do we want to amend that Act? It is because we have now applied it in practice. I read out to hon. members the list of appeals we had in this connection. There were only a small number of people who asked the Minister to give a decision. Most of those cases we approved. Suppose a person comes along to the Minister and says that he wants to establish a poultry farm, or a quarry, or a filling station, and he wants to subdivide half a morgen in the veld for that purpose; we have no power to allow this.

But you can also refuse that request now.

Yes, but previously we were not able to do this at all. There was a need for this; under the province they were able to subdivide 25 morgen. We want to streamline the position by inserting this clause, but the hon. member for Newton Park refers time and again to the additional powers we are taking. I have said that a good government is a government which not only seeks popularity but which sees to it that we distribute the land in the correct manner. Why may we not then have the right to give a decision in this regard? Mention was made of delays. But hon. members can return next year and tell us where we cause delays. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services goes out of its way, with the co-operation of the Surveyor-General, to dispose of applications for subdivision as quickly as possible. When an application is received, a decision is given within a month as to whether subdivision may or may not be applied. We try to cause no delays as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member also referred to the small farmer. He thought I was posing as the champion of the small farmer. I have told the hon. member before that if he would rather advocate that the farmer should receive a decent price for his produce, we would have no problems in regard to uneconomic units. That is the aspirant Deputy Minister of Agriculture! Now he says to me: Rather give the farmer a decent price for his produce. But do you know, Sir, since I have been sitting in this House of Assembly, that hon. member has never yet given me his opinion in regard to the price of a bag of wheat or a bag of maize. To this day I have not yet heard him say what it should be. I asked the hon. member every year: “Tell me, what is your price for maize?” Sir, he must deal very carefully with the man who buys the maize and also with the man who produces the maize.

Production costs plus.

But then the hon. member must determine the “plus” and give me the figure. The hon. member must tell me what the price is. It will be heavenly if I can go to the farmers and say: “Do you know, the United Party says this is the price of wheat or the price of meat or any agricultural produce.” It is easy to sit back in your bench there if you know you are not going to take over the government of the country. It is easy then to say: “Give the farmers a decent price.” If I take stock of the standpoint of the Government in regard to these small farmers, I see what the position today is in respect of financial aid. That hon. member is not listening. He has said to me already: “Is it not a mistake for the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board to concentrate on allowing agricultural credit of as much as R30 million in one year in amounts of R50 000 and R60 000?” The State gives no assistance to the man who is a big, well-to-do, prosperous farmer; that man will simply have to go to the commercial banks. The hon. member said that he had thought we were sympathetic towards the small farmer. I say again that this is the man whom we want to protect in agriculture.

Sir, I want to conclude with this idea: I am not acting here in the interests of people who want to make money, people like township developers and land speculators who want to buy up land and then subdivide it into five or 10 morgen plots in order to enrich themselves. I am not prepared to act on their behalf. Those are the people whom that hon. member wants to protect, and that is why we are sitting on different sides of the House. My clients are the small farmers; that is the man whom I want to protect.

You want to keep them poor.

No, I do not. Our entire mode of action is in fact aimed at consolidating their land; at getting larger units for them. Sir, this Bill was initiated by the five agricultural unions of our country. Every province, including South-West Africa, said to us: “Please give us a law to prevent the land from being subdivided into uneconomic pieces from which people are unable to make a livelihood.” It is sometimes not popular to say “No”, but a good father must sometimes be able to say “No” to his children. If he is for ever saying “Yes”, then you subsequently have a nation which looks like hon. members who are sitting on that side of the House. We must act firmly, and sometimes say “No”, even if it makes us unpopular for that moment. The South African Agricultural Union has thanked us repeatedly for this legislation. Hon. members on that side can try as much as they like to make as much political capital out of this matter as they can; they will achieve nothing.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In 1970 the National War Fund (1939-1945) and the Governor-General’s Fund (1914-1918) were amalgamated in terms of the National War Fund Act, 1970 (Act No.81 of 1970), under the name “National War Fund”. This amalgamation was brought about mainly because the two old funds had common objects and were administered parallel to each other. As a result of the amalgamation the collateral administration was eliminated, which brought about simplification and particularly saving.

The amalgamation of the two former funds meant that the title deeds of the fixed property and mortgages registered in favour of the National War Fund (1939-1945) had to be suitably endorsed in favour of the new fund. The Registrars of Deeds of the various provinces disagree in their interpretations of the provisions of section 1 (3) (a) of the National War Fund Act, 1970. Some of them are of the opinion that those provisions empower them to endorse the title deeds concerned in the name of the new fund without further ado, while others take the view that the said provisions are not applicable to title deeds. Of course, it was never the intention that the new fund should incur transfer duties and transfer costs anew in having the properties it acquired as successor in title of the National War Fund (1939-1945) registered in its name. Accordingly the amendment is being made in order to bridge this problem. It has the approval of the new fund. The Governor-General’s Fund (1914-1918) possessed no immovable property and therefore it is not necessary to extend the proposed amendment to assets of that fund.

In the proposed section 1A (2) it is made clear, as is customary, that no fees shall be payable in respect of any substitution of the name of the National War Fund (1939-1945).

This, Mr. Speaker, is a full explanation of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill that is now before the House is, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, merely of an administrative nature and flows direct from the amending legislation which was adopted in 1970. The amending legislation of 1970, which ultimately became Act 81 of 1970, amalgamated the Governor-General’s War Fund and the National War Fund in respect of the two major world wars. It was a measure which received the support of this side of the House, because we realized that the Governor-General’s War Fund was then reaching a stage where it would be advisable for it to be amalgamated with the National War Fund of the 1939-’45 World War.

We on this side of the House have no objection to the measure which is now before us. It is one which has become necessary mainly because of an omission, perhaps, when the 1970 legislation was passed by this House. It is noted that payment of transfer fees and stamp duty will not be required in terms of this legislation, whereby the title deeds will be altered and registered merely in the name of the National War Fund.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has also indicated, in answer to the one query which we had in mind, i.e. in connection with the position of any property or any title deeds held in the name of the Governor-General’s War Fund, that there are no deeds standing in the name of the old Governor-General’s War Fund and therefore it is not necessary for that fund to be included in this amending legislation. We on this side of the House have pleasure in supporting this measure, which is in the interests of the National War Fund, which is doing such a great deal of good for ex-servicemen.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for supporting this measure on behalf of the Opposition. I do not think it is really necessary for me to elaborate any further on any aspect of this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is not contentious. As is indicated by its long title, this is an essential piece of legislation to legalize certain marriages.

The Bill contains two proposals for the amendment of the Marriage Act, 1961, proposals aimed at preventing marriages from being invalid as a result of merely technical irregularities. The undesirable consequences for the parties to the marriage and for their children later on when their marriage is not valid, need not be outlined to hon. members. You are all familiar with them. Just think of the consequences for the children born from a marriage which subsequently proves to be invalid; the children are then in the position that they are illegitimate children. The Bill which is now before the House for its consideration is aimed at preventing these serious consequences for people and their children when the marriage concerned does not meet some requirement of minor importance.

Before I proceed to explain the contents of the Bill I would like to mention by way of introduction that the Act which now stands to be amended, the Marriage Act, 1961, controls the solemnization of marriages in South Africa and specifies the requirements which must be met by parties desiring to be joined in matrimony. It is common knowledge that in terms of these requirements parties desiring to be married have to—

before they could be joined in matrimony. Hon. members will remember that these prerequisites for a marriage were abolished by the Marriage Amendment Act of 1970. This Act recently came into force, on 1st February, 1972, and now it is no longer necessary for parties intending to be married to cause banns to be published, or to cause a notice of intention to marry to be published, or to obtain a special marriage licence before they may be married.

†Mr. Speaker, clause 1 of the Bill before the House deals with an amendment of section 22 of the Marriage Act, 1961.

Section 22 of the Marriage Act, 1961, as it now reads, is to the effect that:

1. (a) if an error has been made by one of the parties to a marriage; or
2. (b) if an error, omission or oversight has been made by any person;

in interpreting the section, or in carrying out the section, in so far as the section provides for the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry, or for the issue of a special marriage licence, such error, omission or oversight shall not invalidate the marriage, provided the marriage has in every other respect been solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act. In other words, section 22 of the Marriage Act as it now reads provides for the condonation of errors made in the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry or in the issue of a special marriage licence.

However, on two occasions the Supreme Court has determined that the only errors that can be condoned in terms of section 22 are those errors that have been made because there has been an erroneous interpretation of the Marriage Act in so far as the Act provides for the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry, or the issue of a special marriage licence. This means that the parties to a marriage must actually have read the provisions of the Marriage Act and have misunderstood such provisions. There are many errors which do not result from a wrong interpretation of the Marriage Act. Rather are the errors that are usually made, errors such as wrong names stated in banns to marry, or names omitted from banns, or omissions to publish a notice of intention to marry in the district where one of the parties resides, or an omission to publish banns at all. From the decisions of the Supreme Court to which I referred, it follows that these errors which are of a purely technical nature cannot be condoned, with the resultant effect that the marriages in respect of which these errors were made are invalid with all the serious and unpleasant results for the parties and their children which follow from such invalid marriages.

Hon. members will no doubt agree with me that this is a very undesirable state of affairs. It is for this reason that in clause one of the Bill now before the House, provision is made for the amendment of section 22 of the Marriage Act.

The proposed amendment is designed to ensure that a marriage shall not be invalidated when errors of the kind I have described have been made in the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry or the issue of a special marriage licence. After the Bill has become law these purely technical errors will no longer have the result of invalidating marriages with all the undesirable consequences flowing from invalid marriages. Hon. members will have noticed that the present proviso to section 22 of the Marriage Act is extended. The proviso now proposed is to the effect that the technical errors to which I referred will be condoned not only—

1. (1) provided there was no other impediment to the marriage, but also
2. (2) provided the marriage has not been dissolved or declared invalid by a competent court, and
3. (3) provided that neither of the parties to such marriage has after such marriage and during the life of the other, already lawfully married another.

The reason for this proposed extension of the present proviso to section 22 of the Marriage Act is to ensure that a marriage in respect of which the errors I have described earlier, have been made but which errors have in view of the proposed amended provisions of section 22 of the Marriage Act been condoned, shall not be regarded as valid when the circumstances outlined in the proviso are present.

Hon. members will doubtless have noticed further that the proposed amendment of section 22 of the Marriage Act is couched in the past tense. The reason for this is, as I have explained at the beginning of my speech, that the necessity to publish banns or notice of intention to marry or to take out a special marriage licence has been abolished as from the 1st February, 1972, and is no longer a prerequisite to contracting a marriage.

*I shall now proceed to explain the contents of clause 2 of the Bill. I have already explained that the provisions of the Marriage Amendment Bill, 1970, came into force as from 1st February, 1972. One of the provisions of this Amendment Act is that not only magistrates, but ministers too, must now follow the prescribed formula when solemnizing a marriage. In the past, ministers were allowed to follow only the formula of their church when solemnizing a marriage, but now they have to follow the prescribed formula, in the same way that magistrates do. They can do this in addition to the formula of their church. The prescribed formula reads as follows (in Afrikaans)—

and thereupon the parties shall give each other the right hand and the said marriage officer shall declare the marriage solemnized in the following words—

†For the convenience of hon. English-speaking members, I repeat the prescribed formula in English.

Do not worry, I do not accept your proposal in either language.

It reads—

and thereupon the parties shall give each other the right hand and the said marriage officer shall declare the marriage solemnized in the following words—

There can be no doubt that all the members now understand what I mean.

*It is possible that the magistrates and other officials who acted as marriage officers in the past did not follow the prescribed marriage formulary closely in all cases, although the number of cases must be small.

It is also probable, now that all marriage officers have to follow the prescribed marriage formula, that it may happen more often that the prescribed marriage formula is not closely followed.

It may also have happened in the past that parties intending to be married, in the case of marriages before magistrates, may have omitted to give each other the right hand, or may have been unable to do so because of a physical handicap.

These irregularities which were committed or may be committed in good faith now cause the marriage concerned to be invalid, with all the undesirable consequences arising from such an invalid marriage for the parties and their children.

To prevent a marriage from being invalid as a result of such irregularities it is proposed, by the amendment of section 30 of the Marriage Act, 1961, by the addition of subsection (3), to arrange for all marriages prejudiced by such irregularities to be valid and binding, providing that (1) the marriage concerned was otherwise lawfully contracted, (2) it has not been dissolved or declared invalid in the meantime, and (3) neither of the parties have after their marriage contracted another marriage in the meantime.

This ensures, as in the case of technical errors in the publication of banns, that marriages will not be invalid as a result of merely technical errors in the following of the prescribed formula. But here, too, the provisos which I dealt with during the explanation of clause I will be applicable.

Before concluding I would like to give hon. members the assurance that the provisions of the Bill in no way affect the basic requirements for contracting a valid marriage. One of these basic requirements for a valid marriage is the requirement that in the case of minors wishing to marry the permission of their parents is required.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill comes as no surprise to us on this side of the House. We warned the Government that this legislation would be necessary when the 1970 Bill was introduced; we warned the Government because, as is their wont, they were trying to legislate for every facet of life without any opportunity of pragmatism and without any manoeuvrability in the laws which they enact. This is the difficulty with which the hon. the Deputy Minister is now faced, namely the rigidity of the 1970 legislation in regard to the formula. I want to remind the House, if I may, shortly of one or two remarks which I made at the time when the same legislation was debated in 1970. I refer to Hansard, Vol. 29, col. 818 of the 31st July, 1970, where I said the following—

That is what we on this side of the House offered to the Government in 1970, but it fell on deaf ears or had unwilling listeners and now we have this legislation. We will support it, because we believe it is necessary.

Did you not put any amendment at the time?

We raised the matter because we believed that it was not necessary to have the ipsissima verba. If the hon. member for Potchefstroom wishes to abdicate the seats on that side of the House and give them over to us, we will legislate and do the drafting for him. Obviously we have first of all the retrospective effect of this legislation which again we realize as being necessary. I want to ask the Minister about one matter, because the rigidity remains and this is merely a condonation of non-conforming with the rigidity, with the ipsissima verba, namely who is going to apply the test as to whether or not the mistake was made in good faith? This opens up a wide area of collusion to which I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given consideration. If two spouses find that their marriage is not working and if they recollect that they did not put right hand into right hand they can say that they did that deliberately because they did not want to be married, that they will save the expense of a divorce and that their marriage is null and void. They will then go off, get married elsewhere and this Bill will then not apply to them. They are then single, the marriage is annulled by agreement between the two parties, that their non-conforming with the specific requirements was not in good faith and that it was done deliberately. Who is to test this? This is the problem which faces this Government over and over again, because of its method of legislation. They want to legislate for every movement and act of our human relationships. There was no problem when the church formalities were used and when each church was able to use its ordinary formula. I hope the hon. the Minister of the Interior will give consideration to the question whether we really should keep on our Statute Book the rigidity of the 1970 legislation in so far as the form of marriage is concerned.

There is another point which I wish to raise. I would have been tempted to press it if I were of the opposite sex. My curiosity has overcome me and I would like to know the number of cases that make it necessary for this legislation to be retrospective. I take it that the hon. the Minister will observe the privacy, no doubt, to which the couples concerned are entitled, and that he would not disclose to me why it is necessary to make this legislation retrospective. But obviously cases have occurred. He referred to two Supreme Court cases and, no doubt, there must be others.

In supporting this measure, I want to say that it is a stopgap measure and that serious consideration should be given by the hon. the Minister to a reversion back to the form whereby the churches themselves could use their normal marriage procedures with the necessary formalities, signatures and declaration of marriage which normally apply. One attends church weddings and one is used to the ceremony in one’s own particular denomination or church. Now one suddenly finds a minister in a religious service switching over to the not very poetic words which us lawyers sometimes use to express a cold contract. That is suddenly introduced into a marriage service in the church. It does introduce somewhat of a jarring note. As I say, we will support this measure, but we believe that further consideration should be given as to whether the 1970 legislation should not be drastically amended to conform to what we ourselves suggested should be done when the measure was first introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the standpoint adopted this afternoon by the hon. member. I am also aware that in the 1970 debate he raised and debated the point which he mentioned today as a serious matter. I just want to mention in passing that it is a pity, since he was in such earnest about this, that he did not at the time introduce an amendment which would have placed his standpoint more clearly on record. However, I appreciate his standpoint, but I should also like, on this occasion, to mention the name of the person whom I think was the person actually responsible for the legislation we have before us today, in co-operation with the hon. the Minister and the Department of the Interior, i.e. Prof. F. J. van Zyl of the University of Port Elizabeth, who had for more than two years, even before the 1970 legislation, been submitting representations to us in regard to the matters which are before us today. It does one good to know that there are persons outside as well who take such an interest in this legislative assembly as to make such a positive contribution to good legislation and good administration. It is true that the existing legislation provides that failure to comply with the preliminary requirements does not necessarily invalidate the marriage, particularly if this was owing to an error committed in good faith by either of the parties to such marriage—I am referring to the interpretation of those provisions, i.e. the preceding provisions in the section—or secondly, an error, omission or oversight of any person who made any such publication or issued a special licence, as it is stated in the Act.

In order just to amplify this, I want to mention a few reasons why it is essential that this legislation should be before the House today. The fact of the matter is that a marriage could only be declared to be valid if a bona fide error had been committed in interpreting the statutory provision itself. In other words, the interpretation attached by the parties to the provisions of the Act must have been a bona fide incorrect interpretation. This was stated very clearly in the case of Joubert vs. Joubert in the Free State Division of the Supreme Court in 1966. The facts there were, inter alia, that no banns had been published, no notice of intention to marry had been published, and no special marriage licence had been obtained. Thus page 753 (translation)—

Notwithstanding those facts, the hon. learned Judge gave the following ruling (page 736)—

As a result of this, Sir, the question arose: when are these persons committing an omission? Are they committing an omission only when they commit a bona fide error or are they committing an omission when they have read the Act themselves and have attached an incorrect interpretation to it? This point was also taken to the Supreme Court for a ruling, in the case of Ex parte S. and S., 1966, in the Transvaal Division. There the facts were, inter alia, as follows—the parties married before a magistrate and they did publish a notice of intention to marry, but this was published only in Pretoria where the man resided, and not in Johannesburg as well, where the woman resided. Both these parties acted in good faith and after they had been advised by the official responsible that everything was in order. All the steps they had taken were, according to the official, correct. According to him they were not to have concerned themselves any further. When it subsequently appeared that their actions could invalidate their marriage, they appealed to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the judge had the following to say (page 603)—

1. (a) since the nature of the error they committed is not covered by the terms of that section.

It is true that in the previous legislation the intention was that certain alleviation could be provided in terms of section 22. If one takes note of the problems which arose, it is no wonder that Prof. Hahlo in the South African Law Journal of May 1967, on page 145, has the following to say—

Therefore, as a result of these circumstances, it is essential that the hon. the Deputy Minister should come to Parliament today with this Bill, and one gladly supports the provisions thereof.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister read out the marriage formula very impressively, but unfortunately it is the case that not every one will be able to do this with the same experience and the same training, and errors could creep in, whether committed by marriage officers of the church, or by marriage officers of the State. Therefore it is also necessary for a new subsection (3) to be added to section 30 of the principal Act, to provide that if a bona fide error should creep in, such as the use of an incorrect word or term for example, this would not necessarily invalidate the marriage. I think this Bill is a vast improvement on what the hon. member for Green Point had in mind during the 1970 debate. I am not differing with the hon. member now, but his objections were that the provisions of that Act were too strict, and he is of the opinion that perhaps even these provisions of today do not yet go far enough towards bringing alleviation in respect of the 1970 provisions. My standpoint is that this legislation does in fact go far enough, and I think this is the necessary improvement which all of us would like to have in the 1970 legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to the hon. member for Green Point who supported this measure on behalf of the Opposition, although he could not resist the temptation to hark back a little bit to what happened last year when the details of the other Act were discussed. I do not know much about the other Act because I was not here at the time. In any case, I am not going to hark back; I do not think that what happened then is really relevant now. What is relevant and what I appreciate is his appreciation of the Government’s initiative in coming forward with this measure at this time.

*Sir, the hon. member has raised certain aspects to which he would like to have replies. One must ask oneself what “in good faith” means. I think the nature of the marriage and the circumstances with which the marriage officer is able to acquaint you really determine whether the marriage was contracted in good faith. The basic requirements laid down for a lawful marriage must, of course, be met. We know that the Marriage Act is a long Act and that quite a number of basic requirements are laid down. I do not want to go into these now. In the original Act there are provisions in connection with marriages contracted abroad, there are provisions in connection with qualifications in respect of age, and there are also certain other provisions which are not relevant now, but basic requirements are laid down which must be met for a lawful marriage to be able to be contracted. What we are dealing with here are specific criteria which used to be the only criteria which could be applied and which led to an incorrect interpretation of the particular provisions of the Act, and this is the publication, in the respective districts, of a notice of intention to marry, by the publication of the banns as well as by taking out a special licence. The Courts provided that the marriage could only be condoned if the interpretation of these three aspects had been incorrect and if the marriage had been contracted in good faith. In the new Act which came into force on 1st February certain other requirements are laid down and certain earlier requirements are done away with. Magistrates as well as ministers who have to solemnize marriages will have to read out the formula in future. They may make a mistake in taking down the names of the parties. Suppose one of the parties has a physical handicap and cannot give the other party his or her right hand, while the letter of the law provides that they shall give each other the right hand. This does not mean that the marriage was not contracted in good faith. Sometimes the parties themselves forget to do certain things. The circumstances of the case then determine whether or not the marriage was contracted in good faith. We can take the opposite as well: The parties themselves can never decide that they did not act in good faith; it is only the Minister who can condone an irregularity. Previously the power of the Minister was completely limited. He could only condone the irregularity if those three requirements of the Act, which had been read out, had been met and if the parties had acted in good faith in that respect. In other words, we are really going a bit further, but we are only being more practical than we were before. Sir, the hon. member also referred to the part played here by the churches and said that the State always took a particularly firm stand in respect of certain terms and actions and requirements in its legislation. I just want to tell the hon. member that the attitude of the church is that a marriage is really a contract. The fact that the formulas have to be read out in this way is aimed at achieving uniformity, but it does not deprive any church of the right to use its own formula at a ceremony as well. That is the aspect which is relevant here. In reply to the hon. member’s last question, we have not yet had cases where the formula was not read, because there has actually not been time for the Act to take effect properly. We often have cases where a marriage officer marries in good faith, a young man under the age of 18 and a young girl under the age of 16, because he has been brought under the wrong impression. In many of those cases there is an investigation first in order to find out the circumstances. If the parties are happy and want to remain married, the irregularity is condoned as a rule.

Who decides about it?

The department investigates the case through the normal channels; everyone who had to do with the marriage, from the marriage officer to the parents, are consulted, and the Minister then makes the final decision.

But that decision is not binding as far as the parties are concerned.

It binds the parties if they want their marriage to continue. Why should they apply for the condonation of an irregularity if they do not want to be bound? Sir, I leave it at that; I think I have replied to the hon. member’s question.

I want to thank the hon. member for Potchefstroom for his exposition of the cases which have come before the courts, from which it is clear that these changes are very necessary. There was the case of Joubert and Joubert in 1966. Then there was the subsequent case in 1967 when an application was made to the court for the condonation of an irregularity during the solemnization of a marriage, on which the judge expressed himself as follows—

He then expressed his sympathy with the people, but he could do nothing about it. Sir, I think I should conclude with this. I thank both hon. members who took part in the debate.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill with which I shall deal here this afternoon, is not a contentious one.

As the short title of the Bill indicates, it is connected with the provinces. Periodically it is necessary for matters connected with the provinces to be regulated by legislation. In fact, the legislation which is before the House at the moment, seeks to regulate such matters.

In the main the powers and functions of the provinces were regulated by the Constitution and the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1945. It is therefore proposed to amend by way of this Bill certain sections of these Acts which concern the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal, first of all, with the amendment of sections 17 (f) and 18 (1) (a) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, as envisaged by clauses 1 (1) and 2 (1) (a) of the Bill.

As background to these amendments I should like to mention to hon. members that my colleague the hon. the Minister of National Education has decided that the training of teachers for secondary schools will take place only at universities as from 1st January, 1972, as envisaged in section 1A of the National Education Policy Act of 1967.

Previously the training of teachers for secondary schools was also undertaken at teachers’ training colleges. However, the training of teachers for primary and preprimary schools, may still take place, as before, at teachers’ training colleges.

Some of the universities now propose to undertake the training of teachers for secondary schools in conjunction with provincial teachers’ training colleges situated nearby. In terms of this arrangement with the teachers’ training colleges concerned it is being proposed—

1. (a) to second, temporarily, members of the teaching staff at teachers’ training colleges to a university on a fulltime or part-time basis;
2. (b) to provide such students of the universities with accommodation in the hostels of the teachers’ training colleges on a contractual basis; and
3. (c) to place at the disposal of the universities concerned some of the buildings and equipment of such teachers’ training colleges.

In the light of the fact that the training of persons as teachers for secondary schools is now considered to be “higher education”, doubts have been expressed by the provincial law advisers as to whether the provinces are legally in a position to enter into such an arrangement.

In order to remove these doubts, it is being proposed that sections 17 (f) and 18 (1) (a) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, be amended as set out in clauses 1 (1) and 2 (1) (a) of the Bill.

Furthermore, it is provided in clauses 1 (2) and 2 (2) that these amendments shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st January, 1972, so as to make them coincide with the date as from which the training of the teachers concerned shall only be undertaken at universities, and as from which the arrangement concerned between the universities and teachers’ training colleges concerned took effect.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now proceed to explaining the amendment to section 18 (1) (b) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, as proposed in clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill.

The section to which I have just referred, makes provision for the defrayal of expenditure by a province for the training of its staff from the provincial revenue fund. Included in the expenditure that may be defrayed in this manner, is the expenditure incurred by a province for the award of bursaries to enable persons qualified or being trained as teachers to study at universities or university colleges or other institutions of higher education. In terms of this statutory provision the provinces have therefore decided to make available annually to selected teachers a number of bursaries of R2 000 each for advanced study in the Republic or abroad. This scheme enjoys the support of both the Department of National Education and the Public Service Commission.

After consideration the provincial law advisers of the Transvaal and the Cape Province, and the Government law advisers, have agreed that section 18 (1) (b), which is to be amended now, does not authorize the provinces to incur expenditure for the award of bursaries to teachers for studying at institutions of higher education in countries abroad. It has also been pointed out that these bursaries are not always utilized for study purposes alone, but also for research. Furthermore, such studies and research do not always take place at institutions of higher education. Sometimes, especially in countries abroad, such studies and research consist of visits to places which cannot be regarded as institutions of higher education, such as psychiatric clinics, etc.

The object of the proposed amendment to section 18 (1) (b) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, as provided in clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill, is to enable a province to incur expenditure with regard to bursaries for studies pursued at places both within and outside the Republic, for research, and also for study and research at places that cannot be regarded as institutions of higher education.

As the Executive Committee of the Transvaal had been under the impression that the said section 18 (1) (b) of the relevant Act authorized the provinces to incur expenditure of the said nature also in respect of study abroad, the said Executive Committee decided on 4th February, 1969, to award bursaries for study abroad to members of the Transvaal teaching staff, and to make annual provision for this purpose in the provincial estimates. The proposed provision in clause 2 (2) seeks to authorize this expenditure, which now appears to have been unauthorized.

†Mr. Speaker, I shall now deal with the amendments of certain sections of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, proposed in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill now before the House.

By clause 3 of the Bill a new subsection is added to section 66 of the Constitution. Section 66 of the Constitution deals with the appointment and tenure of office of provincial administrators. Subsection (4) of this section more particularly deals with the appointment of deputy Administrators. It provides that the State President may from time to time appoint a deputy Administrator to execute the office and functions of the Administrator during his absence or illness or whenever for any reason he is unable to perform the duties of his office, or while the appointment of an Administrator for the province concerned is pending. It may well happen that an Administrator could unexpectedly become seriously ill, or even die.

The formalities to be observed in appointing a deputy Administrator take time. A minute of the Executive Council must be prepared and submitted to the office of the Prime Minister for presentation to the State President. It may well happen that a day or more may lapse from the time that the need arises for the appointment of a deputy Administrator and the day on which the appointment is made by the State President. Especially could such circumstances arise when the staff of the offices of the State President and the hon. the Prime Minister annually moves from Pretoria to Cape Town for parliamentary sessions, or at the end of these sessions moves back to Pretoria.

The State law advisers intimated that the State President does not have the power to appoint a deputy Administrator post facto. The position then obtains that the actions of a person who acts as deputy Administrator before he is actually appointed as such, would be ultra vires. The proposed addition of a new subsection to section 66 of the Constitution is designed to enable the State President to make a post facto appointment of a deputy Administrator if circumstances necessitate him to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the next clause of the Bill I shall deal with provides for the addition of a new paragraph to section 84 (1) of the Constitution. Section 84 of the Constitution deals with the powers of provincial councils and details the matters in respect of which provincial councils may make ordinances. Provincial administrations and local authorities are approached from time to time by the Governments of neighbouring states for assistance in one form or another such as technical assistance, certain services, etc. Recently the municipality of Piet Retief made its sewerage tankers available to the Swaziland Government in two cases of emergency. The provincial administrations are often approached through the medium of the Department of Foreign Affairs to make qualified provincial and municipal officials available for service in neighbouring States. Doubt has been expressed whether such assistance may be rendered to neighbouring States by the provinces and local authorities in the Republic. There is no clearly defined authority in the Constitution for the provinces and local authorities, or its officials, to operate outside the Republic.

By the addition of the proposed new paragraph to section 84 (1) of the Constitution, provincial councils will be enabled to make ordinances in the matter of assistance which provincial administrations or local authorities may render to other states or territories.

The rendition of assistance by the provinces and local authorities to other States and territories, will be subject to approval by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All requests for assistance by other States and territories are channelized through the Department of Foreign Affairs. The rendering of assistance to other States and territories when asked for, is part of this Government’s policy, and the provinces and local authorities should be authorized to render such assistance when, because of the nature of their functions, they are best equipped to do so.

The next clause of the Bill which falls to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker, is clause 5, which amends section 109 of the Constitution. The equality of the two official languages in the Republic is enshrined in section 108 of the Constitution. In section 109 of the Constitution it is provided that all documents of general public importance or interest issued by provincial councils and local authorities shall as in the case of such documents issued by Parliament, be in both official languages.

In clause 5 of the Bill it is sought to amend section 109 of the Constitution by specially mentioning town-planning schemes alongside notices issued and regulations and by-laws passed by local authorities, as documents which must be in both official languages.

Except in the Orange Free State, and to a lesser extent in the Cape Province, all town-planning schemes are available for inspection by the public in one of the official languages only, mainly in English. The notices stating where these town-planning schemes would be available for inspection were, however, published in both official languages in provincial Gazettes and newspapers. Both the State law advisers and the provincial law advisers of the Transvaal are of the opinion that those town-planning schemes which are in one official language only, are ultra vires. This is so because they are in fact documents of public importance and interest and are not available in both official languages as required by section 109 of the Constitution. These town-planning schemes are validated by clause 5 (2) of the Bill. They will, however, cease to be valid if they have not been translated into the other official language within the period of five years from the date when this Bill becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, that completes the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the Bill.

*Mr. Speaker, the next Act amended by this Bill is the Financial Relations Amendment Act, 1971. This Act is being amended by providing that it shall be deemed to have come into operation on the fifth day of April, 1967. The background to this amendment is briefly as follows: By section 2 of the Financial Relations Amendment Act, 1967, a new matter was added to the matters in regard to which the provinces may make ordinances. This new matter comprised the establishment and control over public resorts, places of rest, seaside resorts, holiday centres, holiday camps, caravan parks, tent camps and picnic places, with the proviso that the establishment of and control over public resorts, etc., could not be exercised by a province, except by regulations made in consultation with the Department of Tourism and the Department of Sport and Recreation. The matter with the said proviso was entrusted by proclamation to the provinces of the Transvaal and Natal in 1967, which subsequently made ordinances in that regard, but was not entrusted to the Province of the Orange Free State and the Cape Province, although the Cape Province had made a start with projects for public recreation which had been entrusted to it by the Government—for instance, the Hendrik Verwoerd and P. K. le Roux dams. The Cape Province objected to the said proviso, which was deemed to be a limitation on provincial powers.

After talks between the hon. the Minister of Tourism and of Sport and Recreation and the four Administrators, and after an undertaking had been given by the said Administrators to the effect that there would be consultation on an administrative level with the Department of Tourism and the Department of Sport and Recreation in regard to the matters in question, the matter was amended in terms of section 1 of Act No. 27 of 1971 by the omission of the said proviso.

By Proclamation No. 172 of 1971 the matter, as it reads at present—i.e. without the proviso—was entrusted to the Cape Province with effect from 5th April. 1967, i.e. the date on which the Act of 1967 came into operation.

The Government law advisers expressed the opinion that the matter could not be entrusted to a province with retrospective effect prior to the date of issue of the required proclamation.

The object of the statutory amendment proposed in clause 6 (1), is to enable the State President to entrust the matter to the province by proclamation with retrospective effect, if necessary.

By clause 6 (2) of the Bill the matter concerned entrusted by proclamation to the Cape Province by the State President with retrospective effect as from 5th April, 1967, is being validated.

Mr. Speaker, the last clause of the Bill which requires explanation, is clause 7, which makes provision for the delegation of a power, function or duty entrusted in terms of an Act to an administrator, an administrator-in-executive committee, or an executive committee of a province.

In various Acts provision is made for the exercise of certain powers, or the carrying out of certain functions or duties by an administrator. In certain cases the administrator acts on his own, whereas in other cases he exercises or carries out the power or duty or function in consultation with the other members of the executive committee. In yet other cases the executive committee acts on its own.

In the majority of these cases there is no provision for the administrator or the administrator-in-executive committee or the executive committee to delegate such power, function or duty to an officer of the provincial administration concerned. In many of these cases the power, function or duty concerned is of a purely routine nature, and there is no reason why it may not be delegated. If it were in fact possible to delegate these powers, functions and duties, it would cause matters to proceed more smoothly and would bring relief to a staff already experiencing difficulties in keeping pace with an ever-increasing working load.

I want to mention the following examples of powers, functions and duties which are of a purely routine nature and which may be delegated to advantage.

In the first place, we have the Local Loans Act, 1926. In terms of the provisions of this Act the administrator shall, in respect of an application for a loan by a local authority, issue a certificate for submission to the Public Debt Commissioner to the effect that he is satisfied that the loan should be granted and that the provisions of the Act have been observed. He has to do this notwithstanding the fact that the application for the loan has already been approved in terms of the relevant provincial ordinance, quite often by an officer to whom the administrator delegated his power in terms of the relevant provincial ordinance.

A second example is the Housing Act, 1946. Section 11 (1) of this Act provides that the Housing Commission may, after consultation with the administrator and on such conditions as it may determine, approve of loans to any local authority for the purpose of enabling that local authority to undertake housing schemes. The main purpose of consultation with the administrator in this case, is to determine whether a local authority is financially in a position to enter into the obligations in question. This power is exercised after consultation with the provincial auditor, and there is no reason why the administrator’s power may not be delegated to advantage in this case as well.

The administrators, administrators-in-executive committees and the executive committees themselves have from time to time, in terms of their own legislation, delegated to certain members of their staff powers arising from provincial ordinances. Provision does already exist in some Acts —for instance, the Expropriation Act, 1965, the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act, 1940, and others— for the administrator of a province to delegate his powers under the relevant Act to an officer of the province. It would be an impossible task to amend individually the various Acts in which there is no provision for the delegation of powers, functions or duties by the administrator, administrator-in-executive committee or executive committee. The only way in which provision may be made for the proposed powers of delegation, is by way of a general statutory provision, as is done in clause 7 (1) of the Bill. Clause 7 (2) of the Bill provides that the officer to whom any power, function or duty has been delegated, shall exercise that power or carry out that function or duty subject to the directions of the administrator or administrator-in-executive committee or executive committee concerned.

Clause 7 (3) of the Bill provides that the delegation of a power, duty or function may at any time be revoked in writing, and that any such delegation shall not prevent the exercise of that power or the carrying out of that function or duty by the administrator or administrator-in-executive committee or executive committee.

I am of the opinion that hon. members on both sides of this House will agree that this Bill, the contents of which I have just explained, is not a contentious one. It is essential legislation for straightening out certain provincial matters and regulating others. I therefore trust that the proposed legislation will enjoy the support of both sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, having dealt with the Marriages Bill, which we have just handled, and now turning to this Bill and listening to the explanations of the hon. the Minister, I am sure he will forgive me if I note the fact that there seems to be a good deal of tidying up going on in the Department of the Interior in so far as various legislative matters are concerned. When one sees in this Bill that certain of the provisions are to be made retrospective to 1967 one can see that some of this tidying up is perhaps a little overdue. We feel that the provisions of this Bill are subject to certain necessary comments, and we will support the measure which is before the House.

I believe that clause 4 is perhaps the most significant of the provisions of this particular Bill. This is the clause which regularizes the right and power of the provinces to legislate through ordinances for the provision of assistance to neighbouring states. I think it is as well that we should place on record the extent to which provincial administrations have in the past assisted neighbouring states, Lesotho and Swaziland in particular and also Botswana. One knows that there are persons being seconded even to Malawi. In one instance, a planning officer has been seconded from one of the provinces to the Department of Planning and then on to a neighbouring State to assist with town planning and town development. These measures are to be welcomed and we on this side of the House are pleased that these matters have now been regularized and that provinces can, with the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, naturally, continue to render this assistance, which is not only the know-how in the field of planning, but also in the field of medicine and in various other aspects of national life. The provisions of the first two clauses of this Bill deal with educational matters and I do not propose myself to handle them. The hon. member for Durban Central will have some comments to make in regard to those clauses.

There are other aspects which are significant. One finds for instance that it has been possible in the administration for certain acts to take place over a period of years despite the fact that they were not strictly in accordance with the law. One finds, for instance, in the case of the appointment of administrators and deputy administrators, that there must be a number of instances where acts have been done by an acting or deputy administrator prior to his having received formal appointment. When one looks at the question of expenditure that has taken place, one wonders how it is that expenditure has been allowed to be incurred by the provinces and to be passed over a period of years when it was subject to audit, and that the audit has not until now pointed out these irregularities. One finds that the educational provisions are being made retrospective to 1967.

There are two other matters with which I wish to deal very briefly. The one is the right of delegation by the administrator, the administrator-in-executive or the executive committee. I hope that this power to delegate will not be extensively used. One appreciates the isolated or specific instances mentioned by the hon. the Minister, especially in regard to facts which are essentially within the knowledge of the provincial auditor, who is in the position to certify figures and amounts of that nature. But one must bear in mind that there has been a change in so far as the provincial executives are concerned. Many hon. members in this House will have had the experience of the days when executive members were appointed part-time. They were not fulfilling their duties as executive members full-time. One can imagine that in those days the necessity to delegate was a very real one. The burden would have been too heavy for the Administrator to carry. But at the present moment where there are in the provinces of the Cape and the Transvaal four full-time executive members with their portfolios or departments within the Administration, I do hope that this power—I speak for this side of the House—of delegation will be sparingly used in passing on the responsibility to officials. One can accept that delegation is all right when it is purely, as in the nature of those instances quoted by the hon. the Minister, an administrative act. One does not wish to have the position arising when there are matters of a more contentious nature—such as matters of policy—being delegated to officials when it is in fact the responsibility of the administrator and of members of the executive committee.

We fully support the provision that the town-planning schemes are brought within the purview of bilingualism. One can assume, as I understood from the hon. the Minister’s statement, that it has not always been in both languages. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister in this regard. The town-planning schemes are lengthy and involved and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able in some manner to make available, particularly to smaller municipalities, persons with the necessary technical knowledge and know-how to assist with the translation, be it from Afrikaans to English or vice versa, of these town-planning schemes. I think it is important that there should be an accepted standard of language used in the compilation of these town-planning schemes, so that there are no arguments as to what the meaning of words is. I have had experience myself of smaller municipalities who have found themselves having arguments about the most appropriate word to use, be it English or Afrikaans, to express a certain intention of the scheme. If that is done, it would be of considerable assistance, particularly to the smaller municipalities. It will ensure, as I have said, that there is uniformity in the language used in the explanation and setting out of town-planning schemes. They are complicated and involved and it is essential that there should be a common factor, known and understood by all persons who have to read and apply them. As I have said we will support this measure; we believe it is a necessary one. I am glad that certain of these matters are now being rectified.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point referred to a number of aspects, and also discussed them, in connection with this Bill, aspects in regard to which I do not want to follow him. The Minister will reply to them in due course.

I should like to express just a few thoughts on a number of minor principles contained in clauses 1 and 2. These are also the clauses to which the hon. member for Green Point referred as concerning educational matters. These clauses are actually the logical outcome of the National Education Policy Act of 1967—as we know it, Act No. 39. That Act was amended or confirmed once again by Act 73 of 1969, which deals exclusively with the training of teachers. These new amendments contain no major, new principles. Act 73 of 1969 provides that courses for the training of persons as teachers for secondary schools shall extend over a period of not less than four years, and that such training shall only be provided at universities. This Act came into operation as from 1st January, 1972. In other words, that is the date with effect from which the training of the teachers concerned shall only take place at universities, it means that prospective high school teachers were as from that date allowed for the first time to enroll at universities for study purposes. I understood—and this is gratifying—that great interest was shown and that the reaction amongst prospective high school teachers was most favourable.

This measure should have come into operation sooner, but the Minister granted the universities an extension of time since all of them were not ready to receive these students, mainly as a result of a shortage of accommodation and perhaps lecture halls as well. Furthermore, there may also have been a shortage of staff. But the Education Council has now recommended that no further extension of time be granted in regard to this matter. What is the situation that has arisen in respect of buildings? The universities do not have sufficient accommodation facilities and space for prospective teachers. On the other hand one finds that at teachers’ training colleges there are buildings which are either not fully occupied or not occupied at all. Within the framework of the existing legislation it was not possible for the Transvaal Education Department to surrender or lease these buildings. Statutory powers are now being granted to provincial administration to enter into a contract with a university which requires either the buildings as a whole or part of such buildings for the training of teachers. Such a contract will, of course, be entered into on a part-time basis. This provision is contained in clause 2 (a).

What is the situation that has arisen in regard to the available teaching staff? It is understandable that with the implementation of this legislation, there will be a shortage of staff, also at the universities. Clause 1 (f) amends the original Act in that it will now be possible for members of the teaching staff at teachers’ training colleges to be seconded temporarily on a full-time or part-time basis to a university. I want to express the hope at once that the universities will amply avail themselves of this concession. The teaching staff members of our colleges are experienced lecturers who are most knowledgeable, especially in regard to professional training for students, and with that experience they will be an asset to the university as such and to the students being trained.

Then I want to refer to another clause which I find to be a particularly welcome one, and which I consider to be a very positive measure. That is clause 2 (1) (b). The present section makes provision for bursaries from the provincial revenue fund to students intending to be trained as teachers at universities, i.e. for teaching at high schools. This training may also take place at university colleges or at other institutions of higher education. This amendment which is only an addition, now has the effect that such training may also take place at other places within or outside the Republic. In addition to training, provision is also being made for research to be done at places within or outside the Republic. It is important and essential that bursaries be awarded to selected teachers for advanced study or research in regard to education outside the Republic. It is very essential that some of our teachers, and in particular the more experienced teachers who have already proved themselves, be afforded the opportunity to take stock of education in other countries and to do research on the teaching methods applied there. This is an asset not only to themselves, but also to education as such. I believe that the bodies concerned which are going to award those bursaries, are also going to expect these persons to render something in return, and that is that bursary holders shall report on the research done by them, or that they shall prepare a paper on the work that was the subject of their research. We are aware of the fact that the Transvaal Education Department made such bursaries available to selected teachers, and that such persons benefited by this step. I know about persons who received those bursaries, and I know that they benefited a great deal by them. I would say that this really is a positive step and that it will also yield good fruit. I take pleasure in supporting heartily this legislation in respect of those clauses.

Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I would like to pay special attention to the educational clauses contained in this Bill. I want to say that certain aspects of these clauses worry me. I think we need further clarification on them. These clauses are, of course, clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 makes provision for the provincial authorities to pass ordinances to allow the temporary secondment of the teaching staff. I would be the first to concede that this is essential. In a large organization such as an education department, it is absolutely essential that the department should and must have this power. There are, however, certain practices which have emerged as a result of the application of this principle. Firstly, we frequently find that a teacher, for instance, is seconded to the position of a lecturer at a teachers’ training college, which is a higher post, and that person is expected to accept greater responsibility. Sometimes he holds this post for six months, a year or even longer, and although he is required to accept greater responsibility, his salary is not adjusted accordingly. I would like to make use of this opportunity to say to the provinces: “You can have this power to pass ordinances, but you must not exploit your own staff and personnel.” This is something unfair and gives rise to discontent amongst the staff.

Then, Sir, there is another aspect which I want to raise, and this is something which is peculiar to the Transvaal. It seems to be the practice in this province to use the whole system of secondment of teachers as a cover for the compulsory transfer of personnel, or what you might call the involuntary transfer of people. I do not know why this should be the case. I think it creates the wrong impression. If you want to transfer part of your staff, and it is essential to do so, then you should tell them that they are being transferred. I know that this is the situation in Natal where a person is transferred. But to go to a member of the staff and say to him that he is being seconded from Carletonville to Ermelo …

Could that not be dealt with under the Education Vote?

In giving powers to the provinces, as we are doing here, we must consider how these powers are going to be used. I think that this practice must cease in the provinces, because it is creating the wrong impression and it is in fact against the spirit of what we envisage here.

Sir, clause 2, as has been explained by previous speakers, is the direct result of the universities. This has resulted in a great influx of students at the universities, especially in the education faculties of these universities. As has already been mentioned, the universities are experiencing difficulties in providing adequate accommodation as well as training facilities. It is stated in this clause that accommodation can be provided on a contractual basis, and special reference is made to disciplinary conditions. With all this emphasis on disciplinary conditions, I think we must accept it that this can easily lead to a lot of unnecessary ill-feeling between neighbouring teachers’ training colleges and universities. The impact of the influx of student teachers at universities has been the greatest in the province of Transvaal. The reason for this is quite clear. The Transvaal has some of the largest teachers’ training colleges, and for many years these colleges have specialized in the training of secondary school teachers. The reason for this is that all the teachers’ training colleges in the Transvaal are situated in close proximity to neighbouring universities. In Potchefstroom you have the ideal set-up, because there you have the teachers’ training college next to the university. Now my information is that this year you have already had 50 or 60 of the students at the university who could not be accommodated at the university and therefore provision had to be made to accommodate them at the teachers’ training college, exactly as envisaged in this legislation. But what has the result been? The teachers’ training college adopted the attitude: Fine, come and stay in the hostel, we will provide accommodation for you but then you must abide by our rules; in other words, we must be able to lay down some disciplinary conditions. Some of these rules required that the students should belong to the college organizations and must play rugby for the college and not for the university. My information is that the result has been that the 50 or 60 students packed their bags and went back to the university because they were not prepared to accept these conditions. They were then placed with private people. This is the type of thing which I fear when we are going to have a contractual basis and we place all this emphasis on the disciplinary conditions. I want to say, as I read the Bill, that for years you have had in the Transvaal a system where the universities assisted the colleges. The students of the training colleges were allowed to stay on the campus of the college. They received their academic training at the university and they received their professional training, their teachers’ diplomas, etc., at the college, but never did any of these established universities try to lay claim to these students. The students were allowed to be part of the college campus life. They were allowed to play rugby, etc., for the college. The reason why I decided to participate in this debate is to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that as it is laid down here, the emphasis being laid on the disciplinary conditions, we have already had the experience this year of a college saying that these students must accept the college’s conditions.

The other matter which worries me is that in the past a student training at the university, taking his degree at the university often did so at his own expenses. They were not under any contract to the provincial authorities at all, because it was only the teachers or students who were enrolled from the colleges at the universities who were in fact contracted to the provinces. I refer to the contract whereby if you have had four years of training at the university you contract to teach for four years in that province. I believe it is now possible to transfer to another province. I wonder what the attitude of the provinces will be. According to clause 2 (1) (a) it will be possible for the provinces to adopt the following attitude and say: Fine, come and make use of our facilities on a contractual basis. But now you have a different set of circumstances. Many of the students taking teachers’ diplomas or degrees at the university are private students; in other words, they are not there as the result of grants from the provinces. What will happen if the provinces adopt the attitude and say: Fine, you may come along and use our facilities, but part of the contract is that if you use the facilities of the teachers’ training college and stay in our hostel you must be contracted with the province. It can only result in causing internal difficulties for the Universities. It is for this reason that I honestly feel that there must be some contract. It cannot be otherwise. In the past there was in fact a contract between the universities and the provincial authorities in the sense that the universities provided the academic training and the provinces paid the tuition fees. So there must be some contract and in negotiating these contracts the various provinces as well as the universities must take into consideration the position of the student.

*As far as clause 2 (b) is concerned, I can say nothing but that I welcome it. I think it is a progressive step, specially, as we have heard, since it is restricted to South Africa, nor to some or other field of study, but is in fact being extended to general research. I believe that at this juncture I must appeal to the teachers of South Africa to make use of these wonderful opportunities being offered to them.

Firstly, I would like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Green Point who replied on behalf of the Opposition and said that they were supporting the measure we are dealing with at the moment. I am very pleased to hear him say too that he thought there was a great deal of tidying up during the years and that he appreciates the fact that we are still continuing with this tidying up.

There is still a lot to be done.

Very well. You had your years for doing it. We are doing it now. I think the Bill probably covers the sphere in respect of which we have to do a lot of tidying up for the simple reason that in respect of teacher training this change has taken place. I want to say also in respect of the first matter the hon. member mentioned, the rights given to the provinces now for the first time to assist neighbouring territories, that this is a step in the right direction. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member feels with us in regard to that matter. We have often through the years been of assistance to some of the neighbouring territories, particularly in the case of Lesotho. In the last few years we have had not only private people such as Dr. Anton Rupert assisting them but from the Government side too we have given a great deal of technical assistance. We have never placed ourselves in the position of financial grandfathers as the Americans have done by giving contributions in the form of cash, but we have helped in regard to staff and technical aid. We have assisted our neighbours to develop their own schemes as far as possible. This, I think, is a great improvement in so far as the extension of the rights of the provinces is concerned. I myself was involved a few years ago when the four Administrators went to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time. That was about four or five years ago and we talked about the possibility of giving certain rights to the provinces to do exactly what we are suggesting now. I therefore think that this is a step in the right direction.

The hon. member suggested too that there must have been many irregularities in the past for the simple reason that the Administrators plus the executive committees did not have the right to appoint a substitute when an Administrator was not available. That was one of the difficulties I personally experienced in Natal. It is not a matter that can be done overnight. You cannot ask the Prime Minister or anybody else responsible, like the Minister of the Interior, that he has to appoint somebody in your place and then he does it immediately. This usually takes some time, and I think it is a step in the right direction that we are giving the Administrators and the executive committees this right to delegate not only certain matters which they cannot handle themselves, but also to appoint people in their places.

We fully support too, as the hon. member said, the question of equality of language rights in respect of town-planning matters. The hon. member will appreciate that this was one of the difficulties initially. We had a number of matters in respect of which we wanted language equality implemented by the provinces, but this was not always done. We only found quite recently that in respect of town-planning schemes which were advertised and in respect of which tenders were called for this did not happen and that many people could not interpret the advertisements as they were published. We feel too that language equality can be extended in public notices. There are many matters, which I do not want to discuss today, in the provincial administrations where unilingualism is still prevalent, to put it this way. I think in the years that I was in Natal I possibly had to do 90 per cent of all my work in English for the simple reason that I had four English-speaking members of the Executive Committee and possibly 90 per cent of our officials were English-speaking too. We did try at one time to alternate by using Afrikaans one month and English the next, but this did not prove to be a practical possibility, not in the province of Natal at any rate. I hope that this will be possible or that it can be made possible in the other provinces.

But the Free State is exactly the opposite.

The Free State may be the other way around, but in Natal especially we have a large number of unilingual people. I do think that this is a matter which can be further investigated with a view to extending the alternate use of the two languages.

The hon. member said in regard to the question of assistance to smaller local authorities, that the Central Government should assist in translating the notices, etc., which from time to time have to be published in connection with township matters in both official languages. I do not think that this is the responsibility of the central Government. As I see it, it is the responsibility of the provincial administrations, and I think that all four are willing and, in fact, trying to do this as far as possible. It is very difficult to get people who can do translation work. We do not only experience this difficulty in the provincial administrations, but it also obtains in the central Government. Very few people can translate notices and publications of a rather technical nature satisfactorily. These are difficult to put across in another language.

*As regards the hon. member for Koedoespoort, he concentrated his attention on two clauses in particular, i.e. clauses 1 and 2. He spoke of a number of problems regarding education, which I think it will be possible to discuss in more detail during the Committee Stage. It is true, as he said, that it is a pity that these changes could be applied for the first time only this year; in other words, that we could not start implementing these particular clauses shortly after the passing of the legislation in 1967.

The hon. member, too, will realize, however, that we have had all kinds of difficulties in rendering possible co-operation between the universities and teachers’ colleges. In any event, I hope that henceforth much more rapid progress will be made in expediting the integration, if I may call it this, of the universities and colleges as far as the training of secondary teachers is concerned. I think the legislation makes provision not only for the matter of accommodation space but also for the use of teaching staff from the universities. Furthermore, I hope the universities will make generous use of their trained staff, because, as the hon. member rightly said, we have in our universities a large number of people who are very well trained in this direction and who have not been available to the training colleges. I believe that full use will undoubtedly be made of these people. Even if this is not the position at the outset, it will happen in due course that such people will be exchanged. I think it is a very wise step if such people are encouraged to do so.

The hon. member went on to refer to the question of bursaries for enabling a prospective teacher to study abroad too. I think this is a step in the right direction and something of which the teachers will certainly avail themselves as far as possible. As the hon. member said, and I agree with this, we must ensure that on the return of a person from abroad, he will make available his experience, his studies or this thesis to others who are in similar circumstances in other provinces in colleges or universities. This is one of the problems with which the Government has to contend. Occasionally we do send people abroad to undertake certain particular studies. They return and write papers, but they do not always make those papers on the experience they have gained available to people who find themselves in similar circumstances in other provinces.

The hon. member for Durban Central mentioned the fact that teachers were often seconded to higher posts than those they occupied at that stage but that they were then not remunerated accordingly. I do not want to express an opinion on the principles of this matter today. However, we have the position that some of the provinces do this in the case of hospitalization. For example, this is done with persons who have to act temporarily as matrons in certain cases, and with doctors who have to act temporarily as superintendents for longer periods—in certain provinces it is valid only after a period of three months—but the principle exists that when a person acts in those circumstances, he is remunerated. This is one of the difficulties our teachers have experienced up to now. I think the matter, and the hon. the Minister of National Education may correct me if I am wrong—has been seen to in the past year or two. The hon. the Minister of National Education will be in a better position than I to reply to this, but I think that provision has, in fact, been made to compensate teachers who have to occupy higher posts temporarily for the period they do so. As regards the Transvaal system of seconding mentioned by the hon. member, I must say with all respect that I do not think this is a matter with which this particular Bill is concerned. I think it may be connected with this Bill indirectly, but in my opinion the proper place for raising the matter will be on the Education Vote. On that Vote one will be able to bring to the attention of the Minister the existing practice in the Transvaal.

Since we are giving other Provincial Councils the privilege of making ordinances with such a specific object now, is this not the time now for us to see to how it works in practice? That is why I brought it to the attention of the Minister.

I nevertheless think it is a matter which can be raised on the Education Vote. This is a completely different measure and I do not think it is relevant to put this question under the circumstances.

As regards the third point raised by the hon. members, i.e. the question of the disciplinary measures to which people who go from the universities to the colleges are subject, I think it is correct that the provinces ought to have the right to apply disciplinary measures. Were it not the case that they had the right to apply disciplinary measures and to exercise discipline, I personally am of the opinion that chaos could develop at those places. I think students simply have to accept that if they take up residence in those institutions the rules applicable in those institutions will be applied to them as well. To me this seems to be a perfectly normal and logical attitude and, as far as I know, it is accepted by most of these people. The hon. member spoke of 60 people he knew to be dissatisfied with this. I do not know of 60 such people. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of National Education can reply to the hon. member in this regard. It seems to me that this is a question of the provinces having to have, in the first instance, the right to exercise discipline where they want to do so. This actually concerns the question of the exercising of discipline, something which we regard as being an inherent right which a province has to have in these particular circumstances.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As will be noticed from the long title of this Bill, its purpose is to provide for the granting of advances by the Land Bank to companies which carry on fanning operations in the Republic and South-West Africa, and for related matters. However, hon. members must not conclude that the granting of loans to farming companies is a form of credit to the agricultural sector which is now being envisaged by the Land Bank for the first time, since such loans have in reality been granted by the Bank for many years.

As is the case with many other developments in the farming industry, the establishment of private companies in agriculture began to occur here and there years ago, and gradually increased until it has become a fairly general phenomenon today in the more sophisticated economy of our country. During the first two to three decades of the Land Bank’s existence, it did not often happen that a company which carried on farming operations approached the Bank for financial assistance.

In the 1930s, however, the Bank started receiving increasing numbers of applications for loans from such companies, and since many of the applications were of a deserving nature, the Land Bank Board, in the light of the general provisions of the Land Bank Act, proceeded to grant loans, under certain circumstances and on specific conditions, to private farming companies which consisted exclusively of small family undertakings.

As the Bank in due course gained experience of the administration of such loans, some uncertainty arose in respect of the Bank’s powers of recovering the debt under the loans concerned in cases where a private farming company was placed under judicial management or was being wound up.

Therefore this Bill proposes, inter alia, to set out explicitly in the Land Bank Act the Bank’s powers in respect of loans to private companies.

For this purpose the proposed amendments empower the Land Bank Board, in cases where a private farming company has been placed under judicial management or is being wound up, to seize, without process of law, such property of the company as is mortgaged or hypothecated to the Bank, and to cause it to be sold in order to recover the company’s debt to the Bank. The Land Bank Board already possesses powers in regard to ordinary debtors who are declared insolvent or whose estates are administered in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, as well as in regard to cooperative agricultural companies which are liquidated. In the last-mentioned cases, the Land Bank Board also has statutory authority to exercise such powers in spite of the provisions of the Insolvency Act, the Agricultural Credit Act or the Co-operative Societies Act, as the case may be, and in accordance with that the Bill contains a provision that no other law shall derogate from the provisions of the Land Bank Act in so far as they relate to the companies concerned.

In conclusion, the Bill contains a number of provisions designed to eliminate certain shortcomings in the Land Bank Act. The existing Act prohibits, inter alia, the granting of a Land Bank advance to a member of the Land Bank Board or an adviser of the Bank or a member of the Bank’s staff, and this prohibition is now also being made applicable to a general manager of the Bank, who, owing to an oversight at the time, is not mentioned in the existing section of the Act.

In regard to the granting of loans on a mortgage of movable property, a further shortcoming in the existing Act is being eliminated by the insertion of a provision in this Bill in terms of which the Land Bank Board is empowered, in respect of a debt deficit under such a loan, to prove a claim against the estate of a deceased debtor or the estate of a debtor who is mentally disordered or defective or who is declared incapable of managing his own affairs.

This amendment also empowers the Board to prove a similar claim against a company which has been placed under judicial management or is being wound up.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I merely want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill, for the very good reasons set out here by the hon. gentleman himself. It is only surprising that it took such a long time, after it had already become the practice that many farming companies make use of Land Bank loans, before these amendments were introduced. One would have expected it to have been done a long time ago. Since they are contained in the Bill at this stage, we have no objection at all to their being accepted. In clause 1 (c) there is a minor amendment in respect of the definition of a farmer. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us the reasons for this and sketch the background to it. In addition, he can tell us what the new definition entails. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain this amendment to us. This side of the House has no objection to any of the other clauses, and we want to express the hope that this Bill will go through this House as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members opposite for their support. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to clause 1 (c), on which I shall elaborate further in the Committee Stage. I have a memo here which I should like to read out to the House. The present definition of a co-operative company in the Act also applies to a company where this expression occurs in the Act in relation to loans of co-operative companies. However, since a new definition of “company” is now being inserted, and the meaning of the word “company” where it occurs in the Act in relation to loans made to a co-operative company can be clearly distinguished from an ordinary company, the expression “or company” is being omitted from the definition of co-operative company. The hon. member referred to the definition of “farmer”, and if he raises this matter in the Committee Stage, I shall be able to clear up the hon. member’s problems.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a mere four years ago that this House passed legislation, i.e. the South African Indian Council Act, 1968, which provided for the establishment of a statutory council to succeed the first South African Indian Council which had been established by administrative procedure four years earlier, that is in 1964, after consultation by the then Minister of Indian Affairs with Indian leaders at the Laudium conference. I make mention of this fact to illustrate the progress that has been made in this relatively short period. Hon. members will perhaps recall that the first council was established in the face of strong opposition from a substantial section of the Indian community and that although those present at the Laudium conference unanimously decided to request the Minister to establish such a council, they were not prepared to nominate even a panel from which the Minister could make the appointments. That council did such good work that they were accepted in ever widening circles. So much so that it was considered necessary after only four years to give greater status to the council by its conversion into a statutory body which could by virtue of the greater support that it commanded at the time, also be constituted on a broader representative basis. One of the tasks assigned to this first statutory council by implication was to pave the way for the next step in its development.

In the brief span of its first period of office, which expired on 31st August, 1971, the council achieved so much success and so much became the accepted Indian authority that a clamour for elections was started in the Indian Press. However, after consultation with the South African Indian Council, I am not prepared to be rushed into hasty action. I prefer to give the council the opportunity to develop in an orderly manner upon the sound foundations laid so far. The measure now before the House is, therefore, an interim measure which is flexible enough to allow the council to develop on a partly elected basis. Hon. members will no doubt have noticed that clauses 1 and 8 contain the gist of this Bill. Accordingly I wish to deal mainly with these two clauses.

Clause 2 provides for the enlargement of the council’s membership as well as for its reconstitution from time to time to consist of appointed and elected members. It is necessary to increase the maximum membership from 25 to 30 with a view to making a wider and better balanced representation between the various provinces possible. The number of 30 has been determined in consultation with the council. Whereas it makes for better representation on the one hand, it is on the other hand not so large as to make the council unwieldy.

It will also be observed that this clause makes provision for the determination by proclamation in the Gazette of the ratio of appointed and elected members as well as the procedure to be followed with elections. These proclamations can be amended from time to time to meet the requirements of the moment and, therefore, allow for development of the council as I have already indicated. In order to make this development possible, it is necessary that the legal procedures to be followed be flexible, allowing the reconstitution of the council from time to time and to amend the election procedures in accordance with the changing composition of the council. There is, however, an important principle written into this clause, a principle that I wish to underline, namely that proclamations can only be issued by the State President “after consultation by the Minister with the council”. This principle of consultation is the all-important basis on which my department and I have succeeded in building sound relations with the Indian community and has, therefore, also been the basis for the sound development of the South African Indian Council in the past, and will continue to be so in future. As a matter of fact, this very Bill is founded on consultation with the South African Indian Council and is accepted by that body.

Subsection (4) of clause 2 provides that serving members of the council as at the time of its enlargement and the first election of members shall continue to serve as appointed members until the expiration of the term of office of the council.

Mr. Speaker, I make no excuse for this provision other than to state that I consider it only fair that the serving members should be accorded this right in view of the service that they have rendered to their community in spite of criticism and censure from certain sections of the Indian public and Press.

I know that in some quarters the members of the South African Indian Council have been labelled as “stooges of the Government” or “yes-men”. It will probably also be said that it is for this reason that I wish to protect their rights. However, no member of the council has been appointed because he is a “stooge” or a “yes-man”, nor have I ever victimized any member of the council for having criticized the Government or its actions. In making appointments it has always been my policy to appoint those persons who could best serve their community and the country in a responsible and dignified manfer. Naturally, I am not prepared to appoint anybody who is not prepared to serve on the basis of consultation but who prefers a policy of confrontation which would bring us nowhere.

At this juncture I wish to pay tribute to the members, past and present, of the South African Indian Council for the excellent work done by them. In spite of criticism and sometimes personal insults and threats they have not faltered in carrying out their duties as responsible members of their community. In particular I wish to praise the members of the executive committee for their unstinted service to their community and country, often under most trying conditions and at great personal sacrifice. They have really performed their duties in a most efficient manner and are in no small way responsible for the esteem in which the council is held.

This brings me to clause 8 of the Bill, whereby the Council is empowered to deal with certain matters relating to the Indian community, such as for example community welfare and education, and which makes provision for the delegation of administrative and executive functions to the executive committee by the Minister, an Administrator or the Executive Committee of a province.

Based on my experience with the executive committee of the first statutory council and that of the present executive, I have no doubt at all that certain functions in the fields of social welfare and education can at this stage be delegated to that body and that as we go along, these matters could be entrusted to the committee in increasing degree. These delegations are, however, matters that will also be considered in the light of our consultations with the council.

The other clauses in this Bill are for the most part consequential amendments. I shall deal with them briefly and if any further elucidation is required, I shall do so in the Committee Stage.

Clause I ensures the continued existence of the South African Indian Council as such from the time of promulgation of the amending legislation until the date on which the council is enlarged by proclamation.

Clause 3 merely acknowledges the present provision for provincial representation and extends it to the reconstituted council.

Clause 4: Apart from the consequential amendment to cover elected members the disqualifications are extended by subsection (c) to include servants of the State who are not incumbents of posts in the public service, e.g. teachers.

Clause 5: The proviso inserted in sub-section (1) ensures that a common term of office can be determined for appointed and elected members.

Clause 6 substitutes a clearer description of the grounds for vacation of office and extends the disqualifications to include such matters as physical and mental defects and misconduct. It also makes provision for written resignation from office and requires appointed members to signify acceptance of their appointment in writing.

Clause 7 rectifies a shortcoming in the principle Act in that there is no provision for continuity of office as far as the executive committee is concerned. In view of the fact that executive powers will be delegated to the committee, it is so much more important that there should be a caretaker committee in between the periods of office of these committees.

Having already dealt with clause 8, I finally come to clause 9 which safeguards the validity of the decisions and actions of the council and its executive committee from nullification by virtue of technical default or omission.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not only a further step in the implementation of the Government’s policy of separate development for the Indian community, but also illustrates what can be achieved by a community that is prepared to grasp the opportunities offered to it. It further illustrates that the best way of development is self-development. Responsible leaders of the Indian community have not been slow in grasping this truth. It must be remembered that it was only as recently as 1961 that the Indian people of the Republic were recognized for the first time as a permanent part of the South African population. It augurs well for their future that their leaders have come forward and signified their willingness to work within the framework of Government policy for the welfare of their people in particular and for the general welfare of the Republic of South Africa. No wonder that they have made great strides ahead in all fields during the last decade and have proved that they can in ever-increasing measure render their own community services.

The Government, therefore, has no hesitation in providing this measure for their further self-development.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill will be supported by the official Opposition at the Second Reading. It will be supported because it is a step in the right direction, but in saying that it is a step in the right direction, we are not suggesting that we do not have criticism of certain of the measures embodied in the Bill —I shall deal with those provisions in detail—and that we do not have criticism of the manner in which these powers are to be implemented. As the hon. the Minister has said, the original Act of 1968 was, if one can put it this way, in the nature of a skeleton outline, and this Bill is a measure which puts a certain amount of flesh onto the skeleton. We welcome it in that this skeleton is now to be partly covered. Our criticism is that the Bill does not go far enough. It introduces two things principally; it introduces the elective principle into what is at the present time a wholly nominated body. To that extent it is to be welcomed, although from the point of view of the United Party we would have liked to see it a wholly elective party. The standpoint of this party is that whilst we believe—indeed, it is the corner-stone of our policy—that there ought to be communal councils for various race groups and for the Indians in particular, to which councils’ powers should be devolved so that they will have the maximum executive function we believe that the body which is to exercise those functions should be a wholly elective body. But, Sir, to the extent that the elective principle is introduced in this measure, it has our support. The other principal function of the Bill, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, is to give executive functions, in the field of social welfare and education, to what was an advisory body under the Act as it stands at the present time. At the present time the Act gives the Indian Council merely powers of an advisory nature, whereas the Bill before the House introduces executive functions. To that extent also the Bill has the support of this side of the House, although, as I shall indicate, we believe that it does not go far enough and that further executive powers could profitably be given to this council. The third aspect upon which I shall comment is that this is really in the nature of an empowering Bill—and I speak generally—to allow the Minister to implement what is intended by means of proclamation in the Gazette. That is the third aspect upon which there will be criticism levied from this side of the House. I may say that for the past year or two in debates on the hon. the Minister’s Vote this side of the House has attempted to obtain from the hon. the Minister an indication of his thinking as to the direction in which this council is to evolve, and it is interesting now to read in this Bill for the first time what the Minister’s thinking is in that regard, in so far as it is revealed at all in this Bill.

Sir, clause 1 provides merely for the continued existence of the present council, pending the inauguration of the new enlarged council, which is set out in clause 2. Clause 2, as the hon. the Minister has said, is one of the principal clauses of the Bill. It empowers the Minister by proclamation —and I emphasize that it is by proclamation—to do a number of things. It empowers him to declare the size of the enlarged council; to declare the number of members to be elected, as opposed to nominated; to declare the qualifications of candidates and voters and the procedures to be followed in regard to nominations and elections. It also provides for the Minister to declare in this proclamation the demarcation of constituencies. Sir, I believe that this is a strange way of going about it; it is a strange way that important matters of this kind should be done entirely by way of proclamation, a proclamation which is not even to be laid on the Table of the House for discussion, as is the proclamation referred to later on in the Bill, in clause 8, which refers to executive functions. The effect of clothing the Executive Committee with executive functions in this way is to preclude this House from having any say in what is intended. We are precluded from having any debate or offering any comments on the number of elected members which this council is to have and on the qualifications of candidates and voters. We are not to play any part in laying down the procedures to be followed at elections or nominations, and we are to have no say in the demarcation of constituencies. It seems to me, to say the least, that this is a strange way of going about things, more particularly as the Indian Council, in one form or another, has now been in existence for some eight years. I would have thought that the proper way to have gone about this Bill would have been to set out in the Bill what was intended in this regard, or, at the very least, for the hon. the Minister in introducing the measure to outline to the House what his thinking is so far as the proclamation which he foreshadows is concerned. Sir, we are given no idea as to what qualifications are expected of members either of the council or of the executive committee. We are given no idea, either in the Bill or in the hon. the Minister’s speech, as to what proportion of this council is to be elected, not to mention the Minister’s intention in the other regards which are referred to as being matters to be dealt with by proclamation. In our view the better and the proper way to do this would have been to follow what was done in the case of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, a similar measure dealing with the Coloured people and their council, which was passed by this House in 1964. I do not propose to go into detail as far as that Act is concerned. But simply to give an illustration of the way I believe it should have been done I would refer the House to sections 1 to 4 of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, in which there is set out in detail the manner in which voters are to be registered, the number of the council, the number of councillors to be elected, the number of councillors to be nominated by the Minister, the qualifications of voters and the disqualification of voters. All this is set out at length in the Act itself, which was subject to discussion in this House, and I believe that is the way in which the hon. the Minister should have approached the problem of setting up the Indian Council, with which we are dealing in this Bill.

Clause 3 deals with the distribution of seats between the various provinces, another matter which is to be settled by way of proclamation, and this House will play no part in the settling of that issue. Here again if one looks at the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, it was a matter which was set out in detail in the Bill itself and which was discussed by this House.

Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the qualifications of members of the council, that is to say, qualifications apart from the requirement of being an Indian who is permanently resident in the Republic; that is referred to in the Bill. But all the other qualifications are to be set out by way of proclamation. We have not been told what the Minister’s views are in this regard. Nothing is set out in the Bill and the House is left completely in the dark was to what the hon. the Minister has in mind in that regard. Here again, if one looks at the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, section 10, one finds that those matters were specifically set out in that Bill and were the subject of discussion in this House.

Clause 5 embodies a provision which I cannot understand, and I refer the Minister to the new section 5 (1), which is at line 35 on page 5 of the English text. It is a new proviso which is to be inserted and which, as far as I can understand, language has no meaning which is clearly ascertainable. I would be glad if in his reply or at some later stage during these proceedings the hon. the Minister would tell us what is intended in this regard and what these words mean in his view. I refer to the words “provided that the period of office of persons who are members of the council at any particular time shall not extend beyond a date fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette as the date of expiry of the period of office of those members”.

We come then to clause 6 which deals with the circumstances under which a member of the council would be required to vacate his office as a member. A number of them are unexceptionable but I would refer to paragraph (c) on page 7, which provides that a man who becomes a member of the council shall vacate this office if he signifies in writing his wish to resign and his resignation is accepted by the Minister. One wonders why it is necessary that his resignation should be accepted by the Minister. One would have thought that the mere submission of a resignation in writing would have been sufficient, as is normally the case. A further paragraph which one is concerned with is paragraph (b) which provides that if the condition of his health becomes such that the Minister acting on the advice of a registered medical practitioner considers him unfit for further service on the council he can inform him accordingly in writing. No one knows the provisions which are usually applicable in cases of this kind, they are to be found in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act and in the legislation relating to those people who hold office in this House and other elected bodies in this country. The provision normally relates to unsoundness of mind, of one kind or another, usually declared by a court to be such, but here you have an unusual provision whereby the Minister can remove a person on the advice of a single registered medical practitioner. I would like the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell the House what he has in mind in this regard.

Whatever it was, it was unsound.

I would like the Minister to indicate what he has in mind and what circumstances in his view would warrant the inclusion of a clause of this kind. I would have thought that if one is to rely on medical advice in regard to unfitness to hold an office, there should at least be two medical practitioners whose opinion the Minister would accept, as in the case where one has to apply to court to have a person declared to be of unsound mind, or declared incapable of managing his affairs. One medical opinion in those circumstances is never considered sufficient and prima facie it would appear that that criticism would apply in this regard. It is an unusual provision and I would like the hon. the Minister to enlarge upon it in his reply.

A further aspect of this matter which prima facie is unusual is paragraph (h) of this clause, that is to say, the second part. The first part is normal. A man is required to vacate his seat if he is removed from an office of trust on account of improper conduct. That is not an unusual provision but then it goes on to say “or if he has been guilty of conduct by reason whereof he is in the opinion of the Minister, after consultation with the council, not a fit person to remain a member of the council, and is informed in writing by the Minister accordingly”. Here again this is framed in an unusual manner and I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate the type of circumstance which he believes would warrant the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. Here again, if one looks at the legislation relating to the setting up of the Coloured Persons Representative Council one finds no such provision as I am discussing at the present time. The more orthodox references to insolvency and incapacity are all set out there. It is not a measure such as this one to which I have just referred. Now, one wonders why in setting up a council of this kind, or rather giving it further powers, there is such a wide divergence between the manner in which it is sought to be done in this case before us and the manner in which it was done when the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council was being set up. After all, the Bill would not have been brought before the House, one assumes, unless the hon. the Minister has clearly in his mind what he will put in the proclamation to be published when this Bill becomes law. He must have clearly set out in his mind what provisions will be contained in the proclamation. That being so, it would have been proper, I believe, to have told the House on this occasion what his thoughts are in that regard.

Finally one comes to clause 8 which sets out the executive functions which the hon. the Minister is to give to the council. Two of them are set out. They are education and community welfare, matters which properly in our view fall within the purview of a council of this kind. The third is “such other matters as the State President may from time to time determine by proclamation in the Gazette". Here again the Minister’s intentions are not set out in the Bill and he has not told the House a word about it in his speech. We of the United Party believe that you could safely extend the executive functions of this council even at this stage and that you could safely give the council the portfolios of finance and local government, which indeed was the case in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council to which I have already referred. Those were given in the initial stage and I believe that that extension of power could reasonably have been given in this instance to the Indian Council.

As I have said, we are supporting this Bill because we believe it moves in the right direction. It incorporates two new principles : the election of some of the members at least and the giving of executive functions to the council. However we believe that the method used is not the best method. Indeed, I believe, that doing it by proclamation has serious disadvantages, not the least of which is the fact that this House is not given any opportunity of expressing its views on what is intended in that regard. Whilst the Bill has these defects, we believe that it moves in the right direction in general. Accordingly, it will be supported by the Official Opposition during the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to a few arguments and points of criticism from the hon. member for Zululand, I want to refer to a very interesting notice that came into my possession. I want to tell hon. members that I did not steal that notice anywhere; it just came into my possession. This notice is in connection with the Bill at issue here. The notice reads as follows—

Time: 10 a.m.

Venue: Whips’ Room.

Agenda: The event of the Session— Frank Waring’s Indian Bill !

Bribes are being received for those wishing to speak.

It is signed by the secretary, whose name I shall not mention here. This suggestion of “bribes are being received” surely makes it seem to me as if there were no persons who wanted to speak about this Bill. That is why the secretary had to offer these “bribes”. But that is not what bothers me. I refer again to the words “the event of the Session”. In my opinion these words were introduced to purposely, in a sarcastic way … [Interjection] … to refer to that matter disparagingly. It was done with the idea of being derogatory to the Minister in a sarcastic way. If the hon. member knows English he will probably know what this expression in English means: “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”.

When we are speaking about a matter such as this, it is necessary to weigh up policies. I say it is necessary for one to weigh up policies. There are some of the younger members on that side of the House who probably do not know of an Act passed in this House, Act No. 28 of 1946, by the Opposition party’s predecessors when they were in power. If there are any hon. members on the other side of the House who want to investigate the matter, section 41 reads—

1. (a) in the Senate, by two senators;
2. (b) in the House of Assembly by 3 members; and
3. (c) in the Provincial Council of Natal, by two members.

Our people are familiar with this orange-coloured booklet, or whatever one calls it, in which the present United Party policy is stated.

Yellow reading-matter.

In this yellow-coloured booklet of the United Party it is stated …

You must however remember that is an interim policy.

Yes, we accept the possibility of this. But it is stated there that under the U.P.’s race federation policy the Indians will again be represented in the House of Assembly by two Whites and in the Senate by one White representative. It is very interesting that this is such a step backwards. In 1946 the United Party passed an Act, but that Act was never implemented because the National Party subsequently came into power. In 1946 the predecessors of the party opposite were prepared to give the Indians two representatives in the House of Assembly. According to that party’s new policy they are prepared to give the Indians two representatives. After 26 years that party is now taking a step backwards. That is the party that criticizes us because we do not move quickly enough and go far enough with this legislation. According to their new policy, there is now a 33 1/3 rd per cent reduction in the number of Indian representatives in this House of Assembly. As far as the Senate is concerned, there is a 50 per cent reduction. At the time they were prepared to give the Indians two representatives in the Natal Provincial Council. Those representatives could be Whites or Indians. After 26 years of backward progress in their attitude and standpoint in respect of one of the population groups in this country, we hear nothing from that party about this. I challenge the United Party to show me, in their present policy and the pamphlets about it, anything in connection with representation of the Indians in the provincial council. Since they determined and declared that policy of theirs, the United Party has had many conferences in Natal. The United Party is also the leading party in the Natal Provincial Council.

Where are the Nats?

No, listen to my argument now and do not make nonsensical remarks. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they cannot follow the argument. The United Party, which is at the helm in Natal, and which of course also controls the provincial council there, have never in any case, since they declared this policy of theirs in that yellow-coloured booklet, thought of also giving the Indians a say in the provincial council.

So much for that. We know that in 1946 the Indians did not even want as a free gift that representation they got.

The United Party’s policy in respect of the Indians, as I know it, is that they want to integrate the Indian politically under their race federation system. They do not want to give the Indians representation in accordance with their numbers. Not only have the Indians in Natal increased in numbers throughout the years—I have the figures here, but I do not want to bother the House with them—but they have also increased proportionally in relation to the Whites. Notwithstanding this, under United Party policy they will have much fewer rights than they did in 1946.

Are you going to give them a homeland?

They have no say in the Natal Provincial Council and the United Party does not intend to give them any say either. In this Parliament, in the House of Assembly and in the Senate, the Indians will of course be completely dominated. They will only have a nominal say. Hon. members opposite must now listen to this question I want to ask them. It is a very simple question and I am going to ask it in very simple language: What, on the other hand, is the National Party going to give them? The National Party believes in separate development, and it believes that the Indians are a separate people. It believes that the evolutionary process of the Indians’ development, politically and constitutionally, is the correct and sound one. The hon. member for Zululand said: “It is a step in the right direction”. He said, in addition, that they had no further criticism, “but it does not go far enough”. He repeated this a few times. That is why I am stating this argument. The National Party believes that the pattern, the basis, was determined in previous legislation, inter alia Act 31 of 1968, which forms the basis of this amendment Bill. The National Party believes this to be the correct basis. The National Party also believes that the Indian Council can do much more, even at the present time, than the Indians will be able to do under United Party policy, as it applies to them. The National Party believes that constitutionally the Indians cannot progress more rapidly than they are able to and more rapidly than they can absorb. The National Party believes that the Council must not obtain greater responsibility than they are able to manage. I am referring here to the matters mentioned in connection with education and community welfare. The Indian Counoil knows the National Party’s policy —we do not beat about the bush as far as our policy is concerned—and there are no illusions. That is why the Indian Council has also acquiesced to this legislation.

I want to make a few general remarks. The term of office of the Statutory Indian Council that was appointed in September 1968, expired on 31st August, 1971, and the new members have already been nominated. That is why these members are now being retained. The establishment of the South African Indian Council was a step forward in the life and being of the Indian community. It can be confirmed that this Indian Council has done more for the Indians than any Indian organization has ever done before. The Council has become a channel of contact, and before the establishment of the Indian Council there was very little contact between the Government and the Indian community. With the creation of the Indian Council by this Government, the first legally recognized medium of contact developed between the Indian community and the Government. Previously there was only a scant measure of contact between the Government and certain individuals or organizations in the Indian community. This was, however, only sporadic; it was very irregular and never significant. Sometimes it was contact that developed out of a crisis or complaint situation. The result was that emotions were aroused during those discussions, and on all sides it was felt that this was ineffective. Basically the Indian community derived very little benefit from it.

In contrast with the situation that prevailed, the Indian community obtained a very important instrument, with the establishment of the South African Indian Council, which could advocate their interests. This made machinery available to the community to approach the Government at the highest level and to act in the interests of the Indian community when this was necessary. The result of this was that the Indians’ problems could be better understood, but it also resulted in the Indian Council beginning to gain a better understanding of the standpoint, the problems and the policy of the Government. Frequently there was a revaluation of situations, which promoted the peaceful coexistence of the various population groups, and appreciation was also expressed for the work of this Indian Council. In this connection I want to quote from what the Minister of Finance said in July, 1971, on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Republic Bank in Durban, in connection with the Indian Council. At the time he expressed the following words of appreciation—

In short, as a result of the creation of the Indian Council, the Indian community has gained a tremendous opportunity for dialogue with the government at various levels: with the officials, with the Minister and on occasion with the Prime Minister, and even with the State President. I know that these people have been accused of being “stooges”, but we also know that when hon. members opposite come along with their policy in respect of the Indians, they have not even consulted a single Indian. They cannot tell us what prominent Indians they have consulted; they are consequently talking at random.

Quite a few principles are embodied in this Bill, the first being that the Indian Council is now being enlarged. This is quite obvious. A number of members are elected members, i.e. this Council is partly elected. The hon. member for Zululand also referred to that. In addition the powers of the South African Indian Council are now also being extended and it is obtaining wider powers in connection with the Indians’ own education, community development and other matters Which the State President determines from time to time by proclamation in the Gazette.

I want to conclude by saying that this legislation is also a logical consequence of the policy of separate development of the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I had imagined once upon a time that the jackass was the animal with the least sense of humour in the animal kingdom, but having heard the hon. member who has just sat down, I am coming to the conclusion that a “kudu” with a “poort” on it has even less. My hon. friend, the green member for Odendaalsrus, who called out “skande” when this notice was read out, has even less than the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because this is the event of the season. All of us are pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs coming to this House with the Bill. For members of the Indian group on this side of the House, it is a very great, rare and “seldsame” occasion, and we welcome it. We have a problem, as we always have in dealing with the hon. the Minister, namely to sort out the rush of members on this side who wanted to help the hon. the Minister get his Bill through the House. For that reason we decided that there should be a small contribution made, and who should they make the contribution to, but to the secretary of the group? It is a highly profitable operation, and we welcome the hon. the Minister with his Bill. We are here to help the hon. the Minister and to support him. We are supporting the Bill, and I do not know why hon. members opposite should be upset about it. We are supporting the measure because we believe it is a measure which takes the Indian community a step further along the way which we would like to see them go. What interested me was that the hon. member for Koedoespoort did not say one word about the Bill, except with his last two words. He was talking about the policy of the Nationalist Government. I am very pleased indeed that he did so. He queried the policy of this side of the House. He cast reflections on the fact that we no longer provide for representation in the provincial councils by members of the Indian community; with justice, because our policy now is that they shall have a communal council on which they will be represented, which will replace the functions that they could be enjoying in the provincial council. The hon. member must therefore not say that it has been reduced by 50 per cent, or any big grandstand act of that nature. It means nothing at all. But neither he nor the hon. the Minister gave any idea whatsoever about what is in the hon. the Minister’s mind. We are entitled to ask whether there is anything in the Minister’s mind. Surely, we have here something which I regard as nothing less than a cloak-and-dagger act. The hon. the Minister is coming before us with a Bill to give him certain powers to do certain things by regulations things which are going to affect the constitution of the Indian Council. What those things are, we have no idea at all, except that somewhere or other, in the dark folds of the cloak in which this Bill is enfolded, there will be-provision for some people to be elected to the council.

Are you supporting this cloak-and-dagger Bill?

I am supporting it, because it is the best we can get from the hon. the Minister. At least, if we are going to support it, we would like to know —we invite the hon. the Minister to tell us —what he has in his mind. Will there be only the five additional members to be elected?

How can you have anything in a vacuum?

Well, Sir, that is not my problem. Does he intend to have perhaps 14 of the 30 members elected and 16 to be appointed, which would give them a safe majority? We would like to know. We really feel that this is something which is not a sound way of legislating. I am surprised that the hon. members on the other side can support it, that the Minister can simply say here, “give me the power to do certain things.”

But you are supporting it—not only members on this side.

They should be opposing it.

Perhaps, Sir, they should be opposing it. The point is that they are introducing the legislation. It is in furtherance of their policy. It is their policy which is being implemented. I am quite certain that none of them will tell us during the course of this debate how many of these members are to be elected and how many to be nominated. Surely, if anybody is going to stipulate something like that, it is the duty of hon. members on the other side to make sure that legislation which comes before this House contains the details, as the previous legislation did concerning the Coloured Representative Council, of what the Government had in mind. Why do the hon. members on the other side allow the Minister and the department to come before this House with something which is completely vague, literally a blank cheque given into the hands of the hon. the Minister?

It’s an enabling Bill, that is all.

As the hon. member for Zululand says, it is an enabling Bill which puts into the hand of the Minister the political future of the Indian community.

Up until now, what we have had has been merely a consultative body representing the Indian community, who were in fact a hand-picked group, picked by the hon. the Minister and his predecessors …

Be careful!

I am sure the hon. the Minister will not deny that it was a hand-picked group. He picked the people who, in his view, represented the Inidan community. That is a fair statement. I think the hon. the Minister can give us—a statement as to why all the members of this council are not at this stage to be elected. Is it perhaps that there is no trust between him and the members of the Indian community, or what is it exactly in his mind that makes him hold on to the powers to nominate what would probably be a majority in the council, as it is going to be reconstituted. I say “probably” because we do not know. The hon. the Minister has not told us.

I would like to deal with a point which was raised by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, namely the policy of the Government regarding the eventual aim and the path on which we are going, the first step of which we are now taking. The hon. member attacked us for our policy of bringing representatives of the Indian community into this House. He said that the policy of the National Party was separate development. I hope that the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Rissik or the next speaker on that side will tell us what the ultimate aim of the National Party is in relation to the Indian community. Sir, I ask that question because I believe it is going to become of very great importance indeed as the political development of the Indian community takes place, and I believe it for this reason: Let us go back in history and look at the time of the French Revolution, which brought about one of the most violent changes in history. The King of France called a meeting of the three estates—the nobles, the clergy and the commoners—to meet a very great financial crisis in his kingdom. Sir, from that apparently innocuous act emerged one of the greatest revolutions the world had ever known—for one reason, and that reason was that as time went by the position of the moderates was out-flanked consistently and persistently by people who were extreme. I believe that if the Government are serious about allowing the Indian community to delop in a responsible political fashion, it is up to them to strengthen with every means in their power the position of the moderates in the Indian community. Sir, I want to know how the moderate element in the Indian community, who have more to lose than any other population group in South Africa should there be a revolution in our country, can be expected to maintain their position in their own community with the whole of their future simply a blank. Sir, they have more to lose than any other group because we have seen what has happened in Africa to the north of us, where every single major Asian community has been decimated by extremist Black nationalists. What we face is a political development in which the Indian community, standing side by side with the White community, as they do, with a very great community of interests with the White people, is being urged on by people who are becoming more and more extreme out of sheer frustration because of the lack of leadership on the part of Nationalist Government. It is the moderates who have to be reinforced in their position. These people do not know what the ultimate outcome of Government policy is going to be. It has been stated openly that there will be no homeland for the Indians. If there was going to be a homeland for them, then we could understand it. We know that the Coloured community are suffering exactly the same sort of frustration. How do you allow people to stand on a moderate basis of co-operation with White South Africa and that kind of thing, when it has been openly said by representatives of the Indians that they are prepared to go for Black power because the Black man in South Africa can treat them no worse than the White man has done?

Are your friends the Indian Congress?

Sir, I have no friends in the Indian Congress.

But you have just quoted them.

I am merely quoting what they are saying. They are not my friends; they may be the hon. the Minister’s friends for all I know. I do not know who they are, but that is a quotation which is being freely used, and it is being used because the Indian community, which is part and parcel of this South African conglomeration of nations, or whatever you like to call the multi-racial elements of South Africa, can see no clear future for themselves in terms of the Government’s policy, and what we have had here from the hon. the Minister today is merely an indication that we are going to take a step forward—towards what? The elective principle is now going to be adopted.

You said that it was the right step.

Yes, we agree, but I want to know what the Minister is going to do to strengthen the position of the moderate element in the Indian community to make themselves available for election in terms of the measure which we are now being asked to pass. There is no clear indication and no guidance from the Minister. I believe it is absolutely essential that in the course of this discussion we should get a clear indication from the other side as to what they envisage as the ultimate future and destination of the Indian community in South Africa. Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has said quite clearly what our policy is. We envisage representation for the Indians in this House. I would like to quote what was said by a very distinguished South African, a person no less than the hon. member for South Coast, who said once that prededents have more force than any law. I want to say, Sir, that there is a tremendous force of precedent which is resident in this House. I say with all the seriousness at my command that there is a tremendous force of precedent which exerts pressure upon people to conform to the rich traditions of democracy which are present in this House and which have proved time and again to be able to discipline and to control any kind of extremism and that kind of thing when people in other countries and in other places have been included in parliamentary institutions of this nature. Sir, we stand here as the heirs of a tremendous, long span of history, we have a machinery, a procedure—and we have you yourself, Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the power of the State in this House—to which every member in this House bows in acknowledgment of your authority in this Parliament, and this is something which we as a White people would abandon at our peril if we simply gave it up and said to the Indian people : “Go off into some kind of limbo,” which is undefined, which is unknown constitutionally, which has not yet been settled or decided upon by hon. members on the other side. Sir, we say that this is a step in the right direction, but we think there is a very, very heavy onus on the Minister to tell as exactly how he sees the ultimate destination of the Indian community on the path on which he is starting them here today, a path which we support.

After listening to the hon. member for Mooi River, I wonder if Bill understands the Bill. In one breath the hon. member says they support this Bill, but in other respects he cannot (criticize) the Bill strongly enough. The hon. member wants to know what our thoughts are in connection with the Indian’s political future. He wants us to tell him in detail what we in South Africa envisage in respect of the Indian’s political development. The hon. member had the fullest opportunity, when he spoke a moment ago, to tell us what constitutional development the United Party envisages for the Indians with their policy of having the Indians represented in this House by Whites. Why did the hon. member not lift the veil for us a little as far as the future is concerned? Does he want us to play the role of prophets in this matter? Our whole policy is based on the sound principle of separate development, and on that basis we shall continue.

Homelands?

The Indian will not obtain representation here; he will have his own political dispensation.

Where?

Sir, allow me to express our great appreciation to the hon. the Minister for this Bill. Allow me also to express my great appreciation to him for the sympathetic manner in which he co-operates with the Indian Council. Sir, I have that evidence from Council members themselves, with whom I spoke about these matters. They all speak with great appreciation of the confidence which the hon. the Minister has already established in the Indian Council. It was a revelation to me that these people feel themselves free to liaise with the Minister, particularly in respect of what is sometimes a ticklish problem, the implementation of the Group Areas Act. Only recently they again talked to the Minister about that. They have so much confidence in the Minister that they come to him with all their problems and he listens to their representations. Sir, in accordance with stated policy, the National Party comes before the House today with this next evolutionary step in the process of the political development of the Indian population in South Africa. The nominated council is now being enlarged from 25 to 30 members by the addition of five elected members. This principle of nominated members in a limited executive capacity is nothing new in the history of South Africa. On the contrary, this concept of a nominated executive authority in South Africa is a very old one in the tradition of our political history. The old Cape executive authority initially consisted of nominated members; later it was supplemented by elected members, and these elected members were gradually augmented until eventually the executive authority consisted fully of elected members. In Natal the original executive authority was also appointed; later there were the elected members and these were gradually augmented. With the Government now making provision for the augmentation of the Indian Council, we are therefore now acting in accordance with tradition as far as the constitutional evolutionary process in South Africa is concerned. In addition I should like to point out that the present members of the Indian Council have accepted and carried out their duties since its inception with great dedication and responsibility. We are very grateful to the Council for that. We therefore cannot now summarily discharge the members to create vacancies for other members; that is why there is this augmentation of the Council to also allow for the better functioning of the Council. We give recognition to the good work they have done. They themselves know that the process towards greater autonomy is a gradual one, and they accept this with responsibility. In addition this Bill also takes the constitutional development of the Indians a step further in respect of their executive authority. Thus, in terms of our stated policy, we shall supplement their authority to an increasing extent by giving them greater responsibilities. As provided in this Bill, they will also have specific duties in respect of education and social welfare. I think there is a great need for social welfare work amongst certain groups of the Indians, and I think they themselves can handle this much more effectively. The fact remains that the Indians in South Africa are really in a very fortunate position in terms of this particular dispensation. The weaker groups in any community are quite frequently engulfed in respect of their own needs, particularly in a democratic system such as we have here in South Africa. Here the Indian community has the opportunity of singling out its needs in order to expressly bring them to the Government’s attention, and in many respects I think this is a privilege for a minority group. If the Indian population and the Council act, in future, in the same spirit of goodwill and with the same sense of responsibility they have displayed up to now, their constitutional development will of necessity have to accelerate. I think the hon. member for Mooi River ought to listen to this because he is so concerned about this matter, but apparently the hon. member is not interested in the answer. It depends on the Indians themselves whether they accept the responsibility as it will gradually be allocated to them and utilize it in a responsible way. We concede that there are certain ceilings for the present, but I do not regard these present ceilings as permanent political or constitutional institutions.

In a debate such as this I think it is a good thing for us to take a brief look at a few specific characteristics of the Indian community. In the first instance I should like to refer to the fact that in a period of about 100 years the Indian population has undergone virtually no form of integration with any other race in South Africa. I think this is noteworthy and we must mention it. There is already a need in the Indian population to preserve its own identity in South Africa. This is also in accordance with the National Party’s stated policy and we do not begrudge them the fact. Their religious and social systems are beneficial to the preservation of their own identities. We must also note that in general the Indians are economically active and self-sufficient. I will readily concede that there is, in fact, also great poverty amongst certain sections of the Indian population, but in general the Indian is to a large extent self-sufficient and therefore not a burden to the State. Since new statutory powers have now been bestowed on them, I think they can, to an increasing extent, provide for their own needs in the economic and other spheres. If we make a study of criminology in South Africa, it is also interesting to note that the incidence of crime is low amongst the Indian population. This is particularly the case in respect of juvenile offences. I think we can safely accept that this attests to a people which, to a large extent, brings up its children in a responsible way. Contrary to the popular conception, I want to point out that there is a large degree of diversity amongst the Indian population in respect of their professional life. On a percentage basis the professional diversity of the Indians accords to a large extent with that of the Whites. It is therefore not so that the Indians are chiefly drawn into commerce. The Indian population is playing an increasing role in our national economy. We find that Indians are particularly suited to engage in a large diversity of professions in our industry. It is interesting to learn that with the staffing of the third Iscor, which is being built at Newcastle, about 1 500 Indians will be needed to act in various capacities. This attests to the greater role the Indians will play in the whole South African economy in the future. Therefore it is also right that by the establishment of the Indian Council they should have greater responsibility.

What is the United Party’s dispensation for the Indians in South Africa? In sharp contrast to the realistic approach of the National Party, we get the United Party’s policy of limited representation: two representatives in the House of Assembly and one Senator in the Senate, who must all be Whites. Coupled with this excuse for political authority are the other lovely words of the United Party, i.e. race federation. It is not even an excuse for the meaning of the words “race federation”. More than a hundred years of limited political rights for the Coloured people of South Africa, meant nothing at all to them as a people. On the contrary, the Coloured people, like the Indians, will to an increasing extent obtain the benefits the National Party is establishing for them. I believe that the Indian population in particular will make use of this. How can such an excuse for political rights as the United Party offers embody any advantages for the Indians? I do not think that the Indians in South Africa will ever be so stupid as to exchange such make-believe as the United Party offers them for the benefits of their own authoritative body as embodied in the Indian Council which is being offered to them by the National Party.

Order! The hon. member should deal with the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Indians of South Africa have already indicated that they are prepared to co-operate with the Government in respect of this legislation. It is therefore also necessary for us to sketch the background of the Indians’ way of thinking and the light in which they see this Bill. I consequently also want to point out further that the plans the United Party had for the Indians in the past were actually pathetic. I shall quote briefly here from …

I hope the hon. member is going to quote from the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the Act, passed by the United Party in this House of Assembly in 1946, relating specifically to Indian affairs. I should like to point out that as far as electoral qualifications were concerned, they laid down a policy very much the same as the present Progressive Party policy. Here they mention, for example …

Order! No, the hon. member must deal with that matter on another occasion; we are dealing with the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, we hope that the Indian Council will profitably use this additional step in the constitutional evolution of the Indian population and implement it for the good of the Indian population in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs made a very sad admission this afternoon when he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. He says that it is only since 1961 that Indians have been recognized as a permanent part of the population of the Republic. I do not know for whom he is talking. He can certainly only talk for his own Party because I can assure him that there are very many enlightened people in South Africa who have always accepted that the Indian population of South Africa is a permanent part of this country and have never ever placed any hopes in schemes of repatriation or anything of that kind. The hon. the Minister also said that he was not prepared to be rushed and therefore the Bill that he is offering here this afternoon does not incorporate a council which is to be an elected council. I myself think that it is an impertinence in this day and age to come to the House and offer the Indian population of South Africa, a population which has been here for more than a hundred years, incidentally, this pale substitute of an elected council. The hon. the Minister talks about this Bill conferring status on the Indian Council. We should not confuse status with power, because there is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill will not give the new council more power really than the old council had. I say it is an impertinence to offer this to the Indian population, a population which today numbers some 620 000 people according to the latest census. I say it is an impertinence because the Indian population, of all the groups, other than the White group in this country, of all the socalled non-White groups in South Africa, is by far the most educated group, by far the most culturally advanced group and the group which is entitled for these reasons to be given some meaningful say in the conduct of their own affairs.

Having said that, let us have a look at the Bill itself. According to the long title of this Bill the Bill will amend the 1968 Act so as to increase the number of members of the South African Indian Council. I do not see where that is going to happen. It does give enabling powers, but this may never take place. There may never be a proclamation which will increase the number of members of the council. It states furthermore that the Bill is going to provide for the election of certain members of the said council. Once again there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to say that the proclamation must take place, not at all. It is again a “may” and if it is in the opinion of the State President desirable to do so by proclamation. If it is not necessary or not considered wise to allow for the election of members, this too may never come into being.

The long title refers to the entrusting of certain additional functions to the said council. Nothing in the Bill is less certain than this; there is nothing in the Bill at all to ensure this. Apart from its indicating that the portfolios of Education and Welfare are going to be handled by the council, there is absolutely nothing laid down as to what additional functions are going to be performed by the council, none at all. We have nothing whatever in the Bill which tells us about the qualifications of the members, although the long title of the Bill states that the Bill is going “to further define the qualifications of members of the said council”. Not at all. It simply lays down again that the State President “may” lay down the qualifications of the members.

Indeed, I believe that we are being asked this afternoon to pass a Bill which gives no indication whatever as to its substance or as to its effect, because it leaves the functions and the constitution of the Indian Council entirely at the discretion of the Minister. We are not even told what the qualifications of the voters, in fact, are going to be. This, as far as I am concerned, is a no-Bill and I do not propose to support it.

I will concede that there is something in the Bill superficially which might embody what is known as an elective principle, but it is so vague and such an illusion that I, for one, am not prepared to give substance to a Bill which is as vague as this, which gives us absolutely no indication as to how the new council is going to function.

I do not believe that the Indian people as a whole see measures like this South African Indian Amendment Bill as putting them on the road to self-determination. Hon. members opposite may bluff themselves that this is the case, but I do not believe that Indians, by and large, those anyway who are politically minded, see this Bill as one which is going to put them on the road to self-determination. They rather see it in the light of the words of the hon. member who has just sat down and that, I think, is a much more accurate description, they see it as another embodiment of the policy of apartheid, of the policy of separate development.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member says “what is wrong with that”. He happens to support that policy; I happen to oppose that policy and the vast majority of the Indian population of South Africa also happens to oppose the policy of apartheid. That is why I say that hon. members opposite are bluffing themselves and I think the hon. the Minister is one of them, although I am not questioning his sincere desire to conciliate the Indian population. But I think he is bluffing himself if he thinks that coming with a Bill of this kind is in any way going to make the Indian population feel that they are being put on the road to self-determination. Far more do they see it as a further separation of themselves from the general stream of the social and economic development of South Africa.

What about the Coloureds?

Well, I opposed that as well. The hon. member ought to know that. I opposed that strongly and I oppose this too.

The hon. the Minister talked about consultation with the Indians. I do not believe that he has consulted really with what I call Indians who are politically conscious.

No, I have not consulted with the Indian Congress.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister should have and I shall tell him why. The Indian Congress, certainly as it existed originally, was far more representative of the real feelings of the Indian people than what has been created to fill what I can only call the vacuum which was created, and which has been filled by various councils, first the original council, the advisory council, which was then given a statutory function in 1968. All the measures which have been put on the Statute Book from the 1950’s onwards, and particularly throughout the 1960’s, measures which have allowed for bannings and house arrests and so on, have in fact emasculated political Indian opinion in South Africa. The once powerful Indian Congress was never banned. The hon. the Minister knows that. That organization, unlike other organizations, was not banned, but it was, emasculated because its leaders were banned and many of them are still under serious restrictions. I believe that in general the hon. the Minister does not really have the pulse of the Indian people under his finger-tips when he introduces this Bill as a Bill which is going to conciliate the political aspirations of the Indian people in South Africa. I do not want to go over the whole history of what has happened to the Indians in South Africa, because we know the history. We know what happened when the department took over in 1961, when it took over various functions from both the Central Government and the provincial governments in South Africa. It took over matters like immigration, the registration of births and deaths, education, welfare work, and so on. All this was gradually taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs. I want to concede at once, because I do believe in giving credit where I can give credit, that there are many officials in the Department of Indian Affairs who have been extremely sympathetic and tactful in their handling of the Indian population. I concede that at once and I think the Indian population is well aware of that. I also want to concede that there have been improvements, particularly as far as education is concerned. There is no doubt that in the field of education considerable improvements have been introduced since the setting up of the Department of Indian Affairs. Schools have been built, the qualifications of teachers have improved, and the whole standard of education has been bettered. I concede that right away. But none of this is a substitute for meaningful political rights, and the Bill we have to deal with today is concerned with offering some form of political representation, some form of political expression, for Indians, I do not believe that it fulfils a useful function and I must say this right away. I will admit, too … no, I am not going to admit anything else. I have got through my list of admissions …

You were going to thank me.

No, I am not going to thank you, because I think these are normal functions of a normal Government. I believe that improving the lot of the population, irrespective of colour, is the function of the Government, and I do not thank the Government for that. I am simply admitting that these improvements have taken place in certain respects, and I do pay tribute to the officials in the department who have handled their responsibilities with tact and, indeed, with sympathy.

As far as the local affairs committees are concerned, I think I know of only one that has proper executive functions and real responsibilities, and that is the Indian local affairs committee at Berulam. I know of no other. The others are all partly elected and partly nominated and they serve no real purpose at all. The hon. the Minister should have learned from the experience we have had as far as the Coloured Persons Representative Council is concerned. We know from experience that there is extreme dissatisfaction amongst the Coloured people about the way in which this council has been set up and the manner in which it is constituted. Although there are elected members and the way in which they were nominated and the personnel from whom they were drawn, namely from rejected aspirant elected members, should have taught the hon. the Minister a lesson. Yet he comes along here making suggestions which will result in the Indian community which is, as I say, the most advanced and educated and culturally sophisticated section of the non-White people, reacting with exactly the same dissatisfaction with the council that he is setting up that we have experienced as far as the Coloured council is concerned. In 1961 Dr. Verwoerd told the Coloured people that after ten years they would be in full control of their own affairs. The fact is that after 12 years they are still entirely at the mercy of this Party.

Order! We are not dealing with Coloured Affairs now.

No, Sir, but it is an example.

The hon. member must deal with the Bill.

I am just drawing an analogy, Sir, that is all. Exactly the same position applies now to the Indian people. As the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who has now disappeared, mentioned, more than a quarter of a century ago, Gen. Smuts actually offered the Indian representation in Parliament. He offered them three White representatives in the Assembly, one in the Senate and two Indians in the Provincial Council. It was rejected by the Indians then. A quarter of a century has passed since then, and the whole of the attitude of the Western world has changed as regards racialism, race discrimination and racial attitudes, and yet the hon. the Minister comes to the House, despite all these changes, with the largesse that he is offering in this Bill.

What do you suggest?

I will tell the hon. member what I suggest. I suggest meaningful political rights for the Indian people on the common roll. That is what I suggest. That is what my Party has always suggested. We suggest meaningful political rights for all races in this country on the common roll with qualifications which shall be based on education and economic qualifications. [Interjections.] I will send the hon. member copies of our policy which was laid down in 1959 and 1960. It is all in writing it has not changed, and hon. members can read, I hope. [Interjections.] Hon. members are not going to waste my time now, but the basic principle is common roll rights for qualified persons of all races in South Africa and representation in this House for persons of all colours on a common roll. That is the alternative. We have realized and everybody who has any political nous, if I may use that term, has realized that unless those rights are meaningful, people suffer grave disabilities. The history of the Indian people South Africa bears out the disabilities they have suffered under the Group Areas Act, and under statutory and conventional colour bars.

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

Well, hon. members over there asked me to describe our policy and that is all that I have done in brief.

But the hon. member must not allow herself to be led into temptation.

I will simply conclude by saying that, because I do not believe this Bill offers any meaningful political rights to the Indian people and because I believe that at this stage of our political history it is an impertinence to offer this emasculated, so-called “elected” council to the Indian people. I am going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with particular attention to the hon. member for Houghton. I think that absolutely true to the principles of her party she presented her standpoint here today. I think we can accept that since she was a member of the United Party in previous years, her ideas are actually a very clear continuation of the ideas of the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr. I want to tell her, however, that people in our world who think the way she does, in other words the so-called intellectual liberalists, have the basic problem that the more intensely they grapple with the problem of humanity, the more sketchy become the principles of their argument, so that they then come to light with a policy statement which is totally impractical and unrealistic in today’s world with its human problems. Another characteristic of the hon. member and her fellow-thinkers, is that they think they alone have a monopoly as far as absolute historical truth is concerned. She began her speech by saying, inter alia, that “enlightened people always regarded these Indians as a permanent group in the South African society”, or something in that line.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.