Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Minister’s references during the debate to the South-West Africa Act of 1969 and the powers given to him in regard to education, this side of the House objects in principle to his transfer of the powers of the Education Department of South-West Africa to the Republican Government. We opposed the 1963 Bill, which transferred Coloured Education from the Provinces to the Central Government, for the same reasons. The reasons are the following: Firstly, where education is concerned, we favour a policy of an increasing devolution of powers to the groups of people concerned; in other words, we are against greater centralization. Secondly, it is our conviction that all education, other than higher education, should in all cases be administered and controlled by the provincial administrations in the Republic and, in this instance, by the Legislative Assembly in South-West Africa. Thirdly, we consider that centralized control from Pretoria will make for cumbersome administrative machinery which will prove to be costly and which will involve an unnecessary duplication of work.

Whereas we are glad that the Minister had seen fit to accept certain of our amendments, the principle to which we are opposed, is not hereby attached. We believe the people in South-West Africa are themselves best qualified to decide upon both matters of policy and in regard to their own requirements in this field, since by the very nature of things they are more familiar with local conditions. There is no disagreement between us and the opposite side as regards the responsibility we have to render financial assistance in respect of public services of this kind for the advancement of the relevant groups of people in that territory. But, Sir, we disapprove of the basis upon which it is being done. Finally, I just want to say that we consider this an unwise and retrograde step, not only for educational reasons.

Oh no, please!

Yes, that is so. This is not the moment to impose further legislative decisions upon this territory, in view of the special and very delicate position, as far as South-West Africa is concerned, in the international community. Certainly this should not be the case where no attempt or, shall I say, very little attempt has been made to obtain for this Bill the active approval and co-operation of the relevant people in that territory. Clearly they have no option in the matter. Indeed, several clauses in the Bill make it very clear that the Government anticipates certain difficulties, particularly where the teachers in the territory are concerned. For the reasons I have stated, we on this side of the House find the Bill objectionable in principle, and we shall vote against it.

†I should just like to say that this whole law defeats its own object, because this means that the Government’s offer of ultimate independence for these people is in effect being negated by the introduction of this Bill. We oppose the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I really cannot understand the Opposition’s standpoint. All I can say is that originally they must have determined their standpoint from ignorance. When I came to this House with these measures, and introduced the first of them, the Opposition moved their amendment, and only after I had replied to the Opposition, did they hear for the first time that the Government had been dealing with Coloured education, Baster education and Nama education since 1969. At that stage I could see astonishment written all over the face of the hon. member for Wynberg. I am convinced of the fact that if they had known what the position had been for almost three years, they would not have decided to adopt this attitude with regard to this principle. By that time, however, they had a hot potato on their hands, and now they do not want to drop that hot potato; they still have it on their hands.

With this Bill we are not taking away anything from anyone. This Bill deals with the present, the existing, situation. If something had been taken away—and I am not admitting it was—then it was done in 1969. Hon. members should have objected at that time. I do not know what the situation was at that time, but at present we are dealing with an existing situation. We are simply giving more shape to something which exists. We are not taking away anything whatever from South-West Africa. The Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa cannot amend the chapter in the South-West African Education Ordinance dealing with non-White education; since as long ago as 1969 that has no longer been within its power. The Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa can do nothing whatsoever to it; we here are the only people who can amend it. Sir, the Opposition itself admitted here in these debates that from their point of view that ordinance could be improved. I did not agree with them, Sir, but you know how they moved amendments time and again, for example, that married women be appointed permanently. That is not laid down in the South-West African Ordinance. In other words, the Opposition itself admitted that the South-West African Ordinance could be improved, but the South-West African Ordinance cannot be amended by the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa, because that chapter falls under us. So we are the only people who have the power to amend that chapter. I want to make it very clear here that we are not taking away anything whatsoever from the Administration of South-West Africa.

As regards the question whether we are taking away anything from the Basters or from the other non-White population groups in South-West Africa, I also want to make it very clear that we are not taking anything whatsoever from them which they have at the present time. On the contrary, I think we are giving them far more than they have at the moment. At the moment they have a system of education based on a combined ordinance. Now we are giving them a complete and full-fledged Education Act of their own. Therefore it seems to me we are giving them more than they have at the moment.

Has the 1962 Ordinance, which covers education for the Basters, been in operation up to and including the time where we now have this legislation?

Yes. When education was handled by to the South-West Africa Administration, they administered non-White education, including education for the Basters, under the 1962 Ordinance. When it was transferred by the 1969 Act to the central Government and my department and I became responsible for it, we still administered education in terms of the 1962 Ordinance. That was the statutory basis on which we did it. We did so on the basis of that chapter of the 1962 Ordinance. But that was only one chapter of an ordinance; it was not a complete education instrument as the one we are creating for these people now. We are therefore not taking anything away from them; the existing dispensation is being perpetuated and the possibility is being created of developing it on the basis of this Bill which we are asking this House to accept now.

The hon. member asked whether the people in South-West Africa approved of the Bill. Only this morning I received another letter, which relates more specifically to the Coloured people, from which it is clear that the Coloured Persons Representative Council in South-West Africa not only approved of it, but subsequently adopted a resolution thanking me for having introduced this Bill here. Likewise, the Bill on the Nama was submitted to the Nama, and they, too, approved of it unanimously, and the same was done in the case of the Bill on the Basters, but the Basters said they refused to express any opinion on it, because in most things they do not want to co-operate with us. Sir, I want to conclude by just telling the Opposition this: They, in their political opportunism, have fallen into a trap. For example, they were consistent in advocating here—and I pointed out their mistake to them, but they persisted in it—that privileges be created for the non-White women in education in South-West Africa which the White women did not have. I said I refused to discriminate one way or the other as far as education in South-West Africa was concerned. Moreover, hon. members on that side were consistent in advocating here that teachers in South-West Africa who sought election to bodies mentioned in the Act should not have to resign until after the election, while the position in respect of White education in South-West Africa and here in the Republic is that you have to resign upon nomination. Hon. members on that side adopted the standpoint that persons engaged in the education of these national groups, should not resign upon nomination that they should resign after the election only. So in this case, too, they pleaded for discrimination against certain persons in education. Sir, if hon. members of the Opposition are so concerned about reforms in education, if they are looking for a model education ordinance, as the hon. member for Durban Central told us here repeatedly, why do they mot create a model for us in Natal, where they are in control? Surely they have had sufficient opportunity to do so. Why do they not create a model education ordinance in their own home province? Why do they now want to go right across South Africa up to the Atlantic Ocean in order to create a model education act? Sir, that was not for nothing; hon. members of the Opposition thought I would fall for that joke.

What joke?

I shall tell the hon. member what joke. He was not even here.

Order! The hon. the Minister need not react to that.

Sir, I just want to tell the hon. member what joke it is.

Does it have any bearing on the Bill?

It does have a very close bearing on the Bill. If I were to have accepted that Baster and the other groups of female teachers who got married would ipso facto be appointed permanently, a privilege which the White teachers in South-West Africa who get married do not have, then the Opposition’s little newspaper, Die Suidwes-Afrikaner, would have incited its readers and told them, “See this is what the National Party is doing to you; see how they favour the non-Whites”. That is the joke they thought I would fall for. Sir, if that is the Opposition’s policy, let us then make it applicable to all married female teachers. The Opposition wants us to discriminate against White married female teachers in South-West Africa, the territory about which they are so concerned.

Sir, in conclusion I just want to say that there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that we have here a measure which meets the responsibility South Africa took upon itself in 1921, and which will be instrumental in causing those people to make progress on the road of development on which we should like to see them, a measure which will only be in the interests of South-West Africa and of the people with whom it is concerned.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—79: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Le Grange, L; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—37: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Gillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.: Mitchell, D. E.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens. J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T., Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F..

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Our reactions to this Bill are, I need hardly say, exactly the same as those we had to the Bills dealing with the Coloureds and the Basters of South-West Africa. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister protested unduly strongly just now when we referred to the powers he has under the South-West Africa Act of 1969, which he claims already gives him all the necessary control that he wants over the education of, for instance, the Nama people. Our objection remains a perfectly valid one nevertheless. We object in principle—and it is an educational objection—to the administration of policy matters right down to the smallest details of the education of these people, being transferred from the Department of Education in Windhoek to the Education Department of Coloured Affairs in the Republic. The hon. the Minister admitted, when he was protesting a few minutes ago, that the 1962 Ordinance of South West Africa was in fact in operation and was apparently operating quite satisfactorily until he chose to introduce these three pieces of legislation during the last few weeks. If he had the control already in terms of the 1962 Ordinance, and if the 1962 Ordinance was operating quite satisfactorily, it seems to me that all his arguments fall away when it comes to a matter of greater control and greater centralization in regard to these affairs. He has the control anyway; the Ordinance was there and it was functioning all right. It seems to me that he has very flimsy grounds on which he can base his case for introducing these three Bills.

As I have indicated previously with regard to the other two Bills, our policy in the field of education generally has been completely consistent; we believe that whatever the population group, irrespective of their colour, there must be the greatest possible degree of devolution of power to the provincial councils in the Republic, and in the case of South-West Africa, to the Legislative Assembly. There is absolutely no reason why the Republic should not subsidize these services. Indeed, in terms of our mandate and the whole of South-West Africa’s history, we have a very real duty to do just that. There is also no reason why the hon. the Minister should not. in terms of the amendments to the South-West Africa Act of 1969, keen a watching brief over the scene, but for purposes of administration and policy matters we think that this legislation is quite unnecessary. We have always said, we said it in the case of the Republic and we say it with regard to South-West Africa, that all education with the exception of higher education, should as far as possible be locally controlled. Something which is fundamental to our thinking in this regard is that there should be the greatest possible participation by and consultation with the local community itself in these matters. It seems to us that this legislation can only lead to a very cumbersome deterioration of administrative machinery and that it will cost the taxpayers all round a lot of unnecessary expenditure.

The hon. the Minister’s point about our discriminating between White and Coloured married women teachers is just so much nonsense; it is quite ridiculous. If the hon. the Minister would read what I said during the Second Reading debates on these Bills, he would notice that I made the point—we always stood by this point of view—that married women teachers, and it does not matter two hoots what colour they are, should have the option to remain on in their jobs. If they are junior teachers, they should have the right to permanent appointment. If they are people who retired on marriage, and, after they have produced and reared their families, find that they would like to come back into the teaching profession, they should be permitted to do so. It does not matter to us whether they are White or Coloured or whatever the case may be. There is no question of discriminating against them. When the hon. the Minister accuses us of playing politics, I shall tell him that since education has been a matter for which I have been responsible on this side of the House, we are not, repeat ‘not’, playing politics in this regard at all.

May I say to the hon. the Minister when he comes with a rather cheap gibe about the Natal Administration—we are getting a bit tired of all these gibes about he Natal Administration—that he, since he holds Cabinet rank, should be the first person in this House to know that the Natal Provincial Administration is not competent to change its policy in regard to education simply because the terms of the National Education Policy Act prevent them from doing it without … [interjections] the Government’s permission. So the hon. the Minister is just talking through the back of his neck, if I may call it that. [Interjections.] I would like to say that we do appreciate the fact that in this Bill, as in the others, the hon. the Minister has accepted certain of our amendments. However, when during the Second Reading we raised a number of issues about which we said we were going to move amendments in the Committee Stage, we were amused that the Minister was so nice about it but that he virtually rejected most of our proposed amendments and subsequently moved most of them himself. On second thoughts, I would like to congratulate him that he, during the Committee Stage, accepted more than 50 per cent of these amendments. In any event, we are sorry that he did not see fit to accept a few more.

As far as the international situation is concerned, we also consider that this is a most unfortunate time—a point that we have already made—in which to impose extra control and administration over these matters in the Territory, if only because this is a very sensitive area and things could have been perfectly well handled under the Education Ordinance of 1962. In terms of that ordinance, the Republican Government is standing by and subsidizing activities in this field. Then the hon. the Minister went on and said just now that he has had a letter from a member of the Coloured Representative Council in South-West Africa saying how much they approve of the legislation for the Coloured people. I do not denigrate this body entirely. It is a nominated body and the Government has been dragging its feet for a long time and has refused to have any elections for the Coloured Representative Council in South Africa. Maybe the Minister will give this a little push and see to it that elected people are put on the council and not merely nominees. It was interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister that when he asked the Baster Council what they thought of it, they refused to give any comment.

This brings me to a point we made during the Second Reading of this Bill. Since the Basters have no comment, it seems fairly clear that we were correct in assuming that certain clauses in the Bill mean that the Minister and his department is anticipating some degree of trouble with teachers in South-West Africa. They are a very articulate section of that population, and I know it to be so because I have lived there myself for a time. The Minister’s statement about the Baster community seems to make this fairly clear. To say the least of it, I think it is unfortunate that the Government should be meddling in these matters at all. They are really only asking for trouble. It would have been much better if they had left the thing alone. The sensible thing would be to leave the control of the education of these people in the hands of the Education Department in Windhoek, as it was before. As I said, we shall vote against the Third Reading of this Bill for precisely the same reasons, which are educational reasons and not political reasons, as we did with the others.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand at all on whose behalf the hon. member for Wynberg is protesting. She cannot be protesting on behalf of the Legislative Assembly, because those powers were taken away from them three years ago. At that time I was a member of that Legislative Assembly and no tears were shed at all when these powers were taken away. I can assure the hon. member of that. Furthermore, these powers are completely in the spirit of that legislation, so that if the other aspects, i.e. the welfare and progress of these groups, is entrusted to the Central Government, I do not know why there should be any objection to education being entrusted to the Department of Coloured Affairs as well. In future this department will be responsible for the welfare of these language groups and we can hold out the prospect of their receiving much more and having much more than they have had up to now, especially in the sphere of education. This applies especially to the Nama group, which is the least developed group of the three. This department will in fact have a very big task to perform, and we wish them the best of success in that task.

Mr. Speaker, since this is perhaps the opportune moment, I should like to pay tribute, with your permission, to a pioneer in this sphere in South-West Africa, a man who died this week. I am referring to Dr. Heinrich Herman Vedder. In the past he played a very large part in the education and teaching of the non-Whites in South-West Africa. Dr. Vedder came to South-West Africa in 1905 as a missionary and teacher and devoted his whole life to the development, progress and education of these less developed peoples. He was an expert in the field of the native languages, and especially the Nama language, and played a very large role in translating the Bible into the Nama language. That is why the Nama have the privilege today of having the Bible in their own language. We feel that this is a suitable moment to pay tribute to such a great pioneer of that country, and we want to express the hope that this department will proceed with the work he and his colleagues started, in the same spirit as him and with the same great honour.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Karas for the words he said here about Dr. Vedder. I should very much like to associate myself with what he said.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg accused me of getting a bit hot under the collar. My reply to that is: Why does the hon. member take her cue from me? I hope that she too did not have curry and rice during the lunch hour! [Interjections.] Perhaps she ate something else.

The hon. member stated that the 1962 Ordinance has been operating very successfully. I can agree with her to a certain extent, but surely circumstances change, as they have changed, and as they may change within the next few years. The South-West Africa Administration has no authority to amend the relevant part of the ordinance should the necessity arise: neither can the Government change that ordinance if it becomes necessary. Sir, where do we stand? Surely, considering it from that angle, it is better to have an Act of Parliament which does the same thing which the 1962 Ordinance envisaged in order to promote the education of this group of people in South-West Africa. This is a matter which, as I have already said repeatedly, has already been entrusted to us.

There is another matter that I should like the Opposition and the country to remember. Not only educational matters were transferred to the Government in 1969; all matters pertaining to the Nama people have been entrusted to me as Minister of Coloured Affairs. These are people who have certain areas in South-West Africa and all matters pertaining to their rural interests have been entrusted to me. I am responsible for them. Their economic advancement, their social services and the administration of Namaland have been entrusted to the Government and in particular to me, as Minister of Coloured Affairs, by the 1969 Act. Their department is my department, and I am their Minister in regard to everything pertaining to their social and economic advancement in South-West Africa. Therefore I can only say once again that nothing is being taken away from anybody. On the contrary, something is being given to these people. I can only say to the House, to the country and everybody concerned with this matter, even in the international sphere, that this is being done with the utmost bona fides with a view to advancing the interests of these people for whom we are responsible.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—81: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—37: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie. A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, there is a new definition which is introduced into this clause, namely that of “authorized insurer”. The definition itself is acceptable. It provides for the inclusion of “members” under section 10 (1) of the agreement—that is to say, the Act—in other words, members, or insurance companies, who are a party to the agreement. Clause 10 of this Bill does provide that the State President …

It is section 10 of the agreement, not of the Bill.

Yes, I am sorry. But section 10 (1) of the Act also provides that additional members can be admitted by the State President. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will see that the reference to section 10 (1) in this definition is clause 10 (1) of this Bill, and not section 10 (1) of the agreement. The point I want to raise at this stage with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that up to the present time the attitude has been that those members of the consortium, namely the section 10 (1) companies, should be retained. There is power to remove some under certain circumstances, and it has also power to admit new members. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to advise this Committee quite categorically whether this is now a “closed shop”; in other words, the companies that are in the consortium are, as a matter of policy, the only companies that will be permitted to undertake this type of insurance. In other words, are the insurance companies who are now members of the consortium the only ones who will be entitled to undertake this work? Or is it Government policy to receive applications also from other companies? The power is there to admit them and to receive applications. On what basis will they be considered by the Government for admission to the consortium?

Mr. Chairman, I am quite satisfied that the present consortium, as constituted and which has from the very outset been prepared to render their services with the necessary confidence in this scheme, is quite adequate at present. It is therefore not necessary to admit any other members to the consortium. However, as the hon. member has said: This Bill provides that this is not a “closed shop”. Consideration may well be given, on merit, whether to admit other companies to the consortium. I want to point out however that the present agreement expires in 1976. Until such time as this agreement expires, I am not in a position to include any new members. Consideration will be given to this matter only when the present agreement expires, for the agreement lays down that this is an agreement between these members of the consortium.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is not adopting that as a firm decision, namely that until 1976 there can be no change. There are companies which, before this consortium arose, carried the burden of insurance and took the risks, and they are now excluded from this consortium. I accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider applications which are made and that he will not necessarily keep himself bound to 1976.

The Bill provides for this in clause 10 (5).

I realize that; I merely ask what the Minister’s policy is going to be in this connection, because at the moment this is merely permissive. All I want to know from the Deputy Minister is that he is not just going to say “no” without considering applications that will be made to him by companies wishing to be admitted to the consortium. After all, Sir, the consortium is something vastly different from what it was when risk was attached to this insurance. Now it provides built-in revenue for the insurance companies; it is built-in, guaranteed revenue. I am not completely au fait with this, but I believe there are companies which carried this type of insurance in the old days, when there was no guaranteed income, and who are not part of the consortium. All I want to know is whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will give consideration to their application should they apply to be admitted.

The second point I want to raise is in connection with the definition of “motor dealer”. The definition includes a body builder as a motor dealer, in other words, one who does not necessarily handle or deal with the motorized section of the vehicle. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to indicate the reason for including, under the definition of “motor dealer”, a body builder, one who merely puts the shell on top of the chassis.

Mr. Chairman, I say again to the hon. member that the present agreement will remain in force until 1976. The present policy is that we consider that those members of the consortium who had the faith and were willing, right from the very beginning, to enter into this agreement …

But you excluded some of them.

I know; they wanted to be excluded; they were not going to come in.

Some of them wanted to come in, but you would not let them.

Sir, clause 10 (5) provides for the State President—and this is the Minister, of course—to consider, when applications are received, admitting such a company to the agreement. I want to give this Committee the assurance that these applications will be considered solely on merit. This does not close the door.

What are the criteria?

Now how can I explain to the hon. member what the criteria are? That is why I say it will be done on merit. It depends on a whole series of considerations. For example, it depends on the extent to which the present agreement will be affected.

The second question raised by the hon. member concerns the definition of “motor dealer”. In this definition provision is being made not only for motor dealers but also for body builders. This is essential, because we have the phenomenon that a fully manufactured chassis on wheels, with an engine, etc., has to be conveyed to a body builder where the body is then fitted. When a vehicle such as this has to be conveyed it is the property of the body building firm, and it has to have third party insurance. If this is not done we will have an uninsured vehicle on the road.

Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to correct a statement which the hon. the Deputy Minister made. It is a statement he has made on previous occasions. He says that the consortium must hold faith in those companies which agreed to come in from the word go. He says that they were willing to take the risk and that we must therefore hold faith in them. I want to put the hon. the Deputy Minister right in this respect: All the insurance companies in South Africa were willing to come into the consortium on the basis on which it was formed. There must be no mistake about this, Sir, and I think we should have it on record. In fact, all the insurance companies, or the great majority of them, submitted a memorandum …

It is not a fact.

It is. They submitted a memorandum to the hon. the Minister, on which he based the consortium. These companies were then excluded from the consortium. This is all evidence one could easily trace. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister does not make this statement again. He has made it in the past, and it is totally incorrect.

The other point I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that some of the largest insurance companies in South Africa are excluded from this consortium. The hon. the Deputy Minister says the door is not closed, and that is why I am making this appeal to him. As I have said, some of the largest insurance companies operating in South Africa are excluded from the consortium. The insurance operations in South Africa attract world-wide interest. Insurance is not something which happens only in South Africa. By way of re-insurance and various insurance treaties, the world is interested in our insurance industry here in South Africa. Overseas countries do not like this type of “closed-shop” operation, where, for instance, you have such a consortium of companies, and this does not happen elsewhere. It does not breed the necessary confidence in our insurance industry in the outside world. I want to bring this home to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Nonsense!

I do not know what the hon. member knows about insurance, but I can assure him that this is perfectly true.

The other point I want to make is the obvious one, that one of the largest insurance companies in the country is, for instance, not included in the consortium. Be that as it may, some of these companies are very large ones and they would, because of their countrywide agency systems, be able to give better service to the public in the way of collection of premiums and the handling of claims. All I can do at this stage is to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to keep this on a “closed shop” basis. I hope he does not have a closed mind on the subject either.

Sir, talk about a closed mind!

He is just an air-gun.

Sir, I want to point out that I have at present an agreement with a consortium in terms of certain legal provisions. In terms of that agreement I have two committees under the new Act —there were three committees under the old Act—viz. the premiums committee and the control committee, constituted on a rotation basis from six members of the consortium. The hon. member moved an amendment to the effect that all decisions taken should be subject to the specific approval of that control committee. If an application is received from an insurance company, or even from agencies, to act within this consortium agreement, this committee would be the authorized body that will consider such an application and advise the Secretary. Serving on this committee are six representatives of the insurance companies who are, surely, in the best position to express an opinion on the advisability or otherwise of bringing in additional insurance companies and who certainly have a better knowledge than the hon. member for Port Natal of the insurance industry and its wide ramifications, not only in South Africa, but abroad as well. I have to rely on the advice I receive from that committee and I will abide by it.

Sir, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept the recommendations of that committee of insurance companies, then I am quite happy. All we want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: The fact that there is a consortium agreement does not prevent the consideration of applications from additional companies for membership of the consortium.

The Act specifically provides for it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

I want to raise one point with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Perhaps he could explain to the Committee what this involves. In terms of subsection (4) (1) the State President may from time to time suspend the operation of sections 2 and 3 entirely, or in relation to motor vehicles of a class specified in the first-mentioned proclamation. In other words, the power is now given to the State President to suspend the provision of this law which makes it an offence to drive an uninsured vehicle. Secondly, the State President can suspend the provision which attaches liability to the owner of an uninsured vehicle for loss or damage. Sir, I have attempted to try to visualize the circumstances under which these provisions of the law would be suspended, and I am afraid that with my limited mental capacity I have not been able to think of such circumstances, except perhaps in times of war or something of that nature. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister indicate why a provision of this sort should be in the Act; why it should be possible to suspend the criminal sanctions for driving without insurance, and to suspend the liability of a person driving without insurance himself to pay the damages. I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister would assist me, because I cannot conceive of circumstances under which this law should be suspended.

In the first place, I want to point out that in this respect the provisions of the old Act have been taken over exactly as they appear in that Act. At the moment I do not have before me examples of where this has already happened. I want to state this frankly. But now I simply want to think aloud. We shall have cases of motor cars coming from Swaziland, for instance, cars of the Swaziland Government. That is a possibility. I just want to see what my Secretary has to say. Yes, this may be the position in the case of motor cars which are not operated on a public road, vehicles which must normally carry third-party insurance, but which are not operated on a public road, and in cases where third parties are not involved. That is all it can be.

I assume this is also the case with a farmer on his farm.

Yes, if he remains on his farm only. I wonder whether Kyalami does not come under this as well!

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I do not know whether I do not owe the hon. the Deputy Minister an apology, because earlier on when we were discussing this matter I suggested that in the administration of this Act he was not showing the competence one would like from a Deputy Minister. But when I noticed from the Order Paper this morning the amendment which is to be moved by the Deputy Minister, I noticed an agility of mind which really impressed me. Last Friday I suggested certain amendments to this Bill which the Minister has introduced without any indication that he was going to amend anything, and without the services of the Public Service and the draftsmen I then set about drafting some amendments, but I found that the Deputy Minister had apparently rushed hotfoot to the draftsmen and to the legal advisers and did the job which I did unnecessarily by putting the same amendment on the Order Paper which I had intended moving. I want to say just this, that the Minister is merely doing what we have always said he does. He waits for advice from the United Party, as he has done in this case.

Tell that to the marines.

The Minister’s amendment on this clause 6 is interesting. Clause 6 is an important clause because it deals with the management of the MVA Fund, a considerable amount of money. The facts have shown that the present Act, which is about to be repealed, is ineffective and this Bill as it is before us, in clause 6, without amendments merely creates an administrative structure; in other words, the manager who shall be under the direction and control of the Secretary. But still it is the manager who really runs this Fund. He can settle litigation, deal with investments and issue guarantees, etc., i.e. exercising all the powers given to this MVA Fund. It is interesting—and I think the Minister is now moving in the right direction—that you cannot have a fund of this nature without having something in the nature of a board of directors or a control board to manage it. The Minister in his amendments proposes that it should be obligatory upon him to form this committee, but I wonder whether he goes far enough; whether only making it obligatory goes far enough. At the moment he shall appoint the committee, according to the amendment he has moved, but it merely says that that committee may in his discretion or in the discretion of the Secretary be consulted. In other words, although it is compulsory now for the Minister to appoint a committee, consultation with it and its powers are circumscribed by what the Secretary thinks is necessary. In other words, if he wants to consult he can. The amendment I have on the Order Paper is to make it obligatory upon the Minister to appoint a committee and then I have suggested in my amendment that its constitution and functions shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be prescribed by regulation. In other words, it can in fact function as a board of control or a board of directors of a company, and it is for the Minister then to give it such powers as he wishes by regulation. Although the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment to bring in compulsion is an improvement, I believe that it does not go quite far enough. I believe that this committee should be vested, as I say, with the powers of an control board, a board of directors, and that in addition it should advise the MVA Fund in all those matters which are referred to it under section 7 (1) and that it should submit minutes and records of investments to be made and settlement of claims which are directly against the MVA Fund. I therefore hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be prepared not to press his amendment which I do not think goes quite far enough but to accept our amendment which provides, as I think his intention is, that there should be a board of control. Therefore I move as an amendment—

1. (a)
   1. (i) The Minister shall appoint six persons in accordance with paragraph (b) as a committee, to be known as the MVA Fund Advisory Committee, whose constitution, functions and manner of conduct of business shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be as prescribed by regulation;
   2. (ii) the MVA Fund Advisory Committee shall advise the MVA Fund in respect of any matters referred to in section 7 (1).

Mr. Chairman, I take pleasure in supporting the amendment which was moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister and in which it is provided that the appointment of this advisory committee shall be compulsory. I think that it will be a good amendment, for as the clause reads at present, the establishment of this committee is merely optional. I do not think that a committee established in such an optional manner, will be able to carry out effectively the functions it will be called upon to exercise and achieve the purpose for which it is being established. I believe that since the establishment of the committee is now being made compulsory, one is creating that measure of responsibility which will make this committee a responsible body so that it will in effect be possible to regard it as the “watchdog” which, by way of supplement to and in conjunction with the Secretary and the Fund, may control this position to such an extent.

However, I cannot give my blessing to the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. If that amendment is compared with the amendment proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister, I think it will be found that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment will result in a more effective and more acceptable measure, because, in the first instance, the hon. member for Green Point proposes a committee. I am of the opinion that it is difficult to fasten direct responsibility and liability on a committee. I believe that in a case where one is dealing with an accounting officer, such as the Secretary, he should accept the full responsibility. To my mind this is the proper course to follow. However, to fasten this on a collective group or body, such as this committee, is not quite desirable.

I want to point out, in addition, that in examining the amendment by the hon. member for Green Point, we do in fact find that it contains no obligation of any kind which is linked to the committee proposed by him. I believe that if specific responsibility is not created, if it is not provided in what respect the committee is really responsible, an awkward and unsatisfactory body would in fact be created, a body which would really be insignificant as far as the administration of this Act is concerned.

Furthermore, it is more correct for the object and duties of the advisory committee established here, to be clearly written into and defined in the Act, instead of provision being made for them in the regulations, as is being proposed by the hon. member for Green Point. Deliberations on the regulations only take place at a later stage. I believe that from a point of view of control and administration, it would be more effective if the task and responsibility of the committee were clearly embodied and defined in the Act.

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised at the argument of the hon. member for Ermelo because the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point makes it perfectly clear, regarding the suggested MVA Fund Advisory Committee, that its

In other words, it will be established, will have its functions and will have all the necessary powers which are thought essential to enable it to function, as has been stated by the mover of the amendment, as a board of directors. It can then advise the secretary and advise the fund in respect of any matters under section 7 (1), which contains a considerable number of important provisions. We shall deal with these provisions later on, but there is no question that if you think of matters such as investment, the investigation and settlement of claims, purchase, leasing, mortgaging and the disposing or acquisition of property and other matters of a similar nature— the drawing, accepting, endorsing, discounting and the signing of promissory notes and so on—it is obvious that these contain the type of matter with which normally in any company a board of directors will deal. How much easier, better and safer is it for the hon. the Minister, who himself has admitted the importance of the establishment of this committee, which has been neglected in the past, and moreover when he realizes that he cannot himself …

I never said that it was neglected.

It was neglected.

Of course it was neglected.

One meeting during the whole year.

Yes, one meeting in one year and one in another. The Minister himself realizes that he cannot himself pay the necessary attention to this specific aspect of his multifarious activities. After all, I regard a Minister in charge of a portfolio or a Deputy Minister, with certain sections of the portfolio, to be actually personally responsible for the administration and direction of that portfolio. He must personally be responsible to so ensure the activity of that particular portfolio that it is perfectly safe in the method in which it is administered and so that nothing untoward occurs which prejudices the particular post that he holds or prejudices the finances and affairs of the State. That after all is his overall responsibility. Here we find, in what I think is one of the most benign forms of compromise that one could expect to emanate from an Opposition which is critical of a Bill, a suggestion which puts the hon. the Deputy Minister completely at home in the administration of this section of his department. He establishes a board by regulation and all the terms and conditions of the establishment are provided for just as you will find in the articles of association of a limited liability company. It acts in an advisory capacity and it deals with some of the most important aspects of the administration of this vast fund and the security of the public who depend on this fund in circumstances for which it has been established, namely injury to body or compensation to dependants, etc. It is most vital for the social life of the community and it places them in a position where all these things are satisfactory and secure. Surely it must appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who then has his mind completely at ease in regard to this vital and important aspect of the fund’s activities? That is all that is asked. Nobody is asking the Deputy Minister to concede the earth, but what we are asking him is to ensure that there will be a sufficiently satisfactory administration of this Act to avoid him suffering the criticism which may unfortunately be generated because of factors over which he cannot maintain the necessary control. He cannot maintain that control because, after all, he is just an individual and you cannot personally control such a vast department although he is responsible to ensure that it is satisfactorily controlled. I think that that is a reasonable request to make to the Minister in charge of a Bill of this nature. I think it is a reasonable request to put to the particular portfolio that it should satisfy itself by inbuilt forms of security. These security requirements are firstly that the Act is administered under the most satisfactory conditions and secondly that a sense of assurance is given to the public with regard to the administration of the Act, its fund and its purpose.

The hon. member for Ermelo was very correct when he pointed out to the Committee that the amendment I moved would have the effect that this consultative committee could be consulted, not by the manager of the fund, but by the Secretary.

Not “might” be consulted, but “could” be consulted.

“Could” and “might” are exactly the same, for the hon. member’s information. In the first instance, the hon. member was correct in saying that the Secretary was the accounting officer who would also be held responsible to the Select Committee of the House of Assembly subsequent to the Controller and Auditor-General’s documents having been tabled. For that reason the Secretary simply may not be tied down.

The hon. member for Green Point should, before levelling these accusations concerning competence and ability across the floor of this House, search his own heart for a change. He is still lost and confused in regard to these committees. This committee is not the original advisory committee, the work of which overlapped the work of the premiums committee, which we are abolishing now and is going to be replaced. This committee is the consultative committee, and it is constituted from the members of the consortium.

Yes.

Well then, what would happen if I were to tie down this committee—the hon. member calls it an advisory committee; that just goes to show how confused he is—to advising the MVA Fund only in respect of matters contained in clause 7 (1)? In clause 7 (1) the powers and duties of the MVA Fund are set out. Its constitution does not deny the secretary the right to consult the consultative committee on any of these aspects. On the contrary, the Secretary may consult them on a great deal of aspects other than these. Now the hon. member wants to tie it down so that it may only be consulted in respect of the aspects defined in clause 7 (1). In terms of my motion the door has been opened to a much greater extent. In this case it will be possible for the committee to be consulted, as I indicated a moment ago when the hon. member asked me a question under clause 1, in regard to the authorized insurers. It may also consult in regard to applications by insurers for becoming parties to the agreement, and in regard to several other matters. The committee may advise him in regard to matters in respect of his powers as well as the various agreements and possibly delegated powers, such as token-control instructions and the handling of claims and agents. In other words, whereas the hon. members want to tie down the consultative committee to clause 7 (1) and the regulations only, I want to change it so that it may be consulted by the Secretary. I want to open the door more widely to the Secretary so that he may be consulted in regard to all the other problems which he may encounter. Therefore I am not prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do wish that the hon. the Deputy Minister, before he offers criticism, would make sure of the facts on which he based his criticism. He made it clear that what he wished to establish under this particular clause, was an advisory committee. Is that not correct?

A consultative committee.

During the course of the debate on the Transport Vote I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this consultative committee performed any functions …

No, you used the words “advisory committee”.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister will just look at his Hansard he will see that I am correct, or was his reply to my questions rubbish? The hon. the Deputy Minister will know that, because what we are dealing with is a re-enactment of section 25D (2) of the existing Act, according to his memorandum.

*I asked the Deputy Minister a question to which he replied on 25th April—

What was the Deputy Minister’s reply at the time?

But, surely, I told the hon. member in the course of the previous debate that I had misread the section. Now he does not want to accept it.

The hon. the Deputy Minister should just listen to what his reply to that question was. He said that the first committee, which consisted of companies forming part of the consortium, was appointed on 1st May, 1969, and that this committee had met on two occasions, namely on 19th June and 2nd September. He said that another committee had been appointed on 13th April, 1970, a committee which met only once, on 5th August. According to the Deputy Minister another committee was appointed on 1st April, 1971, but this committee never met at any stage.

But the Minister told you …

I must accept what the Deputy Minister says. I also asked him the following question: “If the work of such a committee, constituted in terms of the provisions of section 25D, was unnecessary and the other committees were appointed in terms of section 1bis …” At that stage the hon. the Deputy Minister interrupted me by saying, “The committee was appointed, but it never operated. It held no meetings.” Then I wanted to know why not, and the Deputy Minister replied, “Because there was not enough work for the committee.” Here the hon. the Deputy Minister is in the process of appointing again a committee which may be consulted. The Secretary may consult this committee, if he wishes to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister should not tell me that I do not understand; he himself does not understand this measure at all. I am referring to the same committee in respect of which he gave me this reply. Now he has introduced this Bill in order to appoint a committee once again, a committee which, he says, is unnecessary and does not have any work to do. The committee which he appointed in the past, only met four times. And the reason for this is very clear, namely that it is not compulsory for the Secretary or the manager to consult that committee; they may do so if they wish. In this Bill exactly the same thing is being done once again. The Deputy Minister says it is compulsory for such a committee to be appointed, but it is not compulsory for it to be consulted. This is in fact the reason for my amendment. The object of my amendment is to grant powers to this committee so that its members may serve as a board of directors. They could have the powers which the Minister entrusts to them by regulation. My amendment does not provide that this committee shall function and shall exercize such powers as are laid down by the regulations. After all, these regulations are issued by the Minister himself. This committee must be established and granted an opportunity of advising the management of this fund. That is all my amendment provides. However, I cannot see how we can vote for the re-establishment of a committee which, according to the Deputy Minister himself, was of no value from 1966 to 1972. I should like to say to the Deputy Minister that he should reconsider this matter, please. We are following the same course as we did when the obligation was imposed to appoint the committee. What must that committee do now? In terms of the Bill before us, its members should merely be available for consultation. My amendment reads that that committee shall have such rights and perform such duties as are prescribed by regulation. The matter is in the hands of the Minister. The Deputy Minister knows what is needed to prevent what happened in the past from happening again. I grant him that. We say it must be in his hands to provide how the committee is to set to work. I ask him again to reconsider my amendment. I think it is in the interests of the Fund, and it is not inconsistent with what he wants. Let him give the members of the committee teeth to do their work and not merely to sit there year in year out without being called together.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister represents the outcome of talks which this side of the House had with the hon. the Deputy Minister long before the Second Reading debate was conducted in this House. It was not presented by him as a result of suggestions made on that side of the House on Friday afternoon.

Why did he not say he would do so?

I did say so; go and read my reply.

As regards the various committees, if the hon. member for Green Point would read his Hansard again, he would find that he had been under the impression that the advisory committee, appointed in terms of the existing section 1bis, was being perpetuated again in the measure before the House at present.

No, please, I am not as stupid as that. According to the memorandum it is in terms of the existing section 25D (2).

Precisely. That is why we find it so strange. Since it is the committee which was established in terms of section 25D which is being perpetuated …

But of course.

Surely, if the hon. member for Green Point accepts this, we need not discuss it any further. In that case I shall leave the matter at that.

Since 1969, when some of these amendments were incorporated in this legislation, the hon. Opposition has been striving after obtaining control over this vast Fund, either indirectly or directly, through Parliament, or as they are propagating today, by way of a board of directors. The hon. member for Jeppes drew the parallel with a company, where the responsibility for certain decisions has to be placed on the board of directors. He compared this committee with it.

Which shall consult that committee.

What is wrong with that?

I am not finding fault with it. I am merely telling him that this was his argument. But let us compare this with the argument advanced here by the hon. the Deputy Minister. What he is in fact offering, is that all the members of this board, if we have to draw the parallel right through, will be directors of this fund.

No!

That will be the result, because statements will be tabled here, and because this Committee, i.e. this House, will from time to time take cognisance of the findings of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. So much for the accountability which is being created here. But what is as important, is that if the Fund were placed under the control of the Secretary—and we must accept that the Secretary is under the control of the Minister—we may draw the conclusion that a committee, established in terms of clause 6 (3), could only be advisory. If we do not accept that, it means that from time to time we shall have to hold that committee responsible here as the accountable body. In other words, then we would no longer have administrative control via the Minister through to his Secretary; control would then be exercised by that committee. If hon. members opposite argue that they merely want the committee to be consulted, I want to tell them that it has been written into the legislation that they may force advice upon the Secretary. It is stated here; this is the implication. Consequently we cannot support any of the arguments advanced by the Opposition; on the other hand, we take pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the only criticism the Deputy Minister had against the suggestion I made, was that the powers of the Secretary would be limited by this amendment which has been moved. This is not what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I want to say that this amendment only affects the powers in terms of clause 7; that is all. The powers of the Secretary under the Act itself, are not limited by it. It is just in respect of the provisions of clause 7 that we feel it is necessary to have that kind of board, to consult with the Secretary on what steps are to be taken. That is all we ask; that is little enough.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point means that we will have a board of “managing directors, and in the second part of his amendment he specifically refers to clause 7 (1). Clause 7 (1) gives the power to the MVA Fund—

1. (a) to reinsure any insurance or risk …;
2. (b) to indemnify authorized insurers against claims …;
3. (c) to cause any risk which it has undertaken to be reinsured in whole or in part;
4. (d) to investigate or settle claims or to commence, conduct, defend or abandon legal proceedings;
5. (e) to guarantee or insure the obligations of authorized insurers …;
6. (f) subject to the Minister’s approval in every case, to purchase or otherwise acquire goods, equipment, land, buildings, shares, debentures, stock, securities and all other kinds of movable or immovable property; …

The clause contains paragraphs all the way to (n). In other words, if we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point, we will have a board of directors actually dictating to the Secretary and to the MVA Fund in respect of clause 7 (1).

My amendment says the committee “shall advise” the Fund.

At the same time the Secretary is the only person responsible to the Select Committee of Parliament, and the Minister, through the Secretary, is responsible to Parliament as such.

*Since this is the case, the statement made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West is quite correct. The Secretary is authorized to consult that consultative committee in regard to several or all of these points which are mentioned here, or even more. However, he may not be tied down by that committee, but the Secretary still has to submit his recommendations to the Minister, and the Minister, and the Minister alone, is held responsible. That consultative committee will not be held responsible by this House of Assembly. If anything is wrong with the Fund; if wrong investments are made, or if wrong settlements are reached and it can be proved, the Minister will be called to account here. If it appears from the report of the Controller and Auditor-General that wrong payments were made, or that faulty statements were submitted, the Select Committee on Public Accounts will bring the matter to the attention of this House. But this committee, to which the Opposition now wants to grant powers, is not being called to account anywhere. I want to go so far as to predict that if one were to have such a committee, one would not only delay the work of the MVA Fund to a tremendous extent, and one would not only handicap it. but also burden it with increased expenditure, for if one had a board of managing directors, the members of that board would have to be remunerated for every meeting attended by them. I am quite satisfied that this clause, as it reads at present, affords sufficient protection, for the Secretary may always be called to account by the Select Committee and the Minister may be called to account in this House.

The hon. member said here that we had to make sure that nothing could go wrong with the Fund again. Sir, I want to place it on record that nothing whatsoever has gone wrong with this Fund—not with one single cent. Every single cent in premiums invested by the Fund, can be accounted for. No investment was made without proper security. The three things that did go wrong, were explained here to this House on a previous occasion. The Fund suffered no damage as a result. These things were picked up and put right by me.

Sir, I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he and he alone is responsible for what happens in this Fund. I am glad that he accepts responsibility for the fact that it was possible under his control of this Fund, under laws which he wished to retain in this Bill, for eight different investments to be made in an irregular manner. True enough, the Fund did not lose any money but other people profited out of it. If he does not regard that as maladministration of the Fund, then heaven knows what is. [Interjection.] We can deal with that on another occasion. There is just one point that I want to put straight with the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the powers which I have suggested for this committee. It is not that this is a committee to run the MVA Fund. If he will read the Afrikaans version of the amendment, he will see that it says—

Sir, if there was an advisory committee, there would be a minute to say how they decided that money should be invested; the signature of a manager telling two other officials to sign cheques for R1 million to various companies would not simply be acted upon by them. That is why we want this committee; minutes would then be kept and the records would be tabled. The provisions of my amendment are exactly the same as under (1) ter—the committee which the hon. the Deputy Minister feels is necessary—except that it is to be constituted of members of the various consortium companies. Sir, we will not press this matter. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to be obstinate, if he does not want to have this improvement, the matter is in his hands. But we want to warn the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is not preventing the possibility of a recurrence of what has happened in this Fund in the past, and that if there is a recurrence of irregular investments, we would expect him to resign his position as a member of the Cabinet and of this House, because he did not accept the safeguards which we were prepared to give him in terms of this amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived and amendments proposed by the Deputy Minister of Transport put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments, as printed in my name—

1. (4) The accounts of the MVA Fund shall be audited annually by the Controller and Auditor-General.
2. (5) The Minister shall lay copies of the reports submitted to him in terms of subsection (3), on the Tables of the Senate and the House of Assembly within thirty days after the submission of such reports to him, if Parliament is then in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within thirty days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

Sir, we welcome the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has accepted the recommendations made by us during the Second Reading debate that this account should be subject to the control of the Controller and Auditor-General. We believe that that is correct. We also welcome the fact that documents will now be laid on the Table promptly. In the past the accounts have only been laid on the Table after a request that this should be done.

You had to put a request because you were not entitled to it in terms of the Act as it stood.

Yes, I know that, but may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to speed up a little the tabling of the audited accounts for 1969-’70 and 1970-’71, which he said he would table, and which do not appear to have been placed on the Table of the House yet.

Sir, we welcome the amendment, and in view of the fact that the Minister, with the help of the parliamentary draftsman, has prepared the new subclauses (4) and (5), which are certainly much tidier than the clauses which I hurriedly drafted without the assistance of the parliamentary staff, I will not move the amendments as printed in my name.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

The background to this amendment is that objections were raised, also by this side of the House, to the effect that on certain occasions the manager interfered, without authorization, in the settlement of certain claims. Furthermore, on a certain occasion a circular was sent out in this regard. The hon. the Deputy Minister, when this came to his notice, took the opportunity to repudiate it immediately, for which we are very grateful to him. However, the Opposition argued that the MVA Fund was competent to concern itself with such claims. In reply to that we said that we did not interpret it that way, as there were no legal ties between the MVA Fund and an insured person who made a claim in terms of section 11bis of the Act, as it reads at present, or in terms of clause 21 of this Bill. In order to put this matter beyond any doubt, we should like the words “made against it” to be inserted. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he is going to accept this amendment.

I rise to say that we support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West. It is in effect what we asked for. We asked for this in 1969. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that we had a long debate about it. We asked that these powers should be curtailed in this way, but the hon. the Minister knew better. It has taken a long time for him to learn. Three years later he realizes that we were right, that the assurances he gave us could not be carried out, and that the things we feared did in fact happen. This position is being put right. I thank the hon. member for Bloemfontein West for having convinced the hon. the Deputy Minister that three years ago he was hopelessly wrong when he refused to listen to us.

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

What it means is that the obligation of the Fund will be extended to include mechanical defects. I bring this to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister for the reason that through lots of experience of this type of claim the defence of the offending motorist is often that he had no control over the vehicle because the vehicle perhaps suffered a mechanical failure of the brakes. Now it has been found that the innocent victim is very hard-put to prove that this is not so. Generally speaking he has not the knowledge to prove that it is not correct and a great many people who are culpable in an accident, escape the liabilities by using this defence, with the result that an innocent victim of an accident may suffer untold damage. I therefore ask the Minister seriously to consider this aspect. One could have extended it by saying that the sudden passing out through heart failure of a driver is another reason or another way in which an offending driver can escape liability, but the most common excuse in accidents by a defending driver is the mechanical failure of the vehicle.

Before I sit down, under clause 7 (1) (h) there is the question of investments. During the Second Reading I brought to the hon. Minister’s attention the investments of the Fund and I endeavoured to point out that the Fund had invested an amount of R4¼ million in the Trust Bank in 1968-’69.

Are you speaking to your amendment now?

I refer to the investment of money in terms of clause 7 (1) (h). I mentioned that in 1968-’69 the Fund had invested R4¼ million in the Trust Bank, as one of its many investments. I got no further than that, but the Minister in his reply suggested that I was probably going to say something derogatory in regard to this investment and that perhaps I was having a crack at an Afrikaner institution. I want to make it quite clear to the Deputy Minister that what I intended to say was this, that in 1968-’69 they invested R4¼ million, and in the following year, 1969-’70, they invested R2½ million and in 1970-’71 nothing at all was invested. So, if there is anybody who has anything against this particular institution, I suggest it would be the MVA Fund.

I would also like to deal with this subsection from an entirely different angle. I am talking about clause 7 (1) (h). I was very pleased to see, when I read the clause, that the Fund has the power to invest moneys not immediately required in such manner as may from time to time be determined by the Minister. Now, I do not want to refer to a previous discussion in regard to the investment of money, with which the hon. member for Green Point dealt a few days ago and to which the hon. the Deputy Minister, as well as the hon. the Minister of Transport himself, has replied, but I want to make this point, that we hear all sorts of rumours from time to time to the effect that if a person wants to raise a loan from the Fund, A, B or C, whoever A or B or C may be, is a person who could assist in obtaining a loan from the Fund.

In what way?

In fact, I have been told by certain reputable financial organizations that it appears that there is always some intermediary who possibly could legitimately—I am not suggesting that there is anything incorrect about this—be a useful intermediary to present such an application, possibly with success. Even recently, for instance during the last week, the fact was mentioned that the Fund had some R8 million to invest and that it was possible for some persons who perhaps have the ear of some member of the department to make application, not invalidly, to have loans favourably considered.

Be more specific.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give the assurance that he will recognize the normal financial institutions which can virtually become negotiating brokers for loans from this particular Fund. This would place matters on the highest possible level and avoid the unfortunate rumours which go around and which thinking men, of course, discard. But, Sir, there is always this peculiar gullibility of the public to absorb rumours. There is always a tendency to do so when people see that A, B or C has been able to obtain a loan through some private person from the funds of the MVA. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated himself that his objective is to invest the money as soon as possible and to invest it in the best possible market so as to obtain the highest rate of interest. That is his duty to the Fund and one accepts that he wants to discharge that responsibility. But I think the public would feel very much happier, and so would the general financial world, if it had an assurance in regard to the investment of the moneys of the Fund. The hon. the Deputy Minister categorically should state that the proper financial institutions would be the medium through which loans would be negotiated, which would then be able to give all the necessary and satisfactory safeguards with regard to the strength of the applications when the funds of the Fund are sought for with a view to investment in the money market. That I think is an important aspect and would once and for all put and end to any thoughts in the minds of recognized financial institutions that there are persons beyond these normal and natural and satisfactory sources that can play any part in channeling the investment of these funds from the MVA. But I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to be assured— and I say this on behalf of myself and people who have spoken to me—that there is no suggestion that the funds are badly invested. It can, however, be subject to the inference that as a particular individual whose name was bandied around some time ago, was able to receive a personal commission for effecting loans, so it might be said that there may be other persons, perhaps of that influence, who themselves might personally profit. That is something which caused the criticism to arise here.

Are you slandering the officials again?

No, I am not gossiping. I want to give an assurance, Mr. Chairman, that I have been spoken to by financial institutions of standing in this country as recently as four days ago, which said to me that if an assurance could be obtained on the lines I have suggested, it would put an end to all these rumours which come to their ears which they would like to discount. I think I am doing the hon. the Deputy Minister a service by bringing to his notice that this is the sort of talk that you do hear in these recognized financial circles. I am not criticizing; far be it from me. I have had an assurance that the Fund is safe. As a citizen I am perfectly happy to accept that assurance.

You are just a scandalmonger.

But what I would like is an assurance on behalf of these people to the community …

Order! The hon. member for Parow must withdraw the word “scandalmonger.”

I withdraw the word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One appreciates the protection from these rather snide remarks that emanate from side to side. I would like to conclude by saying that all I ask for is an assurance to satisfy and allay the fears of recognized bodies in this country which play an important part in the economic structure of our country.

Mr. Chairman, you know if the hon. member pleads innocence in this way while saying these things, it is the same as Pilate washing his hands.

No, you were the one who challenged me. Surely I am supposed to be one of the scandalmongers.

I want to make one thing quite clear in this House, and I should like this Committee and South Africa to take careful note of this. This fund was not created for people who want to be intermediaries, because that is parasitic. I want to make this very clear. I want to state very clearly what the method is for obtaining a loan from this Fund. The law lays down to whom loans may be made, for example, to financial institutions, building societies, semi-Government institutions, etc. This Bill lays down who may qualify as investors. The only way for those persons to qualify, is to apply in writing to the Secretary for the Department of Transport. The Secretary for Transport is the accounting officer of this Fund. We go further. We provide the Secretary for Transport with a Committee consisting of the Senior Deputy Secretary for the Department, the Chief Accountant, the Manager of the Fund and the Registrar of Financial Institutions. This committee investigates and scrutinizes applications. This committee submits its recommendation to the Secretary on the basis of the available funds which are to be invested. The Secretary then submits this recommendation, which he accepts or amends, to the Minister because he is responsible and accountable to the Minister. Only what is approved by the Minister may be invested. In other words, nowhere in the investment policy is there any room for any fees to be collected. Nowhere is there any room for an intermediary. Even if applications are sent to me, the letter is summarily forwarded to the Secretary without my making any recommendation. He has to deal with it then. Eventually the recommendation has to be submitted to the Minister. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding or doubt about that aspect. For that reason I take it amiss of the hon. member for Jeppe for saying, “There are rumours …” What did he mean by that? There is, in other words, an insinuation of some gossiping. Why does he not furnish me with some examples and why does he not tell me that A, B or C has acted as an intermediary? We would then be able to take the necessary steps. Why does he not furnish me with specific names? That is all as far as this section is concerned. As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Natal, I must say that I cannot accept it, and I cannot do so for the following reason. Hon. members will see that this amendment was introduced because the claims in terms of Act 29 of 1942 only arise because of neligent or other unlawful actions on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle causing the damage. If a claim arises because of a mechanical defect of a vehicle and such defect cannot be attributed to the negligence of the driver or owner, it involves an amendment of the principle, which falls outside the objectives of the Act. I want the hon. member to realize that if I accept this amendment, it would constitute an amendment of the principle and that it would fall outside the objectives of this Bill. Moreover, I want to point out to the hon. member that if the wording of clause 7 (2), as it now reads, is brought into line with that of clause 21, this aspect will be covered in any case, provided that the mechanical defect is attributable to the negligence or other unlawful act of the owner or driver of the vehicle. In other words, this aspect is covered and the amendment can therefore not be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take the question of the control of investments a little further with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Those of us who are connected with bodies that have money for investment in approved deposit-receiving institutions, know that one gets a vast number of applications from bodies which are all of the same standing. For instance, one gets applications from building societies. One knows that the building societies are of the same standing and that it makes no difference whether one invests in A, B or C. In other words, there are competing claims for this money from bodies which are of equal investment standing. What I am concerned about is whether the Deputy Minister is correct in leaving the investment as he has indicated to a departmental committee on which the Treasury itself is not represented. It is true that the Registrar of Financial Institutions is on that committee. If one is investing and reinvesting, one can imagine that over a period of years a pattern can be designed whereby the various companies will in turn receive their fair share of this type of investment. It may also well be necessary on occasions—for instance, if there is a shortage of funds on deposit with building societies—that one would be serving the interests of the State by investing in building societies and thus make more money available for housing. I really want to commend to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he look a little beyond just the committee he has suggested as the complete answer. At certain stages it may be more desirable to invest this money in one avenue rather than in another in the interests of the country as a whole. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this matter cannot be discussed with the Treasury. R50 million, if injected into funds available for home ownership and buildings by way of loans from building societies, can meet or do much to alleviate housing demands that exist in the country or may need attention.

Do you not accept the Registrar of Financial Institutes as competent to have regard to the Treasury’s viewpoint?

I think that the Registrar of Financial Institutions is there to advise on the safety aspect of investing in certain companies, because he knows what their standing is in the financial world. I am concerned more as a matter of policy with the direction taken with the finances of this country. If R50 million can be so directed as to assist in certain aspects of development that are required so far as the country as a whole is concerned, it would make a difference as that is an appreciable sum of money.

I shall discuss it with my colleague …

I do not want to take it any further, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will discuss it with the Treasury to see whether this money cannot be invested in that way.

I am sorry to come back to past history, but there is a second aspect which worries me. The position that appears to emerge from what has happened in the past, is that one individual, the manager, without having had the approval of the Minister, was able with regard to an investment to sign an instruction to call for cheques to be issued …

It was only in those three instances.

Yes, but there were eight separate occasions …

There were eight separate occasions, but only in three instances …

Yes, but let us forget about that; that is past. Is there not some procedure whereby, according to law, the Minister’s approval of investments is necessary when a person signs a cheque —here there are three people involved, namely the manager and the two signatories? Should not the two signatories, at least, be satisfied that the Minister had approved of these investments? Is there no safeguard within the department to ensure that cheques are not signed by two signatories, if they are not legally authorized to do so? In a private business or company, one would imagine that the auditor would come along and ask for the minute from the directors’ meeting authorizing this or that payment. It seems to me that there is some laxity in the management—this is not new; it came up in 1969 —and one must watch to see that this does not recur. It is a matter of retaining minutes or records and, if the Ministers’ approval is given, that it is there in writing, on record, so that there can be no question of officers signing on someone else’s say-so and not on the Minister’s express approval. I raise that merely as a safeguard, but I do want the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he will be good enough, to discuss with the Treasury whether in the interests of South Africa the investment of this money cannot be directed to where it is most necessary for the economic development of the country.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance. Personally, I accepted that if I have the Registrar of Financial Institutions and that committee, they will consider the interests of the Fund as well as those of the applicants, on merit, for the benefit of the State. What the hon. member for Green Point said, is quite correct, i.e. that it may sometimes be necessary, or that it may render a service to the State, to lend money to a building society because there is a housing shortage. However, if we were to open the door now it may be said later that a representative of the Department of Community Development should also be present here because they know where the housing need is most pressing. I mention this merely as an example. However, I am prepared to consider this matter. The hon. member also asked how this was possible and whether it could not happen again. Until this happened, there was no provision in the old Act for the Secretary to be the accounting officer. Under the old Act the manager of the Fund was directly responsible to the Minister. He could go directly to the Minister without the Secretary knowing anything about it. Under the old Act he was compelled, in terms of regulations and instructions of the Minister to obtain approval from the Ministry before investments could be made. After the manager of the Fund had received approval from the Minister, however, he was the person who signed the instruction enabling the other members to write out cheques to A, B and C. Subsequently these two signatures appear on that cheque. The manager made use of this loophole.

I have said over and over again that, unfortunately, I had to give ex post facto approval in those cases, because investments were made before the manager had obtained approval to do so. Hon. members will appreciate the difficulty there is in repealing something of this nature, because this has already been done, etc. When these applications were submitted to me, I established, in the first place, whether the security was in order. After it had been established that the Fund could suffer no harm, the matter was approved ex post facto. I want to make this quite clear. Under this system it was the manager of the Fund who obtained permission from the Minister to invest certain funds.

However, this Bill provides for an advisory committee which is to advise the Secretary. The Secretary may either amend this advice or recommend that it should be accepted as it is. Then he submits it to the Minister. The Secretary then determines that certain investments for which approval has been obtained, may be made. In this respect the Secretary is accountable, because he falls under the control of the Controller and Auditor-General. The hon. member also asked whether this could not happen again. Crooks may crop up everywhere …

We can make it difficult for them, though.

Yes. Even after what happened. I do not believe the manager received any commission we do not know about in respect of the amounts I approved ex post facto. However, facts came to light that there were cases where he could possibly have received a commission. As far as this is concerned, the Police are still investigating and therefore I cannot charge or accuse anyone of anything here before I have received the report of the Police or before the case has been heard. Therefore I do not want to comment on the matter any further. I am merely closing any loopholes there may be as far as I am in a position to do so.

Amendments proposed by Mr. H. J. Coetsee and the Deputy Minister of Transport put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. L. E. D. Winchester put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to bring something briefly to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister for the purpose of asking for clarity in one respect. When we discussed, in the Second Reading debate, this question of the premiums committee setting the new rates for motor vehicle insurance, the Deputy Minister, in answer to the point I had made, suggested …

On what clause are you; on what item?

I am dealing with the premiums committee. The point I am making to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that the premiums are obviously subject to the claims that the Fund has to meet. This will determine whether premiums are up-graded or down-graded, depending on the number of claims. This is logical. When the Deputy Minister replied to me on this particular aspect, he mentioned the figure of R55 million as outstanding claims, including claims still to be notified in a two-year prescription period in terms of the Act. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me whether this is in fact so; because normal insurance practice in respect of outstanding claims is to set an amount aside for claims actually notified but not settled. In other words, when a claim is notified, it is estimated that it would cost so much; an estimate is then set aside for that claim to be settled. The Deputy Minister explained it to me differently. He said that this amount covered claims still to occur over a period of two years from that particular insurance date in terms of the Act. I would like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether this is in fact so, whether that R55 million estimate is based on claims still to take place, rather than claims that have already occurred.

Mr. Chairman, because I do not regard this as a Budget debate, I do not have the figures here before me; but I want to clarify the position for the hon. member. As the Act provides, a claim and a summons can be issued against the fund up to two years after an accident.

It has always been like that.

Wait, let me finish speaking. We are extending it to two years and 90 days before prescription. Then there are only the claim and the summons. It can happen, owing to circumstances—for example, a person who is still in hospital—that one cannot yet determine what one’s permanent disability is going to be, etc. It can be that this drags on for a year or even longer. Only because of this fact did I, in my reply to the hon. member in the Budget debate, and again in the Second Reading debate at a later stage, point out that, firstly, this is the claims experience in respect of premiums, i.e. the concluded average. Secondly, I told him that this additional amount is the estimated amount with respect to the claims still outstanding. In other words, it is the estimated amount in terms of the claims which have been instituted, but not yet settled, which can be more or less after the claims have finally been settled in court.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we have cleared that matter up, because it was not like that when the hon. the Deputy Minister replied to me earlier.

It has always been like that.

Well. I said it was not the way you put it earlier. But anyway, the matter is now resolved.

Then I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can explain and tell me why the estimates are so much higher. We have accepted what these estimates are, i.e. claims that have occurred. An estimate is set aside for what it may cost to settle them. One accepts that these cannot always be completely accurate. But can the Deputy Minister tell me then why the estimates for the year ending 1970 for outstanding claims were R20 million while at the end of 1971 they had jumped to R55 million? Either the estimates for the previous year were hopelessly wrong or the estimates for this year are not accurate. I should like to know why this figure—we agree as to how it is arrived at—can suddenly be so high. Could the Deputy Minister tell me how the estimates for outstanding claims can jump 300 per cent while accidents themselves for that particular year increased by under 10 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the member, he must ask that under my Vote. He cannot raise it under this Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

What it seeks to do is to make the investigation of claims a little more simpler than it is today. If the declaration is produced to the Police station by the driver or the owner of the vehicle, at least the person investigating the claim on behalf of the injured person, would have a great deal more ease in finding out the name of the insurance company and lodging the claim. I think the amendment is quite clear and I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept it in order to make the investigation of claims that much more simple than it has been up to now.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member’s proposed amendment of this clause is completely superfluous. Indeed, according to what he has just said there is no motivation or true reason whatsoever for such an amendment. I think everyone can foresee that if such an amendment is accepted it would create a completely untenable position. In the first place, if one analyses the wording of this proposed amendment, what does one find? It reads—

Sir, there is no qualification whatsoever. It does not stipulate whether it must be a present driver or owner or whether it may perhaps be previous ones. There may be a whole string of these people. I think it would be a completely impossible task even to submit information of that nature to the police.

If both are dead?

Yes, they could both already be dead. What would the result be then? But what is the primary object of this? Supposing this information is furnished, what on earth must the police do with it? It is given to them and they have it on record. But what purpose does it serve? No purpose in the world. It is only an amendment which, in my view, is completely purposeless and senseless, and I am opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, any person who has had anything to do with the investigation of these claims, would appreciate what the motivation is for the amendment that I have proposed. The position is that when a claim is investigated, one very often finds that the owner of the vehicle cannot produce a declaration. He very often does not know with whom he is insured—the token has been lost—whereas if the Police had the information, one could short-cut all sorts of investigations. Any assessor will tell you that, if this amendment were accepted in the new Bill before us, it would cut down the costs of claims investigations. It would not be difficult at all for the driver to give this information to the Police. I can consequently see no difficulty or any problem attached to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo is quite right. In the first place this amendment does not even belong here. It actually belongs under clause 12 (3). which deals with the insurer’s obligations and not with those of the driver or the owner of the vehicle. Clause 20 would also be the proper place for the proposed amendment, but even there it is not acceptable because the driver or owner is already compelled, in terms of clause 20 (2), to present an insurance declaration to the claimant or his agent. In the case of an accident, the police already take down the data appearing on the insurance token, and are consequently in possession of the data relating to the insurance of the vehicle. The insurance token and the insurance declaration have the same number and the name of the company which issued them. Any inquiry which is therefore made to the police reveals all the particulars which the claimant or his agent may need. I am therefore not prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

1. (5) A declaration of insurance issued to an owner of a vehicle shall be retained by him for a period of not less than two years after expiry date.
2. (6) A token of insurance referred to in subsection (1) shall reflect the name of the owner of the vehicle, its make and model as well as its registration number and the name of the insurance company which issued the token and shall be overprinted with the digits to illustrate the period of insurance.

Again, it is quite clear. The first part of the amendment asks for the retention of a declaration of insurance by the owner of a vehicle for a period of not less than two years. This is to comply with the period in which a claim can be lodged under the Act. The second portion of the amendment provides for the insertion on the token of the name of the registered owner of the vehicle. This, I believe, is the more important part of the amendment. It has been discussed in previous years and I know, from the people who handle this type of claim and from my own personal experience, that if one had the name of the registered owner of the vehicle on the token, a tremendous amount of difficulty could be avoided. First of all, it would draw to the attention of the police investigating an accident whether the driver of the vehicle was the same person whose name appeared on the token. If it was not, they would probably ask a different set of questions and make inquiries. It would help in the tracing of stolen vehicles. It would to some extent eliminate the passing of tokens between different owners of vehicles. Many owners never take out third party insurance. They simply pass the token on from one vehicle to another, and, providing they never have an accident, they probably get away with it. If the name of the owner were on the token, I believe that this practice would to a large extent be obviated. There is plenty of space on the token for the owner’s name. I think this is such an obvious amendment; it could create no difficulties whatsoever, and it could prevent many problems arising. Also, it could cut down costs to a great extent in the investigation of claims.

Mr. Chairman, as with the previous amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Natal, I find these two proposed subsections totally unnecessary. As far as the second part of the amendment is concerned, i.e. that the insurance token should also reflect the name of the owner of the vehicle, he will see that clause 15 already provides that the insurance token, the disc which has to be displayed on the motor car may be prescribed in accordance with the regulations. It is therefore quite within the powers prescribed in the legislation, as it reads at present, for the Minister to prescribe, by way of regulation, if it subsequently appears to be necessary, that these particulars should appear on a token. I did not want to express an opinion on the question of whether it is desirable at this stage; personally I think that it is not necessary at this stage. It is my opinion that it is not necessary at this stage because one has a reference to the token; one has the name of the company printed on it and it is possible for any person with only a little common sense and sound judgment to get the information required within a short time. Then the hon. member asked that the declaration of insurance be retained for a period of two years. I find that superfluous as well. Why should the owner be burdened with having to retain the declaration of insurance? One can at any time obtain copies from the insurance company concerned. One has a reference to the token and one has the number; one can then, without much difficulty, obtain it from the insurance company concerned …

And the insurance company retains it for not less than three years.

… and the insurance company retains it for not less than three years. I do not know why an additional burden should be placed on the motorist by requiring him to retain his declarations of insurance for two years. If he has accidentally thrown his form away, or used it to wrap his sandwiches in. he will have committed a crime. Sir, I regard both these amendments of the hon. member for Port Natal as completely unnecessary.

Sir, it is not necessary for me to add much to what the hon. member for Bellville has already said. I should just like to react to an interjection made by the hon. member for Green Point. I think it would be wrong to have the name of a motor car owner on the token of insurance and not on the motor car. I do not want to go into them now, but I have many reasons for saying this. The hon. member can go and think about it himself.

What are they?

Don’t be stupid.

I am opposed to it in principle. The hon. member for Bellville was quite right in saying here that it was quite impractical to do it in this way. In the second place, the insurer must in any case retain the insurance documents for not less than three years.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

I just want to point out that the insurer is unable to supply the declaration of insurance if it does not have the number of the token or declaration of insurance. If this obligation is therefore placed on the insurer, then we are doing so in the knowledge that he will not always be able to comply with it and that he is thus exposing himself to the penal provision of the clause in question. In practice insurance companies furnish the particulars in any case, where this is in any way possible. I therefore do not accept the amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments, as printed in my name—

1. (4) When an insurance company makes an offer to compensate, such offer shall be made in detail to correspond to the items claimed, as set out in the form prescribed and such offer of settlement shall reflect the extent of apportionment of damages and details of costs allowed shall also be disclosed.

I think here again this is quite clear, even if it is not clear to hon. members opposite.

What are you insinuating?

It is not an insinuation; it is simply a statement of fact. The obligations here in respect of the lodging of the claim, seem to be entirely on the injured person or the person acting for him. I believe that there should be some obligation on the insurance company itself. The Act lays down that the claim must be filed in a certain manner, on a certain form, and I can see no reason why the insurance company, in making an offer to settle that claim, should not themselves put that offer in much the same form, so that the people handling the claim or the claimant can see under which headings the insurance company has met him, and under which headings there is a dispute. If this were done, I am again convinced that it would help to cut costs and that it would save a great deal of litigation. All I am asking the Minister to do is to set out in the Act that when a claim is lodged against an insurance company, and when the company considers that claim and makes the offer, they should make it on the same basis and on the same form. This too would stop a lot of the bargaining which goes on and which sometimes makes the settlement of claims last a great deal longer than is necessary.

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Natal. I support it because from experience one knows that in practice the most noticeable of the complaints from which the injured person usually suffers is compensation it is when he comes to put in his claim as to what he thinks he should recover by way of damages. When claimants, in submitting their claims, are bound to analyze what the claim is for loss of earnings, medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, etc., they then begin to take a more realistic view as to what compensation they are really entitled to and they come down to more reasonable figures. Most claimants start off with a very high figure. I believe that if the insurance company in making an offer to settle such a claim were to say: “We are prepared to accept the loss of earnings and we are prepared to accept the claim for medical expenses, but this pain and suffering of yours is right out of proportion,”; then the claimant is able to see that he must be realistic on this particular aspect of his claim; they have met him on his financial loss, and he must now be a little more realistic in regard to the compensatory aspect of the claim. I believe, with the hon. member for Port Natal, that if the insurance company makes its offer in relation to the heads of claim which have to be submitted under the regulations, it will probably speed up settlement in many cases which are now somewhat protracted. I do not think it imposes any difficulty or any problem to the insurance companies and I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Natal.

If one examines this amendment, one finds that it does not stipulate at what stage the offer should be made. If one reads this in the context of clause 25, it can be at any stage in the course of the 90 days, or it can be after an action has in fact been instituted. I think the hon. member for Green Point will concede that the amendment unfortunately has a deficiency at that point because it does not indicate at what stage this should be done; I think the intention would have been that it should have been done in the course of the 90 days before an action is instituted, for under the existing practice these particulars must in any case be set out after the date of action. Consequently I find this deficiency in the amendment, with the result that I cannot see how the hon. the Deputy Minister, with all due respect, can consider it in its present form. But then I also want to say at the same time that if the hon. members on the opposite side have this in mind, then there is definitely something in it for the simple reason that this period of 90 days which is now being introduced, in this measure before the House, has one object, and that is to enable a company to reach an early settlement and save costs. But then we must take the argument further and we must also point out that many complaints are lodged by assurants because of delay in the settlement of their action's. I think we must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, when dealing with this amendment, to consider giving us an indication that very strong pressure will be exerted by the MVA Fund on the consortium to dispose of claims very rapidly and effectively. Claimants will not then have to wait until they can institute an action, in order to dispose of their case. I think that this will also be the answer to the high estimates of claims outstanding that we have heard about here from time to time. I think that one will be able to consider this matter at a later stage, after having given it proper thought in the light of all the relevant circumstances, and also after one has, perhaps, consulted the insurers.

I should first like to reply to the one matter raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, and I want to give him the undertaking that on the part of the Fund we shall take every step to expedite the disposal of claims. I also want to give him the undertaking that with our inspectorate, and the advice which we provide, and also through the consulting committee, we shall also activate the insurers to dispose of claims as quickly as possible, and if possible, without court actions, and as cheaply as possible. I think we need to look into this matter. I am pleased he brought it to my attention.

Secondly, he is also right with regard to the 90 day period. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal that I am prepared to consider this amendment, but then he must first look at a few matters. In the first place, it is true that we follow the rule of classifying claims as they come in according to the different amounts. Now I first want to clear up this point. The hon. member says that if we classify it with the offer of settlement, instead of stating an overall amount, it could possibly expedite the disposal of claims, but I am afraid that it might perhaps delay this, for then it could happen that the claimant, for each point, will want a separate …

Not each point.

No, I am simply mentioning it. But I am prepared to accept it. I shall discuss it with my people and if they think it is necessary I shall effect an amendment in the Other Place.

In view of what the hon. the Deputy Minister has just said, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 33:

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

We oppose this clause 33 and the reason why I gave notice that we want this clause negatived is simply that the powers given to the Minister in terms of this Act are powers which I think he should personally exercise. If one looks through this Act carefully one sees that there are powers to make regulations and powers to approve of investments and there are other limited powers which are given to the Minister. I do not believe that this is a piece of legislation in which the Minister should be entitled to delegate those powers to officials, be they the secretary or the deputy secretary, or the manager or the assistant manager of the MVA Fund. The hon. the Minister’s powers are very circumscribed in terms of this Act. I do not think the powers of delegation are necessary. The burden is not too heavy on the Minister. I am also of the opinion that they are not desirable in this particular Act. We will accordingly oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the committee welcomed the fact that we are appointing the Secretary as accounting officer. In addition the committee also welcomed the fact that recommendations are made by the Secretary to the Minister. I do not think we have any laws, which I am aware of, in which the Minister is not given certain rights to delegate powers. It is necessary that the Minister should have the powers of delegation, so that he is not burdened with trivialities in the implementation of the Act. To that I want to add however, that all powers which the Minister may delegate does not indemnify him against accountability to the House of Assembly. The Minister must determine what powers he delegates and if officials to whom powers have thus been delegated should be guilty of misconduct, the Minister, is after all, still called to account. That is why I cannot see how the committee can prohibit the Minister from delegating powers, if the committee and the entire House of Assembly still hold the Minister responsible for the conduct of those to whom powers were delegated.

The hon. the Deputy Minister contradicted himself in this connection. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he did not know of any legislation which did not include the delegation of powers. However, the present Insurance Act does not have the powers of delegation. This is a new clause and a new concept which is contained in this Bill and does not appear in the present Act.

The present Act is not a good Act.

There is nothing wrong with the present Act. The present Act places all responsibility upon the shoulders of the Minister. We want this situation to continue so that the hon. the Minister himself can remedy the things which have gone wrong in his department.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The increase in population, the industrial development in the country, and the increased demand for food and water that goes hand in hand with that necessitate that the future land utilization pattern in the country be carefully considered. Forestry has an important role to play in the economy of the country, but its future development must, however, be planned and managed in such a way that it fits in with the general planning of the land utilization pattern. It can be expected that the per capita use of timber in the country will increase and that this, as well as the increase in the population, will make extreme demands on the present limited forest areas. Steps must consequently be taken to encourage afforestation in South Africa, and clause 2 of the Bill must be seen as an instrument that can be employed to achieve this object. In areas where afforestation can be carried out without restriction, approval will freely be granted for afforestation in terms of this clause.

As is customary the Bill was presented to all interested groups for comment and, with few exception, these bodies were also of the opinion—as indeed I expect some hon. members possibly to be—that existing legislation already makes sufficient provision for ordering afforestation in the country on a planned basis. Let me say at once that the powers under the various Acts are insufficient to ensure planned afforestation. Although planned afforestation can, to a certain extent, be realized in terms of existing legislation, the extent of the provisions are too restricted. On occasion I have asked why the provisions of the Water Act, 1956, the Soil Conservation Act, 1969, and the Mountain Catchment Areas Act, 1970, cannot be employed to achieve what I wish to achieve with clause 2 of the Bill. I shall answer the question in the same way I did when this matter was discussed by the Forestry Advisory Council.

Although as Minister of Water Affairs I can, in terms of the Water Act, 1956, place restrictions on the rights of land owners in catchment control areas, and such restrictions can also include a prohibition on the planting of tress, not all land in the Republic has been declared as a catchment control area. Neither is it the intention to declare all catchment areas to be catchment control areas. Only those catchment areas which guarantee water supplies to industrial, agricultural and urban complexes will thus be declared.

I agree that there are, however, many catchment areas which are of local interest, and in such areas control of injudicious afforestation is essential. The proposed new clause will make such control possible. There are consequently large areas of the country where afforestation cannot be controlled in terms of the Water Act. Although the Soil Conservation Act allows certain steps to be taken in the interests of Soil Conservation and water run-off, this is not the main object of that Act. On the contrary, agriculturalists are agreed that the planting of trees is one of the most efficient methods of preventing soil erosion, and it therefore follows logically that the department administering the relevant Act is not inclined to employ that Act to place restrictions on afforestation or to regulate water supplies. The aforementioned Act can therefore not be employed to implement a predrafted land utilization pattern as far as afforestation is concerned and can consequently not be used either to bring about planned afforestation in the Republic.

The provisions of the Mountain Catchment Aras Act, 1970, are broad enough to include prescriptions to restrict afforestation in declared mountain catchment areas. In the normal course of events a mountain catchment area will be that area above the so-called farming line. The Acts quoted here can therefore only be applied in declared catchment control areas or mountain catchment areas and therefore have only limited application. The major portion of the country will never be declared a catchment control or mountain catchment area, and it is therefore necessary for legislation to be introduced whereby the afforestation of such land can be controlled.

It is generally known that I appointed an inter-departmental committee to identify priority areas for afforestation. Within these identified areas forestry will compete on an equal footing with other farming activities for the use of land and water, but even within priority areas local conditions may necessitate that restrictions be placed on afforestation, and that is a further reason why the proposed amendment is necessary. There may also be persons who want to carry out afforestation on land situated outside the priority areas for forestry, and it is particularly essential that I should have the necessary powers to control afforestation in such areas.

To sum up I can therefore state that clause 2 of the Bill is necessary to control commercial forestry in cases where—

1. (1) It is essential in the national interest that land be employed for food production;
2. (2) commercial afforestation adversely influences the water supply in catchment areas situated outside declared catchment control or mountain catchment areas, and where such water is needed for industrial purposes or for food production; and,
3. (3) the establishing of timber plantations will conflict with the already planned land utilization of the particular area.

I hope I can count on the support of all members for this difficult task that now falls to my department.

Hon. members will have noticed that I have begun with clause 2 and not with clause 1. Clause 1 of the Bill requires no lengthy argument. Where there is a large number of persons interested in assisting with the conservation and protection of our forests, it is the intention to give them the opportunity and the necessary status by appointing them as honorary forest officers. I think that it is generally felt that this can happen and I think there is consequently general support for that idea.

The amendments proposed in clause 3 of the Bill have become essential as a result of very recent events.

The Forest Act, 1968, is unfortunately defective in that successful prosecutions cannot be instituted where a person causes a fire outside a State forest or private forest through negligent conduct. Sub-paragraph (iii), which is now being added to section 21 (1) (c) will, it is hoped, bridge this shortcoming.

Sub-paragraph (iv) is aimed at restricting the making of fires in road reserves. Hon. members will, in all probability, be able to remember the fire that started last year in Du Toit’s Kloof when a thoughtless motorist made a barbecue fire in the road reserve. The fire spread and destroyed a large portion of the mountain veld and protea farms in the vicinity. Such occurrences are very general in the Republic, and action against such conduct would now be possible.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are prepared to support this Bill. While this looks as though it may be one of those measures where the Committee Stage will give us more scope for discussion with the Minister, there are in fact only three clauses, and perhaps I can raise one or two points now which the hon. the Minister can deal with at the Second Reading. This will cut down some debate in the Committee Stage, although there are still questions which will be raised then with the hon. the Minister. I should like to deal first with clause 1, concerning the appointment of honorary forest officers. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in fact, under the present Act appointments have been made of honorary forest officers and also whether private persons can be appointed. I shall come presently to clause 3. to which the hon. the Minister referred when he pointed out the case of the very devastating fire which had broken out as a result of a fire that had been made on a road reserve in an improper way, which caused very heavy damage. The new section 3 (4) of the Forest Act, inserted by clause 1, which deals with the appointment of honorary forest officers, is in our minds, as foresters, associated in many ways with the control and supervision of fire hazards, the control of fires in the incipient stages, taking the necessary steps to deal with it, and so on. Fires still remain the great bugbear as far as we foresters are concerned. The real spectre of doom over a man with very large and expensive forests is the possibility of a fire. In the months of the greatest fire hazard—I am now talking about Natal specifically, although it also applies elsewhere—everybody who has his interests tied up in plantations, has this black cloud at the back of his mind all the time for fear there is a fire which in a few hours can destroy the work of years and years. The capital, the work and everything put into it can be devastated by one wild get away fire. In regard to this particular clause I would therefore like to know whether private people can be appointed as forest officers, because there are cases where I would like to be on safe ground in advising people to write to the Secretary and try to get an appointment. In many respects we are particularly defenceless on the South Coast of Natal, where there are not a great many commercial plantations, but many other forests associated with farms which also require protection and where I am sure the people concerned would like to have the authority that can be conferred on them in terms of this provision.

The provisions under clause 2 has given us some food for thought. The new section 4A (1) (a) inserted by clause 2 states that the written approval of the Secretary is required for land which has not previously been afforested and that, except in the case of fruit or fodder trees, the Secretary has to give his written approval for the planting of trees with a view to producing forest produce for commercial or industrial purposes. In other words, this provision clearly does not apply to a man who wants to plant wood-lot, because he is not producing wood for commercial purposes, or for forest produce, which includes just about everything in regard to wood, even the bark. It therefore only applies to those people who wish to go in for forestry as a commercial proposition; although they may be purely and only growing pulpwood, that is commercial growing for industrial purposes. Although they only grow pulpwood, they come under the provisions of this paragraph and must obtain the written approval of the Secretary before they can plant timber. At first glance this seems to clash with the plea we on this side of the House have made for many years, and which I understand has been accepted by the hon. the Minister, namely that we want where it is possible and subject to any other consideration which may be present, to help people and to encourage them to go in for timber growing, if only in a small way. We try to encourage them to plant timber in excess of wood-lot they do plant, which is merely for firewood, fence posts, building posts and other purposes around the farm. In fact, last year the hon. the Minister arranged for a financial measure to come before the House, Which was duly passed and is the law today, in terms of which a timber grower can actually get loans. I am not sure whether this provision has been given effect to yet; I have not yet heard of anybody getting any money. At any rate, this Bill was passed to encourage people to go in for planting for commercial purposes. When we are prepared to assist them with loans and then in the next breath say that they cannot plant until they have obtained the necessary permit from the Secretary, it looks as though there is a tendency for the one consideration to be at variance with the other. I do not believe that the Secretary would wilfully or capriciously withhold approval when an application is made for a permit. From conversations with knowledgeable people, I understand it may be that we are dealing here with the big companies who wish to buy up whole stretches of agricultural land and who wish to put that land, which is perhaps producing food today, under trees, that that is an undesirable practice and that the Government does not favour it. If this is what this new provision intends to deal with, it may be so, but it does not say so. I wonder whether it is in fact sufficiently conclusive in its terms to make it clear that that is what is being aimed at. I would have liked to have seen, for example, a limitation of say 50 acres placed on foresters. If anybody therefore plants less than 50 acres under trees he would not have to get the approval of the Secretary but can go ahead even though it is for commercial purposes. It has been said that if that was to be the case the people who go in for large plantations could overcome the difficulty by planting 50 acres of trees per year. This is of course not the way they view the matter. People who buy up whole farms to plant with timber do not want to plant only 50 acres of trees per year and take 10 years to plant 500 acres. What they want is to plant 5 000 acres as soon as they can do it. If they can plant the whole lot in two years they will do it, because they want a return on their money. I would therefore have liked to see a limitation here or language which was more conclusive as to the precise meaning of the Minister in regard to the limitation and the conditions under which the Secretary will refuse to grant a permit for a farmer to plant timber on his farm. What the conditions will be under which the Secretary will refuse, should be clearly set out so that people will know that under other conditions the Secretary will agree. In another clause the right of appeal to the Minister is provided for if the Secretary should turn down a request. We have often asked for a clause in a Bill providing for an appeal to the Minister and along these broad lines of policy it is no doubt a nice thing to have this appeal to the Minister inserted in this Bill. We have asked this in regard to other matters and we therefore accept it in this case.

I now want to come to the new section 4A (1) (b) being inserted by clause 2. This is the clause with which the Minister dealt at some length where it is provided that if the Minister, and not the Secretary, is satisfied that any trees are impairing the water run-off of land which in the opinion of the Minister is situated within a natural water course, vlei, marsh or natural water sponges the Minister may by notice served on the owner, occupier or lessee direct the removal of the trees which must be removed in order to improve the run-off. The first point to which I want to come here is that in the event of any trees impairing the water run-off of land “which in the opinion of the Minister is situated within a natural water course, vlei, marsh or natural water sponge …” I want to say that I think this is a matter of fact and that it is not really a matter of the opinion of the Minister. The Bill states that it will be done on the opinion of the Minister, but I say that I think it is a fact. Here it seems that the trees which are not situated within a natural water course, a vlei, a marsh or a natural water sponge, in other words, which are growing by and large over the hills, are free from the jurisdiction of the Minister. This clause is a clause that has given foresters, and agriculturists particularly, grey hair and has caused municipalities very grave concern for years and years past. I am not quite sure as to how far the Minister and his department feel that they can readily go in the implementation of this clause. If you have trees, whether natural forests or not—it does not say that it must not be natural forest or artificial plantation—and they are growing just over the rolling hills, where they are not in a natural water course, a vlei, a marsh or a natural water sponge, the Minister can do nothing about them. They may be one of the biggest causes of trouble at the present time. I am not going to say to the Minister that he must widen his Bill so as to make certain that he can order the removal of any trees anywhere if he thinks they are impairing the run-off of a river or stream, because that would be at once advocating the precise point in respect of which there is such a conflict of opinion. I do want to say that this is a burning point—it has been for years past. The Minister will know that and his department will know it only too well. As long as there is a belief that trees are responsible for the diminution of water supplies, so long will that difficulty continually come to the fore, and a lot of other people will say that trees are not responsible for the diminution of the water supply. This is one of those “tydelike” things; it is temporary. You can have a plantation which will diminish the water supplies for 15 or 20 years, and thereafter you will find that that plantation will augment your water supply, because the trees have now reached a certain stage where they have a lot of detritus under them, which acts as a sponge, holds water and allows it to drain away slowly, and so on. This is the controversy which has arisen. But for the moment we are prepared to accept it, although I do not know how far the Minister can implement it.

I do want to say in regard to (b) that we would have been happier had there been provision for compensation in the event of trees having to be removed in this fashion. In the case of 1 (a), if the Secretary refuses to give a certificate allowing a man to plant trees, and he appeals to the Minister, who upholds the decision of the Secretary, saying: “No, you cannot plant trees,” there is no compensation payable to the farmer under those circumstances. He has to use his land for some other purpose. But in the case of paragraph (b), where there are trees, where the Minister has the power to order that they shall be cut and taken away, I believe there should be provision for compensation, if compensation is not inherent in the position. I do not know. Sir, we are dealing very often with farmers here who do not know that anything is inherent in the law. They read it very carefully by candlelight in the evening, and they only read what is there in front of them. They do not know what is inherent in the law. So I would like to have seen provision made just to tell them that they can get compensation in those circumstances.

Then we come to clause 3 amending section 21 of the principal Act. Here I rather apprehend that we probably come to the essential principles of this Bill. The reason why, after dealing with the other matters which were important, the Minister really came before Parliament this time, is again this question of power. The present Act says that it is a criminal offence if anyone throws down or drops any burning match or other burning material, etc. That is now changed to “deliberately or negligently throws down, puts down or drops any burning match or other burning material”. Now we are solving some of the difficulties which the Minister and his department had over the fire that he referred to. If this had been the law, then that man could have been convicted. As I understand the position, if a man lights a cigarette and a burning match burns his fingers and he then drops the match without putting it out, it is a crime under the Bill as we have it before us. He need not deliberately drop the match or start a fire or leave a fire burning, but if he starts a fire through negligence he can be dealt with under this clause if he is apprehended. Here, Sir, I come again to what is the absolute nightmare of those of us who are timber-growers, and that is the fear of fire through negligence, or whatever the reason may be. It is a crime to smoke at a place such as a petrol station, for example, where smoking, by notice, is prohibited, not because you are particularly anxious about smoking in itself, but because a lighted match or a cigarette end or burning tobacco knocked out of a pipe may cause a fire and cause endless harm and endless damage. Here, Sir, we are very much with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Whether this is really going to settle the problem I do not know. I am afraid that we will never settle the problem. You will remember, Sir, that in a previous Bill dealing with an amendment to the Forest Act we spent almost hours debating this question of the threat to our forests because of fire—if my memory serves me correctly, the present Deputy Minister of Transport was one of those who participated in that debate—and the steps that could be taken and should be taken to try to prevent the damage that is caused annually by run-away fires and by fires that are started deliberately. Sir, the deliberate fire is the thing that we have to guard against. We have severe penalties in the law at the present time, but we may have to come back again to the Minister and ask him to be even more severe, because you could suffer damage of various kinds through various types of incendiarism. You can suffer damage through the wilful action of people, who are inspired by ill-will or by hatred against someone or by hatred against the State, deliberately designed to embarrass the State or to embarrass big companies or even small farmers. The incendiarist is a menace, from whichever angle you view it, and I want to say that in my opinion any one of us, because of the laws we have on the State Book, can so often quite innocently infringe some law or regulation. There are so many laws and so many regulations that the innocent man sometimes trips up quite innocently, but, Sir, a man who starts a fire is not doing it inadvertently; he is doing it deliberately; he knows what he is doing and he knows what risk he is taking or, if he does not, he ought to know. Whether he is a smoker or a non-smoker, when a man starts a fire going under circumstances where that fire can spread—if he does it deliberately, so much the worse—then I think the harshest punishment should be meted out to him under those circumstances. In this particular clause we are entirely with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We hope that this clause will serve to get convictions where in the past it was not possible to get a conviction, as for example in the particular case to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred. Sir, we support this Bill and hope that it will be successful in achieving its aim.

Sir, I think it quite fitting that this measure be supported by the Opposition. It is a very important measure in respect of the timber industry in South Africa. Sir, I have just read that in Finland millions of acres of marshland have been drained, with the express object of planting trees. This is an indication of how essential and important it is in Europe and other places that good timber land should be retained for afforestation and not unnecessarily wasted. I have in my hand a map which indicates which areas of our own country—and this includes the old protectorates like Swaziland—are suitable for the planting of trees. If you look at this map, Sir, you see that the portion that is in fact suitable for that purpose covers an absolutely minimal portion of the surface area of our country. I therefore think that everyone in this House will agree that it has become very necessary to exercise control over the planting of trees in this country. I think that afforestation in this country is being seen in a totally new light. It is in truth being seen as a national industry, as a national commodity, which is of tremendous value to us. The aggressive manner in which this industry is being handled by the present Minister, who is entrusted with that job, is an encouragement to us. Control must naturally be exercised, because of the fact that funds are allocated by the Government to encourage planting and because of the fact that by means of Agricultural Credit financial support is undertaken for those entering the industry, such as smaller farmers on smallholdings. Secondly it is very essential because of the timber shortage which is going to develop in this country. If we want to meet this country’s requirements it is estimated that in the next 15 years we shall have to plant more than H million acres of trees in this country. In that connection we already have a backlog to catch up on. We shall have to plant an area of probably ¾ million acres in order to make up that backlog. If we take that into consideration, it is clear that we are heading for a tremendous shortage of timber in this country in the next few decades and that it has become extremely essential to maintain very carefully the sources at our disposal in that connection. In this Bill provision is now being made, in a very precise way, for the manner in which trees are to be planted in this country, and therefore it is a pleasure for me to support the Bill. In terms of this Bill the priority scale for planting can be scientifically determined so that trees are planted at the right time and at the right place, and so that we can eventually depend on a regular flow instead of sporadic shortages, followed by the piling up of supplies as has now occurred in the wattle industry, where one now suddenly has a tremendous timber surplus.

There are also other factors we must bear in mind in the application of this legislation. I am thinking, for example, of the entry of large companies into the field, which can cause great damage at times because these companies employ land for that purpose which sometimes should not be so employed, being agricultural land which should be used for other purposes. I am also thinking of the entry of foreign companies which have bought up, on a large scale, some of our best land in the catchment areas and now apply afforestation there on a large scale. I think it is only right that we should so control this commodity, which is so important to our future, according to the provisions of the Act that it will hold no danger for us in the future. There are some of these companies which exploit the position to such an extent that they do in fact embody a threat as far as we are concerned. There are some of these companies who have been forced out of other parts of the world and have now entered this industry in our country and which can, according to our view of the matter, perhaps prove harmful to us. Therefore it is also essential that when a purchaser obtains a property he should be able to determine his position so that he is aware of the fact that according to law he will be allowed to plant trees on that land he now intends to purchase, or that this will be prohibited. These are all good reasons, I think, for this legislation, and I therefore wholeheartedly want to support it.

In conclusion I just want to say something in connection with the appointment of honorary forest officers. I think it is a very good idea. I think that it will probably engender that essential national pride in our people in this country. I have in mind how, in America, they have introduced a similar idea in their national parks. This can also profitably be applied here. I think of how—as the hon. member for South Coast said—the processes of nature, stretching over a period of 20 to 30 years, can thoughtlessly be destroyed completely in the space of a few minutes by the negligence or recklessness of an irresponsible person. I think we must inculcate that national sensitivity in our people. I find it particularly interesting that the hon. member for South Coast speaks of people who harbour a certain amount of hate and see in this a weapon with which to menace us. What I find interesting is that amongst our Bantu population there is a tremendous sensitivity. They realize that their own safety too is perhaps involved. It is clear to me that our Bantu are particularly set on being careful with our forests. They realize the danger this embodies for us all.

In conclusion I just want to suggest this to the hon. the Minister, i.e. that, when it comes to the clause which provides that it is an offence if a burning match or anything of that kind is thrown down in an afforested area, thereby causing a fire, it should be declared an offence on account of the mere fact of its having been done, regardless of whether it does in fact cause a fire or not, because in itself this is an irresponsible and unforgivable action, whether it causes a fire or not.

We are all in agreement on this Bill before us today. The hon. member for South Coast has referred to the first clause, in connection with honorary forestry officers. May say to the hon. member that we intend appointing as many honorary forestry officers as we can. The hon. member knows that there are many people in this country, not only in the line of forestry, but also other people, who are very interested in our forest reserves, and who want to help us in protecting our reserves and to look after our forests and also to help to prevent fire. Therefore we intend appointing private people to assist us in the general protection of our reserves. The hon. member also referred to the amendment proposed by clause 2 in regard to the trouble we might have to face with the commercial sector. It is the idea of course to protect certain areas where we do not want any afforestation, against undue afforestation. May I mention the case of the Vaal catchment area. I think it would be detrimental to the general interest if we allow people freely to do afforestation in the Vaal catchment area. But we must have protection. In the first instance there are those areas where the Minister will not allow any afforestation. By forcing people to come along and to ask for a permit, the Minister will be warned as to the tendency which obtains at a certain time in a certain area, and therefore in those areas where no general afforestation has been done in the past, there will be no problem, but I can foresee the trouble which could occur in places where there is general afforestation like the Midlands of Natal and the South Coast of Natal and certain parts of the Eastern Transvaal.

May I ask a question? In regard to the limitation of certain places like the Vaal Basin, is it the Minister’s intention still to go on to assist by loans those small farmers who want to go in for afforestation? Is it still his policy to encourage afforestation outside of the areas where he wants to prevent afforestation?

No, that will not be the policy because it would be very unwise to promote afforestation in general in a certain area where we do not want to establish the industry.

No, I am excluding those areas.

In all areas, whether we are going to promote the woodlot, the idea of the small farmer, or whether it is the larger commercial enterprise, the point is that the Minister will be warned as to the tendency in that area. If the Minister does not want that tendency to continue, or if he wants to reverse the tendency, he will be in a position to refuse permission for any development of afforestation. He will naturally refuse any permit. As the hon. member will know, we will have to indicate in future where we want our priority afforestation areas. In those areas it will be easy to obtain permits. We come up with this amendment now to allow the Minister in the first instance to get an indication of any development, and he can then decide whether he wants this development to go on or not; that is the idea, but it will all have to be done very wisely and with great sympathy to the industry generally because although we might want to protect an area against undue encroachment on the water resources, on the other hand the Minister is also the Minister of Forestry, who will have to see that South Africa has enough timber in future. That is the whole idea. The idea is to place the Minister in a position where he will be able to have an indication of this tendency and it is for him to decide whether he wants to stop it or whether to let it go on. The hon. gentleman also referred to compensation. In so far as compensation is concerned, there will be no compensation if he stops or prevents people from doing afforestation in, for instance, the Vaal catchment area. I do agree that there must be compensation where the Minister prevents anybody to re-plant again. In those cases I do not think it is necessary to stress the point since this has been discussed with the Forestry Advisory Council. Then the Minister will have to give compensation because under the general law people will be able to demand compensation from the Minister. It is generally accepted in South Africa. I do not think it is very wise to stress the point in the law itself. This point has been discussed by the Advisory Council and they are fully prepared to accept it as it is now.

*The hon. member for Ermelo referred to an important point, in fact to the whole reason for the development, when he said that we in South Africa are obliged, as regards the distant future, to take note of general development. The hon. member also referred to the fact that there are various parties who want to start going in for afforestation on a large scale in South Africa, people who want to afforest first and place South Africa in the situation that it now has to counteract a tendency, and then there is a conflict of interests. Therefore I agree with the hon. member that is quite correct that we shall take steps in good time to prevent an undesirable development from taking place in the country, rather than having to correct it later on and then having to spend millions of rands to correct an undesirable situation.

Then the hon. member also referred to honorary forest officers. We are very pleased that we have been able to get the public to co-operate with us. There are so many persons in the country who are so interested in forestry, people who are not necessarily trained in this field, but who are nature lovers. Hon. members can understand that our catchment areas, our mountain areas, our reservations and our wilderness areas extend over large tracts of land. There are so many of our people who are so interested in this that they are only too willing to give advice and are also willing to help with the supervision in an honorary capacity. The intention of this Government to appoint people in such an honorary capacity is aimed at providing persons who are true nature lovers with an opportunity to participate more fully in the task which the Government has in general in respect of protecting its mountains and its forests.

†I would also like to refer to a point raised by the hon. member for South Coast in connection with the new section 4A (1) (b) which is inserted by clause. 2. The hon. gentleman quite rightly referred to the words—

I have prepared an amendment to this clause which I would like to bring forward in the Committee Stage. I do feel that the word “sponges” does not go far enough. It is too limited. I believe we should have a better word to include the areas which the hon. gentleman has in mind. I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage to put this matter right.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour?

It is one year now since the Government’s new sports policy was announced, and there has been limited improvement in a few sports since then, but none in others. For example, there is now hope that we may set back into the Davis Cup and into the Olympic Games, but in fact we have not achieved this yet. We on this side welcomed the changes at the time and we welcome this improvement. Indeed, we were among those who predicted most loudly that improvements could be obtained by better policies. However, there are certain Cinderella sports, namely cricket and soccer. For many years now we have not had a cricket test against England, and we lost the last Australian tests and tour. In soccer we have been suspended since 1961, and there have been no instances of international teams visiting South Africa, or our teams visiting abroad, for very many years. I want to make a very strong plea to the hon. the Minister that he will do all he can to secure relaxations for these two sports, so that the benefits which the other sports enjoy can be extended to them also. I ask him to feel slightly encouraged by what has happened—I know he was very gloomy in the past.

What has been done by the Government amounts to piecemeal relaxations, as my hon. leader said at the time. I believe there is no true barrier of principle whatsoever to denying to cricket and soccer these improvements, as I hope to show.

What do you suggest?

The nearer they get to our policy, the better it will be for those sports too. We can show that there have in fact been so many exceptions to any possible Government principle that nothing really stands as a barrier to these changes. I would say that it would therefore represent totally unfair discrimination against cricket and soccer not to allow for them what has been allowed to 26 Olympic sports, and tennis and golf. Any such relaxation will immediately benefit our cricketers and there would be hope for those concerned with soccer. As cricket is one of those sports which a limited number of people play internationally, fewer of the communists and others could possibly stand in our way. The harm done to cricket and soccer is immeasurable. As much as other sports benefit from international competition, these sports suffer through not being able to compete internationally. What these two sports ask is simply to be allowed to select their South African teams on merit and to hold the necessary trials for that purpose. I want to say again that there is no true barrier of principle in Government policy preventing this.

The Government already allows amateur soccer to do just that for the purpose of sending a team to the Olympic Games. The hon. the Minister said that. However, they will not allow the same thing to happen in regard to our best soccer team. Golf and tennis, although they involve professionals, are allowed these privileges, but not soccer. I suggest that this privilege would give us the chance to receive international soccer teams here and to go abroad ourselves.

Secondly, the Government concedes the principle of mixed trials in South Africa in many sports. In regard to the Federation Cup, the hon. the Minister used those very words. I want to quote from Die Burger—

I want to stress that the hon. the Minister must not tell me that their principle is not one of mixed sport but multi-nationalism. If the hon. the Minister says that and our Olympic Sports Committee have to tell the people overseas that it is not a case of integration or mixed sport, but that it is a case of enforcing apartheid that this is being done, it will be the end of our sportsmen. I therefore hope that he will not give me that answer. In regard to many of our sporting events where White and non-White South Africans take part, there is no explanation for it on the multinationalism principle at all. Our South African tennis championships, for example, are on this principle, as well as our South African golf championships. These are national championships, and the intention is to achieve that for athletics.

The hon. the Minister himself gave an additional reason why this was denied to cricket when he gave an interview to the editor of Punch. The editor of Punch says that cricket does not qualify, despite Mr. Waring’s comments about D’Oliveira. He then quotes the Minister as saying—

The Government knows that it is on a very weak wicket, very weak ground, and has advanced various arguments which are entirely unconvincing, arguments with which I should like to deal. First the Government says that in the case of the Olympic Sports as well as in the case of the Davis Cup there are certain rules for those competitions and that if we want to continue taking part in them, we have to meet their requirements in regard to mixed sport. Well, of course. But surely if one is prepared to meet those requirements, there is no fundamental principle which prevents one from doing it in other sports. If one’s principles were so firm and hard and fast, one would not make this adaptation in regard to 26 Olympic sports and tennis and golf. Then we are told that in cricket England is seeking to dictate to us that we must have multi-racial cricket at all levels. The South African cricketers, as far as I know, have never asked for more than the right to pick their best team on merit and play their best team against all-comers. I cannot discover who is correct, whether it is the Government’s view that it must be at all levels or the wish of the cricketers at the top-level. What I want to say to the Government then is this: Allow the cricketers to pick their best team on merit and to play with that best team against competitors. No one can then say that we conceded to the demands which the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister last year alleged were made against us.

Don’t you agree that they were made?

I do not know precisely what the position is. But what I am advocating is different from what the hon. the Minister said was demanded of us. But if the hon. the Minister is taking the view that if anybody makes these demands against us, we then throw overboard our own principles, I want to say to him that he is doing a very unwise thing. In regard to the Olympic Games, let me read to the hon. the Minister what our Olympic Games sportsmen have said in regard to this possible question of dictation. I quote from Die Burger of early February, 1972. This appeared in the brochure which was put out by our people to the Olympic Games people. It reads—

It goes on—

I am not the one who is dealing with this; the Government is dealing with this and is quite prepared, in the case of athletics, to meet all the requirements. I say that if one has principles, whether on this side or on that side, then whether somebody has demanded that we in fact meet those very same principles, one is conceding to nothing if one applies one’s principles. In regard to the case of Australia, let me say that there has been no public demand, as far as I am aware, that our team should be picked in any particular way. In other words, when we were going to send a cricket team to Australia last year, there had been no demands at all. Surely one can, therefore, not use this argument of dictation in denying to our cricketers what is allowed in every sport by this Government.

The last argument the Government and the hon. the Prime Minister have used, is that rugby and cricket grew up differently from other sports and that this is why they take this line in that regard. I am not concerned with rugby where there has been no request for permission to have the relaxation which has been granted to 26 Olympic sports, but I am concerned with the fact that it has come in the case of cricket. The point is that cricket and rugby grew up no differently from tennis and boxing. They were all White associations, with the non-Whites having their own associations. That argument too is, I suggest, without foundation.

What must people think when these two major sports, soccer and cricket, are left completely out in the cold? I suggest it is a complete failure of statesmanship to persist with discrimination against cricket and soccer in this way. I want to conclude on this aspect by asking the hon. the Minister to set these two sports free, as the Government has set the other sports free. They are in chains and it does great harm to them. Give them this right which they have asked and which the Government has given to the other sporting bodies. They need it badly in the interests of the game. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make a real effort to persuade the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. Let him take heart and courage from the slight improvement that there has been in view of the change of stand of the Government.

I now want to move on to another matter which I believe has big implications for South African sport, the National Party and the hon. the Minister. When the hon. the Prime Minister announced the new sports policy during his Vote in April, 1971, we on this side of the House assumed that this sports policy was the fruit of the labours of the hon. the Prime Minister himself, of the hon. the Minister of Sport, of the sport group and in fact of the whole of the National Party, in consultation with outside sporting persons. That certainly would have been the day a development of policy would have taken place on this side of the House. But how wrong were we not! Recently a copy of a memorandum of the Broederbond which they sent to their members, in April, 1971, came into my hands. It is absolutely crystal-clear from that memorandum that the sports policy announced by the hon. the Prime Minister was written by the Broederbond. There is virtually nothing in the Broederbond memo which had not been included in the hon. the Prime Minister’s policy and virtually nothing in the policy which was not in the memo. Let me just give a few examples. The hon. the Prime Minister took his stand on multi-nationality, and so did the Broederbond document. The hon. the Prime Minister also said that no mixed sport shall be practised at club, provincial, or national level, and so did the Broederbond document. The hon. the Prime Minister said there would be no objection to a touring British rugby team playing a Coloured team in a Coloured area, such as Athlone, or in a Bantu area such as Umlazi or Soweto, and that the spectators would be exclusively Coloured or Black, as the case may be. The Broederbond document contained the same principle and in regard to spectators and the stadia it took the identical line, and mentioned the various stadia, too.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that if a tournament known as an international tennis tournament were introduced, it would be all right. The Broederbond likewise accepted the principle of “intervol-kere mededinging”. We saw that the hon. the Prime Minister had given special treatment to the Olympic sports. That is also dealt with in the Broederbond document and there, too, in so many words, it is given special treatment.

In three other respects you find this, in great detail. In regard to the international sports centre, mentioned by the hon. the Prime Minister, the Broederbond document speaks of “’n prestige internasionale sportkompleks”. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us how the plans are proceeding for this international sports complex. Is it still being planned, and if so, where will it be?

In other respects we find the same thing. The hon. the Prime Minister told us that he liked the idea of a sports council, but at this stage he was not prepared to commit himself. Likewise, a sports council is pleaded for in hard, concrete terms by the Broederbond. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is able to tell us more about this matter. Has the Government decided in principle to accept this? If so, what are the powers? Are they identical with the powers recommended by the Broederbond? I should like to know what his views are in that regard. The last matter where I should like to show a likeness is in regard to the whole question of mixed sport at private level. What does the Broederbond document say on the matter, so that we may be guided? It says—

What does it go on to say? It says—

What do we find in the hon. the Minister’s interview with the editor of Punch? I quote—

We know this is also the position with regard to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. [Interjections.] Sir, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister where this matter stands. How far has he progressed with his investigation? When is he going to introduce his legislation, and what will it contain?

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister one further question. The hon. the Minister was, as far as I know, the person who excluded the Press from the tennis trials. Admittedly, there is nothing about that in the Broederbond document, which is what makes me think it was the hon. the Minister himself who took this action. I want to ask him whether it was in fact his own idea to exclude the Press from the private tennis trials for the Federation Cup, and what his future policy will be in this regard.

I repeat that the Broederbond document provided the Nationalist Party with the policy, and I want to suggest that this is very revealing. I believe it reveals why so many leading Nationalists do not trouble themselves with the Nationalist Party; they rather go to the more powerful body, the Broederbond. Sir, I believe that what is true in this regard is doubtless true in other fields, too. Just as they went for their sports policy to the Broederbond, so I believe that for other changes that they may wish to introduce they will first go to the Broederbond. I say that this is also very revealing of the position of the hon. the Minister of Sport. The Broederbond, as I say, drew up the sports policy and submitted a document setting out this policy. In the words of the document, they submitted it to Broederbonders in responsible circles—“vriende in verantwoordelike kringe’’. You would think that the hon. the Minister of Sport, who is intimately concerned with sport, would receive this document, but he did not receive it.

But you did.

I did, but the hon. the Minister did not. He is responsible for sport, but he is the one man who did not get this document. I suggest that this shows that he was completely bypassed. He revealed that by his interjection in this House, as you will remember, Sir, He seems to be quite unaware whence the sports policy of the Nationalist Party came. It was taken over lock, stock and barrel from the Broederbond. They had been deliberating this for many months, and yet he was kept in the dark about this whole thing. Sir, if that is a fair statement of the position—and I ask the hon. the Minister to correct it if it is not— then the hon. the Minister of Sport is Minister of Sport in name only, and that is a very sad state of affairs. I want to ask him how much longer he is going to put up with this. He has told us that he does not plan to stay on very long. Sir, it is significant that the hon. the Minister draws no salary for his work as Minister of Sport. I think this is symbolic of his position in relation to sport. We cannot therefore move a reduction of his salary; if we could we would have no alternative but to move such a reduction.

The hon. member for Pinelands tried to conjure up a spectre here this afternoon and that, would you believe it, under the Sport Vote. It seems to me this is a new type of sport the hon. member wants to develop. He tried to conjure up a spectre here about the Broederbond. Sir, a more important man in the United Party, in his day, than the hon. member, conjured up that spectre many years ago. I am referring to the late Senator Andrew Conroy.

And how right he was!

He had no success with that, and if the hon. member’s attempt here this afternoon is to be seen in the same light and in the context of the jitters they have after the by-election result in Oudtshoorn, I want to tell the hon. member that politically he will have no success with this effort to conjure up a new spectre. What is more, if he really has sport in South Africa at heart, he will not succeed in promoting sport by those techniques either. Sir, the hon. member tried to make out a case here for discrimination against cricket and soccer. When he speaks of soccer he is referring to professional soccer, which the hon. member for Johannesburg North is boss of. The hon. member did not do sport in South Africa any service by making this allegation about discrimination against these two sports.

It is true.

The hon. member says it is true; the image he conveys to the outside world, which will be transmitted to the outside world, is that under its sports policy this Government discriminates against these two types of sport.

That is so.

No, it is not true. What is true is that certain sports administrators in these two sports have very close connections with the United Party and have allowed themselves to be led astray by following the United Party’s instructions instead of using their own common sense. Sir, the leader of hon. members on that side issued a statement about his party’s sports policy on 20th April last year. The hon. member for Pinelands is very well aware of that, because it was after the episode here at Newlands, where prominent cricket players walked off the field. Let us now look at what that United Party sports policy embodies (translation)—

This is now in respect of international sport. Then he continues—

What did the hon. member for Pinelands himself do in carrying that out? This statement in respect of international sport, as that side of the House sees it, was issued against the background of their telling the people of South Africa and all sports bodies: “But. as we have traditionally done, the United Party also adheres to the principle that here within our country mixed sport will not take place at club and provincial levels.” Does the hon. member for Pinelands agree with that? Sir, what happened next? Here in the Peninsula a Coloured cricket organization wanted to arrange a match between a team of White players and a team of Coloured players. The hon. the Minister of Sport immediately said it is definitely not in line with the Government’s policy; that not only in respect of cricket, but in respect of all kinds of sport, there would be no mixing at dub level, provincial level and national level, and therefore the necessary permission for the match is not granted. The hon. member for Pinelands was in a hurry to criticize the Minister about this.

What did Die Burger have to say?

I shall now quote to the hon. member from the Argus of 26th January of this year, a newspaper probably better disposed towards him than this side of the House. After a great deal of circumlocution, which amounted to exactly the arguments the hon. member used here this afternoon, it stated in conclusion—

You see, Mr. Chairman, the general electorate and sports bodies are quite piously told: “Our side does not advocate mixed sport at club level and other levels; we shall just relax the legislation which exists today when it comes to international matches”. But when the first opportunity comes along, a match such as that, the hon. member states: “If my party were in power, we would not have stood in the way of such a match.” I want to tell the hon. member this much this afternoon, since he was trying to conjure up spectres here and make politics with a view to influencing the voters: It is this kind of standpoint, this kind of contradictory standpoint, which has brought that side of the House to its Oudtshoorn position. And that position will be aggravated if they continue to announce one thing to the public and do something else when they are subjected to the test. I want to state that with its approach to sport that side of the House cannot, in any sense, be entrusted with the control of this important matter. [Time expired.]

Chairman directed to report progress. House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order No. 25—

My motion deals with the illustration on the front page of the edition of the student publication Wits Student of 21st April, 1972, and certain statements in the publication. I have only eight minutes in which to speak, and I shall do my best. I am glad that the hon. members of the Opposition will participate in this debate, and I am also grateful that the hon. representative of the Progressive Party will participate in it. We are therefore assembled here as a Parliament and we are going to speak as such today. We must speak unequivocally. We must not adopt a “yes, but” attitude. We must not speak apologetically either. We must speak frankly and we must interpret what is going on in the soul of the nation. If I say that the nation is deeply concerned about what is going on, I am not exaggerating. This concern has emanated from various quarters and from various political, religious and cultural levels camps and points of view. The nation is deeply concerned about what is happening here, as reflected in this publication. I have here in my hand the publication with which this motion is concerned. This motion concerns the activities of certain minority groups, certain students, on university campuses. I say they are minorities, but they are minorities to whom certain university heads and principals knuckle down, as Prof. Bozzoli knuckled down to the lady, Miss Cunningham, who repudiated him yesterday. It concerns student minorities who are purposely seeking and who are linked together in an organized way to break down authority and the authority of leaders, to defy law and order, to insult, and to act in an intimidatory way towards the university authorities and staff, and who act in an organized way. I want to emphasize today that this is by no means an isolated case. I just want to illustrate this. Here is a publication from Wits, the Wits terror edition. It is appalling, Sir, All the publications I am quoting here were issued in the course of this year. Here is an article on Lenin, the pragmatic revolutionary—a warm, sympathetic article, emanating from the University of Cape Town. Here I have a publication: “Free Mandela; Hang Vorster”, from the University of Cape Town. Here I have one: “Where to now?” Here is a banned edition of Sax Appeal that was published in the course of last year and was banned. One shudders when one reads it. One shudders at the filth and vulgarity contained in this student publication. Sir, these are the examples, and I can quote many. Every publication that emanates from the student campuses, whether it be a rag magazine or university newspaper, verges on the border-line; it can either be banned or not. Therefore I say this is no isolated case. This Parliament is speaking today, and from this section of Parliament I say: Not one single step further. We dare not allow it. Some of my colleagues here were at the Sorbonne, where it looked like a battlefield after the revolts there under the command and at the instigation of Danny the Red. Sitting over there is my colleague the hon. member for Bloemfontein East, who says that the general verdict of the French was that there were two motives behind those revolts: to break down and disregard authority and to defy law and order. Therefore I say, and I have grounds for saying: Not one single step further. Furthermore, I say that universities belong to the nation. They must know that. The universities of the Republic of South Africa are national property for which we in this Parliament vote money every year— R6,3 million for Wits University alone. We vote approximately R800 to R1 000 per student per year for all the universities in South Africa. The nation is prepared to pay a lot to preserve its universities as institutions where it cultivates and develops its spiritual and intellectual resources for the benefit of the material as well as the virtual welfare of our nation. Our nation is prepared to pay for that, but we are not prepared, and I am very serious in saying this, to open the doors of our universities to agitators and those who want to break down law and order, and to those who want to follow the example of chaos, which must inevitably, as sure as the sun is in the sky, lead to the breaking down of authority and law and order. Therefore I today ask the Government to examine carefully the residence conditions of the writer of this dirty publication and to deport him summarily from South Africa if it is at all possible. Secondly, I want to address a few words to certain university authorities. If they are too weak, if they cannot enforce discipline and if they yield to the pressure from minority groups, as we are now seeing at the University of the Witwatersrand, I say to them that the nation will not tolerate it and that the Government has the key to open or close the doors of the universities and that it will use its power in that regard.

We on this side of the House reject yesterday’s miserable attempt of the English Press to refer, for instance, to examples such as the “Private Eye” jokes in the English campus publications and to recommend them as the recipe which we should follow here in South Africa.

In conclusion I want to say that Parliament is not only a protector of our state coffers. In terms of our constitution, Parliament and we as representatives are not only the protectors and preservers of the material and spiritual welfare of our people, but also responsible for a civilization which does not consist of steel, stone and electronic constructions alone, but a civilization which is closely bound up with what is of eternal value, with sobermindedness, decency and ethical relationships between fellow citizens, and especially of the subject towards his leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that any South African must condemn the particular cover of the magazine Wits Student to which the hon. member for Carletonville referred in his motion. It is condemned by every South African and it is condemned by most authorities concerned with university education in South Africa. We know for a fact, for example, that it has been strongly condemned by Prof. Israelstan of the Department of Chemistry at the University of the Witwatersrand, who pointed out that the same magazine under the present editor has not only indulged in weak jokes of poor taste, but has also been attacking the authorities of the university itself in terms which it could not justify and which he describes as the “vapourings of an immature mind”. We also know that Prof. Bozzoli, the Vice Chancellor of the university, and Mr. Richards, the Chairman of the University Council, have tendered an unconditional apology to the Prime Minister through the Minister of Education. This means in practice that they do dissociate themselves from the poor taste evinced by this publication on this occasion. We also know that it has caused division in the Students’ Representative Council of the University of the Witwatersrand and that it has led to the resignation of three students because they could not approve of the attitude of the majority of that council. I want to say at once that it is sad that members of a body like the Students’ Representative Council of the University of the Witwatersrand should refuse to associate themselves with the apology of their principal, because they say they have done nothing illegal. There are many things in life which are not controlled by law, and one of these things is good manners. One does not make laws to enforce good manners; and it is a pity—a discredit to a great institution, which my old University of the Witwatersrand is—that people should hide behind a legalistic excuse in order to escape responsibility for an extreme lack of good manners and an insult to a person of high authority in South Africa. With the full authority of this side of the House and this party, I would like to associate ourselves with the condemnation of the particular publication. We do not condemn the picture as such, which I think is rather charming, but it was spoilt by a most unfortunate caption which I can only condemn wholeheartedly.

That does not mean, however, that we now have to pursue the attitude that the whole student body of South Africa is corrupt and that it should be condemned. To my own knowledge the great majority of the students of South Africa are decent, responsible young men and women who are seriously applying themselves to their studies and preparing themselves for their lives and preparing themselves to make a valuable contribution to the development of South Africa in the future. I want that to go on record. I say it from personal knowledge and from an interest which has extended over a lifetime in the affairs of our students. We have to understand the mentality of the students. We have to consider that for example, Prof. Ellison Kahn, the head of the law faculty of the University of the Witwatersrand, said last week when he pointed out that this was in a way part of the growing-up process and that from his own experience most of the radical students at the University in any one year are absorbed in the community within ten years and become decent and responsible citizens. We should consider the fact that, in the world as it is today, in order for a young man or woman to prepare himself or herself adequately for the complicated life we have to lead today, we have to prolong in a way his or her infancy; we have to make him or her dependent upon others long beyond the period when he is entitled to full manhood or she is entitled to full womanhood. This leads to frustrations and stresses and difficult psychological adjustment to life which sometimes make these young people the prey of deliberate agitators and inciters. There is, for example, in the United States of America, at the University of California, a Prof. Marcuse, who has written some most interesting books. This man is a sort of communist, although he is not an out-and-out communist. In his books he advises that the time has ended for people who want to organize a communist revolution, to look only to the workers because under the capitalist system the workers today have lost their chains; they are advanced people. He advises that the agitators should look for other frustrated communities and he mentions minority groups in the countries encouraging immigration. He also mentions students as a frustrated group. I do think that in considering this whole matter we should take this psychological problem of the prolonged infancy of the students into consideration. [Interjections.]

I have only a few minutes. I think it a pity that some of the university authorities, at the University of the Witwatersrand, for example, seem to feel that they lack authority to act against students who misbehave and who abuse the privilege of attending a university. I think that in this connection one should look at the code of ethics for student publications which has now been applied at the University of Cape Town. As time will not permit me to read it all, I think members should have their attention drawn to page 135 of the latest General Prospectus of the University of Cape Town. It republishes parts of the journalistic code of South Africa and specifically prohibits the use of—

It says further—

There are other clauses in a similar vein. I think that, if the university authorities would all accept such a code of self-discipline as our own Press has done and if those authorities would enforce this code, much of the unpleasantness that we have heard about today will be avoided. Above all, I want to make an appeal to hon. members that we should retain our sense of perspective … [Interjections.] We should not turn a latrine joke by an irresponsible, immature student into an issue which will give the impression to the world that we have lost our sense of humour and that we want to make a joke about a lavatory as important as the Reichstag fire was in days gone by.

Mr. Speaker, four minutes have been allocated to me in this debate, but I want to say that that is quite sufficient, because I have no desire to conduct an in-depth or searching analysis into the subject under discussion. I had thought of course that it was just going to be this particular issue of Wits Student. Having listened to the hon. member for Carleton-ville, however, one would have thought that a revolution was about to break out on every campus of our English-speaking universities. In fact this issue has a printing order of 2 500. Had it not been for the fact that the circulation has been considerably expanded, largely by the Nationalist Press, very few people in South Africa would have even known about the photograph and the rather distasteful caption and some of the other rather distasteful remarks inside this particular issue. But of course, Sir, the Nationalist Press could not resist trying to get a certain amount of political capital out of the picture, the article and the caption. It could not care less that while doing so it was compounding the disrespect to the Prime Minister about which it has been complaining so bitterly. But of course, Sir, this lavatory picture has now become an issue in the Brakpan by-election. Indeed it is vying with “Boerehaat” as being one of the main issues. One might say that, flushed with success at Oudtshoorn, the National Party is now trying to repeat its performance on the East Rand. I want to say at once that all over the world, irrespective of the country concerned, irreverence for the Establishment is simply part of the modern student scene, whether we like it or not. Unless it gets violent and really out of hand, sensible authorities, including university authorities and governments, ignore the student scene in this regard. They certainly do not drag student matters like the publication of a university paper into the debating chambers of Parliament. I do not remember anybody demanding a debate in this House when quite recently the students of Stellenbosch University indulged in a so-called prank, and masqueraded as members of the Special Branch and dragged high-ranking persons out of their beds at dead of night. I refer to persons such as the British Ambassador and the Archbishop of Cape Town. Nor was a debate called for when the students of the Orange Free State University quite recently went in for the highly dangerous prank of tampering with the brake mechanism of a passenger train. I do not remember hearing anyone raising those matters in this House.

I want to know where the vigilant member for Carletonville was when those things happened at those universities. He worked himself up into a frenzy over a picture, a caption and an article in Wits Student. The objective of the editor of this student journal was of course to shock the Establishment. That is obvious. And, as has been pointed out, this very same issue contains not only the derogatory caption to which people are objecting and the derogatory remarks about Prime Minister Fogstar, but it also contains a full page article, I might say, which is derogatory of Nusas. The whole of the back page is devoted to Nusas and derogates Nusas. And inside it also of course passes uncomplimentary remarks about the principal of the university and other members of the Establishment. It also has a long article commenting on White liberals in a most uncomplimentary fashion. I can remember many pictures in the journal Private Eye, pictures which are far more specific and far more damaging about the British Prime Ministers. But I do not remember a debate in the House of Commons about anything like this. I want to say quite unequivocally that I think this is the silliest debate in which I have ever participated. It shows a lack of proportion and it shows a lack of a sense of humour. I wonder if the hon. member for Carletonville realizes that there is going to be a veritable howl of laughter throughout the civilized world at this latest example of South African idiocy. Indeed the world might well reach the conclusion that South Africans have gone round the bend.

Finally, since loud noises have been made about subsidies, I want to conclude by pointing out that it is not the National Party that subsidizes universities, but the taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for, inter alia, certain matters affecting the universities in our country, and also in my personal capacity, I want to place on record my strongest disapproval of and aversion to the sort of filth we have had in recent times from university students, some of whom are associated with the University of the Witwatersrand, and also in student publications of certain other universities. By this I have associated myself with the views which have been expressed, particularly in the past week-end, by many people, right-minded people in most cases, who have objected to revolting reading matter of this sort. But I am surprised to find in the discussion of this extremely important motion in this House of Assembly today, that the United Party and the Progressive Party are hand in glove, as they have so often been in the past, and that they fail to appreciate the real significance of this matter. It struck me that over the week-end the hon. member for Hillbrow again issued one of his periodic statements. Even he with his crystal-gazing or bone-throwing or call it what you like, could not see the significance of this. If we think we can dismiss this matter by uttering a few disapproving words about the front page of that Wits Student, we are making a big mistake. Let me say to this House that that front page is not the issue here. It was wrongly reported in the Transvaal newspapers that I had told the deputation I summoned here that the Prime Minister was not very concerned about that matter. The Prime Minister said he rejected that sort of journalism with the contempt it deserves. But I want to say that if we turn a blind eye to the real significance of what is happening and what is being kept going by a small group of students at certain universities, we are playing with fire. We have heard pronouncements here today that this was student fun, that it was a matter of bad judgment and bad taste and that this is a useless and unnecessary debate. But I think that if ever it has been necessary to conduct a debate, a full-scale debate, in this House of Assembly, it is on this subject before the House today. This matter fits exactly into the pattern of student activism as it has manifested itself in other Western countries, i.e. that a small minority of students—and this is the only point I want to concede to the hon. member for Yeoville—which wants to undermine all forms of authority, indulge in this type of behaviour. What does the Opposition do? I raised this in the House during the discussion of another motion in February this year as well. I am still waiting to hear the Opposition say a word to support and reinforce the silent majority at all our universities. [Interjection.] I accuse the combined Opposition, together with the hon. member for Hillbrow, of being accessories in this phenomenon developing at our universities in that they failed to do their duty when there was an opportunity to do it.

You read my amendment to the motion.

Cathy, you are worse than Helen.

Sir, this matter does not concern a mean joke or a bit of filth involved in student fun; this matter concerns an attempt to act in a subversive way. I want to tell this House what I mean. We must not look only at the edition of the 21st. We must relate it to certain other editions of the same publication. We must see what trend is developing in it. I have here before me the Wits Student of 24th March. What appears on the front page? It is a photograph of Mussolini who was executed on the square in Milan. On this photograph he is lying with his head on the body of his mistress, and below there is the caption: “Justice of the people.” If one examines the tendency throughout and one comes to the further point contained in the most recent edition, in which, for example, the second leading article is about the case of the dean in Johannesburg, one finds the following—

I want to ask hon. members to make a study of these publications, and not study only the one and not to look only at the front page depicting the toilet, but to examine the contents. I want to say to hon. members that there is a thread running through these publications, and this thread is that this group of students is engaged in attempts which come very close to and virtually border on subversive activities. I want to say to the hon. Opposition, and I am referring to the Leaders of both Opposition parties, that if you are serious about South Africa, it is time you voiced a strong protest against activities of this sort. What have we had? On Friday, without being asked to do so—I did not ask them, because I do not believe in pious words of this sort—the chairman of the Council of the University of the Witwatersrand and the vice-chancellor came to me with an unconditional apology and asked me to convey it to the Prime Minister. Hardly were they back in Johannesburg when we heard that some of the members of the Students’ Representative Council had dissociated themselves from it. If the newspaper reports are correct, we see what the principal of the University of the Witwatersrand said. He said he could not take action, because if he did there would be a clash. I ask hon. members whether we have reached the stage in South Africa which we find in other countries, i.e. where a small group of underminers on the campus are already terrorising the universities. I say to hon. members that our standpoint is—and I made it clear in the previous debate on this matter—that we expect the universities to set their house in order and to keep it in order. I want to emphasize to all the universities in South Africa that if they are unable to do so and do not have the courage to do so— and allow me to add that if some of the lecturers do not stop advocating that sort of action—this Government will take action. This Government will do its duty, however unpopular such action may be, to prevent institutions which have been built up over many years and which have performed useful work in the academic sphere and in the field of research, from being broken down by a small minority group at the universities, which makes it impossible for serious persons to study and to conduct research.

I told the deputation which was here that my objection was directed more particularly at all the factors surrounding this situation than at the incidental filth which appeared in that publication. The surrounding factors are that certain university authorities are too weak or do not have the courage to take action to maintain law and order on their campuses. I want to say to hon. members—and I want to repeat this— that if those universities do not have the courage and cannot create the means and if the English-language newspapers which sang the same tune over the week-end as the official speaker of the Opposition now did namely that that filth is to be disapproved of and that nothing further should be done, it will be necessary for us to take action in a way which will ensure that authority and order is maintained on the campus. These actions are not aimed at getting at the Prime Minister or at the National Party, but the actions of this small group of students are aimed against the entire so-called establishment. They are aimed at undermining authority, order, peace, quiet and useful work on the campuses of the universities.