Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the Third Reading of this important Bill. In the Second Reading we in these benches moved an amendment that the measure be read this day six months. In the Committee Stage we moved amendments, which, I regret to say, the hon. the Deputy Minister was not prepared to accept. During the debate nothing was said which could change the attitude of hon. members in these benches in regard to this particular measure. Not only have we made it clear that we are opposed to the original Act, but we have also made it clear that we are opposed to this Bill, a Bill which materially extends the scope of the original Act.

During the debate in connection with this particular matter the extent to which the scope of this Bill extends the original Act has been made abundantly clear. We in these benches support the principle of the decentralization of industries where it is in the economic interests of the country, but we are not prepared to support a decentralization policy which is based on ideological reasons. That really is the crux of our opposition to this amending measure and, as has been stated, to the original Act as well. We are opposed to any steps which, in the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister himself, will bend the economy for purely ideological reasons. There are many reasons one could advance where decentralization could be implemented in the interests of the economy of the country. However, during the debate on this Bill until now, we have pointed out how the application of the Bill and of the Act has tended to limit industrial expansion in many instances. We have shown, I believe, very effectively how, by curtailing industrial expansion, job opportunities have been limited, especially for those established Black communities in the areas where it is applicable. Therefore we fear—and I think we must reiterate it—that the more stringent application of this legislation is going to lead to a serious unemployment situation.

We believe that we are quite right in opposing this matter, because, as the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree, the country cannot afford this kind of measure at this stage, nor can it tolerate any steps which can create further unemployment in our country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must state again the opposition to this measure from hon. members in these benches and indicate that we will be opposing its Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, one just cannot understand why the official Opposition are opposing this Bill. The principle of the Environment Planning Act was confirmed by this House last year. The principle was then accepted that there should be stricter control over the employment of Black people in certain areas. Now the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is alleging that the UP support the decentralization efforts of the Government provided we do not have to bend our economy in order to implement that policy. I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the Government’s decentralization efforts are not being implemented in terms of legislation. The only statutory aid in the decentralization process is the Environment Planning Act, and in particular section 3 of that Act. In terms of that section the employment of Bantu in certain large metropolitan areas, especially the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging complex is being restricted. I should like to bring it to the notice of the hon. member that there are restrictive measures to promote decentralization, as contained in section 3 of the Environment Planning Act, a section which will be altered in terms of this amendment Bill, so that the loopholes may be eliminated. On the other hand, the Government’s decentralization efforts are aimed at establishing attractive inducements to industrialists to move to the decentralized areas.

Parliament accepted the principle of this legislation last year, and the amendments contained in this Bill are purely administrative amendments.

The hon. member for East London North said yesterday that an Act was worth nothing if there were loopholes in it. I might agree with him in this respect. We are eliminating the loopholes in the Act, and that is why I think that the hon. member, if he wishes to do the right thing, should support us in eliminating these loopholes in the Act so that it can become worthwhile. In my opinion the amendments in this Bill became necessary to give effect to the principles of the Environment Planning Act. There are industrialists who have at great expense moved their industries to the border industry growth points. They have transferred their industries to a source of Black labour, thus making it possible for Black workers, male and female, to live in their own areas within the borders of their own country and to spend their free time with their families, and also for the money which the workers earn in the border industrial areas to be spent within the homelands, thereby promoting the economies of these countries.

In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Hillbrow asked quite a number of questions and said that the only person who would derive any benefit from the changes which would be brought about by the Bill would be the Minister, and that it was the Black people who were going to suffer as a result of it. In view of what I have just said, I believe that decentralization, which the amending Bill will help to further, will be of the utmost benefit to the Black people. It is after all of great benefit to them to be able to live in their own country in their own homes with their own families and work across the border. For the Black people it is far more advantageous to work there than to have to travel thousands of kilometres away from their families at enormous expense to work in a White area. I think this House should pay tribute today to the industrialists who at considerable expense have moved their industries to the source of Black labour to the advantage of the Black workers. Our planning group, as well as members of the UP planning group, went on a tour of some of the border industrial areas last year. It was an experience to see thousands of Black people working without any hindrance in the factories in Rosslyn. At night the workers sleep in their own homes in their own country. We must pay tribute to these industrialists and thank them for what they have done. I think this Amendment Bill has become necessary to protect the industrialists who incurred considerable expense and were prepared to move their industries to the borders of the homelands and the source of Black labour. I believe that the loopholes in the Environment Planning Act will be eliminated by the Amendment Bill, and therefore I have pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from the speech of the hon. member for Kuruman that we have a Bill which once again demonstrates how often the Government and the Opposition talk past each other. It is quite clear that we in the Opposition take one specific starting point, while the Government takes another. Therefore, whatever arguments are levelled from this side of the House seem to go right past hon. members opposite, and I must confess that a great deal of the arguments which are being raised by hon. members on that side, including the hon. the Deputy Minister, have gone right past me as well. In fact, it is very difficult to understand how the hon. members on that side can defend their point of view. I would suggest that the main difference is that the hallmark of the Government’s policy is its determination to interfere with every area of life in South Africa.

That is not true!

Yes, it is absolutely true. One of the ways in which the Government interferes in industry is of course through the principal Act, where under the guise of planning and decentralization, the Government makes it absolutely clear that its basic fundamental policy, the policy of separate development, is introduced and extended at the direct expense of the economy. When this Bill was introduced and read for a Second Time we opposed it and we also moved a number of amendments in the Committee Stage. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not see fit to accept any of these amendments and, therefore, we will once again oppose the Third Reading of the Bill as strongly as we can.

During the Second Reading and the Committee Stage we raised a number of questions which I believe remain unanswered. Because I think they are fundamental to the motivation of this Bill I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his attention to these questions once again. The first question is whether it is true that when this legislation becomes law it could have the direct effect of increasing unemployment in South Africa. What was the hon. the Deputy Minister’s response to this question when he replied to the Second Reading? I quoted it yesterday and feel I must quote it again. He said: “I want to agree with those members who say that this Bill could perhaps ensure unemployment.”

May I ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of Black people being brought from the Transkei to Cape Town to come and work here while some Brown people are unemployed?

Mr. Speaker, this is a totally irrelevant question. [Interjections.] What I am talking about and the question I am addressing to the hon. the Deputy Minister has to do with direct unemployment and therefore I can ask the hon. member for Kuruman whether he wants to increase unemployment in South Africa. Yes or no?

No!

There you are, that is the point! I shall come to decentralization in a moment, but let me finish with the hon. the Deputy Minister with regard to unemployment first. One of the most critical areas and gravest problems facing South Africa today is the whole question of unemployment. This was made very clear again in the budget which, because of the very difficult situation in which South Africa finds itself and the very nature of the economy which is going through a cooling-off process, was a depressing budget. No allowance was made for growth whatsoever. Therefore, in any economy where there is no growth, there must be further unemployment. Anybody who reads that budget must surely come to that conclusion. I would suggest to the House therefore, that the introduction of this particular measure is most inopportune. In fact, it is irresponsible to South Africa to introduce this legislation right now.

Why?

Because it increases unemployment. Can the hon. members not understand? [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, you may not! [Interjections.] The hon. members on that side of the House had the opportunity to answer some of the questions we have been raising since the Second Reading. Had they done so, we would be prepared to answer questions from them.

The second question that we put to the hon. the Deputy Minister, both in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, was whether he could indicate to us in specific terms any significant improvement whatsoever in the wealth and the economy of South Africa which will be brought about by the introduction of this measure. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not replied to that yet. When we come to the whole problem of decentralization it seems as if the hon. members on that side of the House assume that if one opposes the present measure before the House, one is totally opposed to decentralization. That is absolute nonsense. Decentralization is of course of cardinal importance, not only in terms of the economy, but in terms of giving maximum opportunity for local authorities and provincial authorities to govern themselves. However, when under the guise of planning, one attempts to extend an ideology rather than the benefits of the economy to all the people of South Africa, we must oppose it in the strongest way. In essence it can be said—I think it was said very well by the amendment moved by the hon. member for King William’s Town in the Second Reading—that one can never decentralize any economy if it is at the expense of the major industrial areas. If these two are held together, we accept that decentralization should not merely be a movement, but ought to be a planned movement. And we have no quarrel whatsoever with planning in business, industry and environment. Of course, if there are jobs available in any area, those jobs should be available to whoever applies for them. I am totally opposed to job reservation, whether it be for the Coloured community at the expense of the Black community or whether it be to the benefit of the Whites at the expense of the Blacks. We believe a worker is a worker and that there are enough jobs available in South Africa to enable all workers to do jobs, if only the Government would stop interfering. If it stops interfering, the Government, industry and the employer concerned can provide the housing wherever that is necessary. We have done it elsewhere. [Interjections.] We do this for White workers. Who provides housing for White workers? Of course, the economy must do so. In the same way we must have a responsibility and there must be planning. Take the example of a Black worker who wants to secure a job. This does not only occur in the metropolitan areas. This Bill applies right throughout South Africa.

Also in Pinetown.

Indeed in Pinetown and in Hammarsdale, as was made clear to us in the Committee Stage yesterday. That being the case, I believe this is an inhibiting Bill and must therefore be opposed.

In his comments on one of the amendments moved yesterday, the hon. the Deputy Minister said a number of things. I must confess that if a member of one of these benches had said some of the things the hon. the Deputy Minister said, we would have been accused of incitement. For example, the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the possibility of blowing up the Vaal Dam. Only then did it occur to me that this might happen. It can of course happen, and therefore one must have decentralization. I accept that, but I want to suggest that that is a very, very desperate measure.

A second example is where the hon. the Deputy Minister gave further warnings to employers, warnings in the strongest terms. These warnings can only be described as threats. The hon. member who has spoken before me, has already referred to the reinforcing of an earlier decision about the bending of the economy to fulfil certain political ends. I wonder whether we cannot talk about this in the strongest terms and regard it as akin to economic sabotage?

May I ask you a question?

No. Here we have an inhibiting of the economy to fulfil a political ideal at a time when South Africa’s economy is facing one of its gravest crises since the last war. Therefore, what we ought to have had in the House in the last few days, is not the introduction of legislation like this to close all the loopholes and to extend the principal Act. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wanted to assist South Africa’s economy and wanted to be of assistance to employers and employees of whatever race, he could have brought in a piece of legislation to do away with the principal Act once and for all. By doing that he could have moved us on into a much saner approach to our whole industrial relations problems.

Because this Bill is negative, in essence self-defeating, harmful and discriminatory, we shall oppose it now as we have opposed it consistently since its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman asked whether it was right that Bantu should come and work in Cape Town when there were unemployed Coloureds here. However, the legislation is concerned only with industries and is not applicable to shops. It is applicable only to industries. I, in my turn, want to ask the hon. member for Kuruman whether it is right that Bantu can come here to work in the shops while there are unemployed Coloureds here.

No, it is not right.

Why is the legislation aimed only at industries then? Why must the lifeblood of South Africa be destroyed? The hon. member for Bellville quoted figures a few days ago to show that the number of Bantu in Cape Town had increased from 35 000 to 120 000.

Do they only work in shops or do they also work in industries?

The number of Bantu have increased at this rate despite the fact that influx control measures have been applied. The hon. Deputy Minister, however, wants to restrict industries in so far as the employment of Bantu is concerned. This means then that 120 000 Bantu may simply lie around in Cape Town without any work. If they want to work, they may work in the shops, or do any other work, as long as they do not work in the industries. Does that make any sense?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he is aware that the Bill is not intended to prevent Bantu from coming to work in the specific areas?

But that is precisely the point I am trying to make. The Bill only refers to industries, but the last thing we must do at this stage in South Africa is to restrict industries. [Interjections.] The Bill will not in any way prevent Bantu from coming to work in the shops. In fact, it will not prevent the Bantu from coming to Cape Town for example. The Bantu will only be prevented from working in industries. That is why I say it is absolutely senseless to curtail the industries at this stage. The budget which was introduced the day before yesterday must have shocked every thinking person in so far as it affects the financial position of our country, but nevertheless the Deputy Minister, by means of this legislation, intends to curtail industrial expansion in South Africa. How can one understand this? [Interjections.]

I want to come to the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex. Unfortunately the hon. member for Walmer was not able to be present here today. He is out of town, speaking to the people. [Interjections.] He asked me to make an appeal concerning the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex which will be bled to death as a result of the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for King William’s Town a fair chance to proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, you need not help me; I can deal with those hon. members myself; I have had a lot of experience of hecklers at meetings.

As I said, I want to come to the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex. The hon. Deputy Minister in charge of the legislation approved of a squatter camp being established near the brickfields just outside Port Elizabeth. The farmers there are up in arms about it! The development of a squatters camp there entails that the Bantu may live there. They may go and work in the shops, if they want to, and if they may not or do not wish to work there, they may lie around there, but they may not work in the industries. Can one believe this? The industries are being curtailed in the sense that they must have one White worker for every 214 Bantu. [Interjections.] The hon. members have all insisted that a Bantu influx into the towns should not be allowed. There are after all influx control measures in terms of an Act which the UP placed on the Statute Book. Why are those control measures not being applied? No, the Government does not want to apply them, but it wants to restrict industries. It is the absolute height of irresponsibility to cause industrial expansion in South Africa any kind of setback at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if he is aware that the ratio of 1:214 was abolished as long ago as 1973? Does the hon. member know what the new ratio is?

The hon. member’s party makes so many amendments to laws that one needs a computer to keep track of all the Bantu legislation of the Government. This measure, however, has a restrictive effect on industries, and we cannot afford that. The hon. member for Bellville said in the House the other day that he could not understand us because we had made a moving—he used this word—plea for decentralization, but had nevertheless introduced an amendment in which we allege that the Bill has a restrictive influence on metropolitan industrial areas. He said he could not understand it. We stated very clearly however that we supported decentralization so long as it did not take place at the expense of existing industries.

I want to ask the hon. member for Bellville if he really wants to cripple the industries in Bellville, Epping and Cape Town. Does he really want to do that? The hon. member for Rustenburg went even further. He said that industrialists should be forced to decentralize. Let me clearly put our standpoint now. Our standpoint is that there must be decentralization and there should also be incentives thereto. There are incentives, and we must decentralize as much as we can. However, it should not be done at the expense of existing industries, because the existing industries have to provide the capital for decentralization. It is as simple as that. That is why we cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill because we think it is …

You are getting soft!

No. I am using my intelligence. I am what I always was and I would certainly not be so senseless as to destroy industries in South Africa at this stage. After all, we have defence obligations and also balance of payment problems. In these circumstances however hon. members like those can sit and laugh. It is making fun of the future of South Africa, and that is utterly irresponsible. The actions of those hon. members is irresponsible. I sympathize with the hon. Minister because as I know him, I do not know if his heart could ever be in this legislation. He only introduced it because he had to.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. We on this side of the House admit that the hon. member usually makes a good speech, but I really cannot say that this morning. Boet is “no good”.

Much has been said by the Opposition during the discussion of this Bill. It is very clear to me that the Opposition are making a mountain out of a molehill. Throughout the course of the debate the Opposition have deliberately discussed the principles of the principal Act, despite your having pointed out to them repeatedly, Mr. Speaker, that the principles of the principal Act, as far as these amendments are concerned, are not at issue. The original Act has been on the Statute Book since 1967. The only problem is that the Act cannot be properly applied as a result of certain technical problems. I must come to the conclusion, in other words, that the Opposition approves of certain bodies evading the Act. In contrast thereto, every right-minded person will approve that a law in which certain loopholes have been uncovered should be rectified.

It is typical of the Opposition that they noise everything the Government does to maintain law and order, in whatever form, abroad as discrimination against the Black man. This is done to such an extent that an hon. member of the PRP even had the temerity to say that the Government is stark raving mad. The hon. member for Bryanston did withdraw it, but I do think he owes the Government an apology. I cannot but think that the hon. member has impaired the dignity of this House, and I cannot but say either that such a remark could only have been made by a member who is stark raving mad himself.

Order! The hon. member may not say that.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. The hon. member for Rustenburg, who is unfortunately not present this morning, made the statement that there is a very wide gulf between that side of the House and this side of the House. I agree with him completely, because it seems to me that that side of the House stands for unrestrained freedom while this side of the House stands for orderly, responsible existence.

The hon. Deputy Minister made it very clear that the definitions of “Bantu employee” and “employer” were now being inserted in the Act because offenders could not be prosecuted owing to the lack of these definitions. As presently worded in the Statute Book, the Act is being circumvented. The Opposition of course wants it that way.

The hon. Deputy Minister made it clear that by obtaining information in regard to the number of Black workers from sources other than the employer’s documents, it was possible to determine the number of workers in a factory when the present Act came into operation. It could then be deduced from these figures whether the factory had expanded to the total prescribed by the Act. Contractors who quarry materials used for a public road or a railway line were exempted from the provisions of the Act, because the Act was applicable only to provincial administrations, the Railways or the National Transport Commission. However, some private contractors do not take the environment into account and leave quarries which disfigure the environment. Until now it has not been possible to force them to repair this damage. The Act is now being amended so that exemption will only be granted for quarries under the direct control and supervision of the provincial administration, the Railways or the National Transport Commission. In my opinion this is quite right.

In other words, the amendments deal with the following three principles. Firstly, the definition of the word “Bantu employee” as well as “employer” in connection with control over the extension of factories; secondly, further measures in connection with the use of land for quarrying purposes; and thirdly, the producing of certain evidence in prosecutions under the Act by way of a certificate by the Secretary. I regard these amendments as absolutely necessary in the interests of good order, and therefore I support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting to see how keen hon. members on the Government side are this morning to ask questions. They want to know everything from us this morning …

Where is Japie?

… but yesterday I asked a very important question, viz.: “Please tell us in what way this legislation will stimulate and encourage industrial development in South Africa.” Yet not one hon. member on the other side has stood up and even attempted to tell us how this legislation will stimulate industrial growth in South Africa, no matter where. I

only hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will attempt to answer this question of mine. It is no use firing a lot of other questions in an attempt to divert us from the issues at stake, the problems with which we are faced.

All of us on this side of the House know that this legislation solves absolutely nothing, while it creates more problems for everybody in South Africa. As I read this legislation, it is nothing but a vain attempt by the Government to further its own philosophy, its own ideology. This is nothing but ideological legislation. We have seen this pattern over the years. For many years we have seen legislation being introduced here in an attempt to encourage Bantu labour to return to the homelands. This is the effect of this legislation as well, as I read it.

The hon. the Prime Minister mentioned that if there is one thing that gives him sleepless nights it is unemployment.

He cannot be sleeping now.

I am afraid that many of us are going to have sleepless nights about unemployment in the months to come. Unemployment, and more unemployment, is staring everybody in the face. As we have always said, if we want to be able to sleep, the Black man’s stomach must be full.

The labour which this legislation is trying to induce back to the homelands is labour which was born and educated here. These people know no other area. Yet the Government is attempting to push them back to the so-called borders of the Reserves.

Where there are no jobs.

It is nothing new for the UP to say that we stand for the decentralization of industry. It is our party which, under Gen. Smuts, started with decentralization. One of the largest and most successful industries in South Africa is the Good Hope Textile Factory at King William’s Town. Now that was good planning. The labour was there and the industry has been established there. It is working very successfully. No one can fault that industry. That was nothing if not a UP project from start to finish.

Name me one other.

What is more, it creates no problems. We started this industry and no problems have emerged from it whatsoever.

Now that the House is finished with this Bill, bar the shouting, all that remains for us to do is to come with constructive suggestions and to make the best of a bad job, as I see it. The Bill has now virtually been accepted and we must do something constructive. Decentralization must take place where it is most desirable and most practical. The Bill deals solely with Bantu labour, and not with Coloureds, Indians or anybody else. There is no area better suited to fit the needs of this legislation, as I see it, than one of the areas proclaimed as a metropolitan growth point in 1975 by the Department of Planning and the Environment, when it issued the National Physical Development Plan. There is an area in this plan which the Government suggests should be a metropolitan growth point, viz, the East London-King William’s Town area which embraces Berlin. This was decided on in 1975. In that area we have unlimited Bantu labour. We are dealing with a Bantu labour area—this does not concern Indians, Coloureds or anybody else. The more industries we can encourage to that area and to areas in the Transvaal bordering the Reserves, the better it will be for our development. We have unlimited Bantu labour in this particular area and water in abundance. One can do anything if there is plenty of water. There are many other possibilities which exist in the area I mentioned, namely, the East London/King William’s Town area and particularly in the Berlin industrial area where we have everything laid on for industry.

It is no use telling us that this legislation does not produce problems. We have seen these problems in the Peninsula before where large industries have been hamstrung and handicapped due to the fact that they were not able to employ more Bantu labour. It has been suggested that those industries should engage Coloured labour. There are many industries which hon. members opposite should know can only function with Bantu labour. Coloured labour is not suitable for certain industries. The Department of Transport engage Bantu labour in many of the harbours of South Africa. They employ these people as stevedores.

Can we not rather bring the East London Bantu to Cape Town?

It is not long ago that the hon. the Deputy Minister and I had the opportunity of visiting the area on which I am suggesting we should concentrate, namely the Berlin-King William’s Town-East London area. We viewed this area from the air in a helicopter and the hon. the Deputy Minister should know what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it appropriate for an hon. member to address the Chair while his hands are in his pockets? [Interjections.]

I do not know what gives the hon. member that impression, for I certainly did not have my hands in my pockets. It seems to me that the hon. member is obsessed with one thing only.

†We shall oppose this measure to the hilt and I have no hesitation whatsoever in opposing the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, much of this debate has dealt with the issue as to whether this proposed legislation will increase unemployment or not. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not dealt with this on a factual basis at all. He has been highly emotional, he has said that his heart would bleed if there was unemployment, and he spoke about exploitation, but what he has not attempted to do is to say whether or not this Bill will in fact increase unemployment. The hon. the Deputy Minister has an opportunity in replying to the Third Reading to justify his attitude, not in terms of sentiment, not in terms of ideology and not in terms of politics, but in terms of the harsh reality that in South Africa there is growing unemployment, and he has to meet our charge that this legislation will add to it.

I want to put three questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister and I hope that he will deal with them. First of all, in terms of this measure he wants to restrict the extension of employment opportunities in the urban areas as one of the factors aimed at creating more employment opportunities in the decentralized areas. That is the object. He wants to restrict or curtail the extension of job opportunities in the urban areas in order to cause more job opportunities to be provided in the decentralized areas. I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister some facts and figures. How many jobs does his department anticipate will be created in the decentralized areas over each of the next five years? After all, he is the Deputy Minister of Planning and the Environment. If he is going to apply a ratio restriction in the urban areas, he must know that he can compensate for the curtailment of job opportunities in the urban areas by the number of jobs he anticipates creating in the decentralized areas. If he cannot tell us what the future holds, he must tell us about the past. He must tell us how many jobs have been created during each of the past five years in the decentralized areas. He must tell us this because he will find that a conservative estimate is that something like 165 000 to 170 000 new Bantu come on to the labour market each year. With great respect to the hon. member for Houghton, I am referring to male Bantu over the age of 18 years. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how many of those people are going to be employed in new industries which he hopes to develop in the decentralized areas. For every one that is not employed in the decentralized areas, there are two alternatives. Either he is going to remain unemployed or he is going to be forced to seek employment in the centralized, urban growth points of South Africa.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to justify this Bill he must say, not in terms of generalities, but specifically: “I, the Deputy Minister, will say that our plans are to employ X number of Bantu in the decentralized areas out of the 167 000 that will come into the employment market next year, and the following year, and the following year.” I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister will find that his decentralization plan has not got off the ground—if it is ever going to get off the ground. He is not merely driving people to the rural areas. He is not merely driving them to the decentralized areas. He is driving them into unemployment. I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he has an opportunity, in two or three minutes when he is going to speak, of refuting this and saying that, in fact, the Government is creating jobs in the decentralized areas at a fast enough rate to compensate for the restrictions which are being applied in the urban areas.

The second question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister bears a special relationship to the budget speech which was made in this House on Wednesday. I want to ask him whether there is sufficient capital available in South Africa at this time to proceed with a decentralization programme which will provide the necessary job opportunities outside the existing growth points in South Africa. We have seen that R1,3 billion is to be taken away once again from the private sector and transferred to the public sector. We want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is satisfied that there is enough capital to provide job opportunities in the decentralized areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that it is not merely a question of taking a job which will cost R1 000 to create, and transferring that R1 000 to the decentralized areas. If one transfers that R1 000 to the decentralized areas, that amount only has a quarter of its value, because to create job opportunities outside of existing growth points is at the moment something like three to four times more expensive, in terms of capital, than creating jobs in existing growth points. I want to put it very bluntly to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I want him to give this House the assurance that he and his department are satisfied that the capital is available. If the capital is not available he is driving people into unemployment in South Africa, and that in spite of all his heartache. [Interjections.]

The third question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister is the following. The hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with people who are exploiting Blacks by giving them jobs in the urban areas. He said yesterday that he did not like this exploitation of hundreds of people employed in factories. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to give this House and the country the assurance that he will not use this legislation to drive people out of employment in the urban areas, unless he can guarantee them employment in the decentralized areas. The hon. the Deputy Minister seemed very upset at the exploitation, and he used the example of 100 Bantu in a factory. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister give this House the assurance that he will not apply this legislation to people who are in employment, unless he can guarantee those people employment elsewhere?

And at the same rate.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must give this House the assurance, because he is a warm-hearted, generous sort of man, that he will not drive a single person out of employment without guaranteeing him alternative employment. If the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot satisfy us that he has plans to provide jobs in the decentralized areas, to take up this large inflow into the labour market of 167 000 a year, and if he cannot satisfy us that there is capital available at a time when there is a capital shortage— the hon. the Minister of Finance emphasized the capital shortage—and if the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot guarantee to this House and to the country that he is not the kind of Deputy Minister who will deprive people of their jobs without giving alternative employment, he must expect that, not only this House, but the country, should reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker mentioned a number of factors of an economic nature. May I suggest that his whole speech should have been addressed rather to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs than to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning and the Environment. The hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to guarantee that the business cycle will increase—not at all. We are now dealing with the Environment Planning Amendment Bill, which has to do with the labour ratio in industries only.

*Mention has been made here of work opportunities that must be guaranteed. Should there be an economic recession with more unemployment to follow, the way to rectify it is not to commit economic sabotage in the House by making irresponsible statements. If we want the economic life of South Africa to prosper, we must adopt the right approach to the matter in the first place. We must rectify the mistake at its source and everybody must co-operate so that the outside world can have confidence in South Africa. Every Minister, including the hon. Deputy Minister of Planning and the Environment, will then be able to guarantee that everybody in South Africa will have work. One cannot make pious speeches about how everyone must have work and then, on the other hand, and also when it comes to co-operation, disparage the country.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked quite a number of questions. The hon. member said that with this legislation the Government was going to be the cause of many people being without work; there was going to be unemployment.

†No where in this Bill do I read that it is impossible for an employer to ask for an amendment of his ratio. If he needs more labour, there is nothing to stop him from asking for a permit to increase his ratio.

*Nowhere in the Bill is it stated that an employer may not apply to have his ratio increased.

He will break the law.

No. They may apply and say that in this particular case they need more workers. The hon. Deputy Minister will then investigate the matter. How can hon. members argue under these circumstances that this Bill will make for unemployment? [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member if he agrees with the hon. the Deputy Minister that the introduction of this legislation will cause unemployment?

My reply is that if more workers are needed, the employer is quite justified in asking for more workers. The employer’s permit can be altered. I answered the hon. member’s question right at the outset when I said that if those hon. members would co-operate to make South Africa’s economy stronger, overseas as well, the hon. Deputy Minister would be able to give that assurance. However, if hon. members do not do that, then the hon. Deputy Minister cannot give the assurance.

The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Pinelands said: “We must improve the wealth of the whole country … We must see that everybody has a job to do.” The hon. member also said that he did not believe in decentralization because in his view it did not contribute to production in South Africa.

I supported decentralization.

Did the hon. member say that? Sometimes the hon. member says one thing at one point in his speech and then something else at another. [Interjections.]

*We cannot allow that one national group in South Africa does not have its fair share of the wealth of our country. In this respect we believe in the equitable distribution of wealth. In other words, each national group in South Africa has the right to have certain industries established in its residential area. Is it right, as the hon. member said, that all the industries should be established in the main complexes and only develop there?

I did not say that.

That is exactly what you said.

No, I did not. Read my Hansard.

The fact is that those hon. members preach one thing, but when it comes to giving the Black people their share as well, they want to keep it from them in an underhand way. I just want to say that it is right, and that it is also the policy of this Government, that each separate Bantu nation, not the Black people as a conglomerate, must get its fair share, also in regard to industrial expansion. The Bill will take care of this.

The Progs do not want that.

They do not want it; it is lip-service on their part. [Interjections.] This Bill makes provision for the effective use of labour. It provides that there will not be overemployment of Blacks with an attendant under-production. We must therefore ensure that each man is productive so that we can combat inflation. [Interjections.] That is correct. Some employers, however, employ 100 people and then use them unproductively. This encourages inflation. One can approach this Amendment Bill from any viewpoint and if you love South Africa and you are really trying to solve the economic problems of South Africa, one can only say to the hon. Deputy Minister: “Well done. Carry on with the good work!” in spite of the fact that the hon. member is suggesting that the Deputy Minister is actually encouraging inflation.

We must also remember that this ratio between Black and White workers in industries is necessary to ensure that our Black people and every other population group in the country have a decent standard of living. We employ him and see that he has a house. We cannot simply employ Black people to make a profit out of them and not ensure that they are also viable and can live a dignified life.

†I want to tell my immediate neighbours in the House that if we decentralize and give each population group its own industrial area, migrant labour will be cut down considerably. Hon. members will agree with me, because we are all for that.

*Would we not be giving the commuters a better deal if we reduced their numbers? That is precisely what we aim to do. We do not want labour intensive industries in areas where not many Black people live. The intention here is to situate our large labour intensive industries in the very areas where the workers do not have to journey far to their places of employment. In other words, the volume of migrant labour is being cut down by the implementation of the Act. However, those hon. members will not and cannot see it.

[Inaudible.]

I hope I have given a clear explanation, but I am prepared to explain it further to that hon. member over a cup of coffee.

In the circumstances I want to make it quite clear that seen in the light of human factors, proper housing, the elimination as far as possible of migrant labour, and the social factors, this is a good Bill. If we look at the economic situation in South Africa, we find that we must use our labour productively to combat inflation. That is the object of this Bill. In all respects it is an exceptional Bill. I ask those hon. gentlemen—I think they have listened to what I have said, although perhaps they did not understand it—that we should work together in South Africa. There is nothing sinister about this Bill. Let the Third Reading go through without any opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I think one has to answer to the points brought forward by the hon. member for Pretoria West because, listening to him, one realized that neither he nor many other hon. members on the other side has any idea of the actual realities which we are facing in South Africa. The hon. member spoke about the necessity of not concentrating all the industries in the areas reserved for the Whites. He said that we should allow industries to go to the areas reserved for the Black people. However, the point is that in South Africa we have the particular situation that, even if 50% of all the new capital that will be invested in the infrastructure and industry in South Africa during the next ten years, were to be invested in the homelands and in the border areas, we would still not be able to cater for the normal increase in population within the homelands. It is impossible for us to invest such an amount in the homelands and the fact that we cannot make such investment means that we are going to have enormous unemployment in those areas anyway. Since the people in those areas will not find employment there, they will migrate to the so-called White areas despite all influx control measures and despite all laws such as the one we are dealing with at the moment.

There is another reality which we are facing and which, whether we like it or not, we all have to accept: in the so-called White areas we have the infrastructure and the factories, and a lot of these, as we all know, are at the moment working at 50%, 60% and perhaps 70% of their capacity. Bearing in mind the existing economic situation, one has to decide whether one is prepared to take our very valuable rands—every one of them has to be counted five times—and to spend perhaps ten, fifteen or twenty times as many of them to create one job opportunity in a homeland or whether one should create a job opportunity at a minimum cost in the so-called White areas. This is fundamentally the choice one has to make.

When one introduces laws such as the one we are dealing with now and one talks as broadly as the hon. member for Pretoria West has done, one is basically saying that one does not understand that we are a country of very limited resources and that the demography of the country is such that the influx into the so-called White areas will continue apace despite our efforts to control it. In fact, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, because we do not have the resources to make the tide go back.

I should like to ask the hon. member whether he believes in decentralization or not. I should like to have clarity in this connection because I find it difficult to follow his argument.

Yes, I believe completely in decentralization, but when we decentralize, we must not decentralize on the basis that Blacks must go out and Whites must come in. It simply does not work like that. Where it is economically feasible to decentralize, we should decentralize the Blacks, the Coloureds, the Indians or the Whites—whoever happens to have the particular skills which are needed in order to make the decentralization work. However, what we are doing in South Africa at the present moment—we are doing it with the aid of laws like this and in accordance with the thinking which the hon. members on the opposite side seem to have—is that we are saying that for political reasons we do not like situation A and therefore we are going to bring in laws to make situation A impossible and situation B possible. What are we actually achieving? All we achieve is to make situation A that much more difficult to operate while situation B becomes no more possible than it has been. In other words, one is cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. That is all we are doing.

If we really want to deal with this problem, we must deal with the fundamentals of it. It is no use coming with laws which do not deal with the fundamentals but try to deal with the cosmetics of the situation. We must get down to the fundamentals. We must look at the demography and at the basic resources that we have at our disposal and proceed from there. If we do not do that, we have no chance of solving this problem at all.

Mr. Speaker, I did not expect the Third Reading, to take so long. However, I have a reply to a number of questions, questions I have specifically been asked to answer. I shall try to do so as briefly as possible, however. Before doing so, I think it is necessary—with respect to some hon. members who took part in the debate—to point out to hon. members the amendments which are being proposed in the Bill.

†We have been referring to clause 2—section 3 of the Act—over and over again. The amendment concerning Bantu employees, is an amendment to section 3(4) of the Act. Section 3 of the Act deals with the establishment and extension of factories. That is the whole object of the section. The section reads as follows—

It goes on to set out the different things that can be done and how one goes about it. Section 3(4) provides—

So much has been said about people being chased out of employment. This Act specifically mentions “any extension”, that any further employment must have written approval. Who is throwing anyone out of a job? Where does the hon. member read this in either the Act or in the amendment Bill? The section provides for an extension and we have had applications for extensions to factories and we have approved of reasonable extensions, as has been pointed out by hon. members on this side who spoke on the subject. However, suddenly everybody is now being thrown out of a job. The hon. member for Hillbrow went so far as to link this up with the recent disturbances which we had. He says we are now going to have disturbances all over the country because we are throwing people out of their jobs. We had statement after statement that unemployment would now increase at such a rate that nobody could know the ultimate extent of it. I want to repeat what I said outside this House and with responsibility in this House. There is the danger in this country, as elsewhere in the world, with the economic climate as it is, that there may be bigger and bigger unemployment in the near future.

There will be.

The hon. member said that there will be. I have no doubt that that may be so. However, it will not be because of this Act or because of this Bill.

Does this help or does it hinder it?

The hon. member must at least try to be just. He quoted me as admitting what I admitted just now. However, he did not quote what I said immediately afterwards, namely that the sum total of people affected—not those who have been in legal employment, but those who were illegally employed—was a total of 694 out of the whole working population on the East and West Rand and Soweto.

I did quote that yesterday.

If the hon. member did, he will at least grant me that these people were not legally employed and that, therefore, they were not thrown out of jobs. Does any hon. member condone the illegal employment of people, people who go to a farm, for instance, and are then employed illegally on that farm? I specifically mentioned the figure of 292 who, out of the total of 694, had been employed on a farm illegally. They were employed without the permission of the Bantu Administration Board and without the permission of the authorities where they came from. These people were given jobs. But now, all of a sudden, the department is throwing people out of jobs and is throwing them on the street, thereby creating disturbances and creating the climate for future disturbances which will rock this country from one side to the other. If this legislation has the effect of creating unemployment on the scale which will cause unrest, it will be the duty of the Government—the Government has never shirked its duty—to look at the changed circumstances of the time.

I maintain, with full authority—and I have given the figures—that nothing of the sort has happened as a result of this Act, not since 1967. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Pretoria East that we had extensions to the factories. Can these representatives from Johannesburg tell me whether they are completely unaware of the fact that there have been extensions to factories? The employment figures for Blacks on the Witwatersrand have also grown. How does one work this out now? We enter one debate and on the other side of the House they gleefully throw their hands to high heaven and say: “This policy is worth nothing and instead of decreasing the numbers we have employed hundreds of thousands more on the Witwatersrand.” In the very next debate, however, they come along and tell me: “Can you see what you have done? Those who were living there, legally employed, were thrown out onto the streets by you.” Then they cry to high heaven about the shameful thing that is being done by this Government. One cannot eat one’s cake and have it! Surely, you use one argument or the other, and then ask me to reply to that argument.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question. I ask this because there seems to be some misunderstanding. When I asked it of the hon. the Deputy Minister in my Third Reading speech I referred specifically to his own reply to the Second Reading, where he stated specifically that the Bill and not the circumstances may cause unemployment.

Let me repeat what I said in that speech. I repeat too that the hon. member should read it together with the figures I quoted later on. If I say that it may have the effect of creating unemployment, whether it be ten people or 20 people, it is a fact. Whether it will affect one, 20 or 2 000 people, it can have that effect. I am merely being honest by saying that it can, but then I quoted the figures to say that to make this a factor to be considered when deliberating on this Bill, is really to make, as somebody said, a mountain out of a molehill.

The hon. member for Sea Point, on behalf of his party, asked some pertinent questions. Hon. members will agree that if I reply to these questions in detail it will take long. If there are, however, any further questions unanswered which they specifically want replies to, then I will give them as far as I possibly can. I will nevertheless reply to the hon. members of the official Opposition as well as to the hon. member for King William’s Town when I deal with what they have said.

The hon. member for Sea Point put three points to me. Firstly he wanted the assurance from me that when we curtailed job opportunities in the urban areas, other jobs would be created in the decentralized areas, and he asked whether we would be able to cater for all these people in the decentralized areas.

*Sir, I am not the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Planning and the Environment, but I am standing here as the Deputy Minister of Planning and the Environment, to reply to a debate on a specific amendment to an Act which was accepted by Parliament as a whole in order to work out a policy for the country. At the moment we are developing and extending the application of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act, for which the hon. member for East London North also made a plea a short while ago. I should now like to give the hon. member a partial reply.

†I interrupted the hon. member for East London North when he put questions to me and especially when he pleaded for the Berlin area. Let me say, Sir, I want to support the hon. member in pleading for industrialists to support the Berlin area. I, however, interrupted him when he talked about the water and labour available in the Berlin area by putting this question to him: Why do you not bring the labour to Cape Town? Some members laughed at that as though it had nothing to do with it at all. That is, however, the crux of the question. People have been asking me why I do not bring these labourers to the Witwatersrand and to the factories. They say that there are extensions on the Witwatersrand and that we have the infrastructure and everything. We do not, however, have everything. There is one thing we have not got there. It is distressing to know and I am glad that it is realized all over. We do not have the proper housing for all the Black people working in Johannesburg. We do not have enough amenities for those who are there already. There are not the lighting amenities, as was mentioned by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and for these special provision is now to be made. An hon. member pleaded for the Berlin area because, he said, the people were physically there, their homes and their families. That is what the Government has been saying when we have pleaded for the decentralization of industries.

You have not yet answered my question.

Now we have to bring the Black people to Johannesburg. It is not simply a question of bringing a Black person there to be employed in factory A.

You have not answered my question: How many jobs have you created in decentralized areas?

I am going to reply to that question. I am replying to both questions together. The PRP talk so glibly of bringing Black people to Johannesburg where there are job opportunities for them, but I want them please to tell me whether they consider it to be the duty of the employers, the industrialists who will benefit by it, to provide schooling, to provide the necessary lighting in Soweto, to provide housing and so on, since they are using the Bantu who come from the Berlin and East London areas? Why must they be allowed to make use of Bantu coming from all over South Africa while the Government is left with the responsibility of providing the amenities? What is more, they get* the support of the Opposition on every occasion they say the Government must provide for this, that the Government must allow people to go there. One cannot divorce the economy from the social problems and the other things.

The hon. member for Sea Point pertinently asked me whether we would be able to provide jobs there. Here I want to say in my personal capacity that I think a task lies ahead for us not only for the Government, but also for the Opposition and for all loyal South Africans, of whom there are thousands and thousands. The task that lies ahead in the next three years is not to criticize, but to start doing their share in building up the economy of the homelands. Whether people agree with this policy or not, these areas have to be built up.

You have kept White capital out of the homelands year after year.

That hon. member is wise and old enough. He has made a great contribution to this country in the war years as well as in the years of peace, and I want to tell him that in the years ahead, whatever happens and whatever is left, our duty in the years ahead will be to provide job opportunities for the Whites and the Blacks who will be born not only in the urban areas, but also in the Platteland areas, on the far-away farms, in the country areas and in the homelands.

Mr. Speaker, may I put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister. We agree entirely that the homelands should be developed, but why has the Government kept White capital and White initiative out of the homelands for decades?

Sir, I think that that is a reasonable question and I am not going to use an argument which I think has been used in this House too often. In view of the times we are living in, I do not think we can carry on using those arguments. Let me put a question to that hon. member who has given long service to his party: Why did the UP not do anything about it? I know the answer will be: “There was a war on.” Of course there was a war on, but there were other things to be done too. But where does it get us to argue in this way? Where will it get us if we go on asking: “Why have you not done it in the course of 28 years?” Where will all this bickering get us?

The hon. member for Sea Point has asked me whether we will be able to provide the job opportunities. In reply I want to say to him in all sincerity and in all honesty: It will be one of the main tasks of the Government, of hon. members on both sides of the House and of all true South Africans—of Blacks and Whites—to provide and create job opportunities not only in Johannesburg where there are already job opportunities, but also in the far-away Platteland areas, on the farms and elsewhere. There is a job ahead for all of us. We shall not be able to cope unless everyone of us gets stuck in. However, I can give the assurance that the application of this legislation will not create the chaos which the hon. member maintains it will.

The hon. member put a second question to me. He said that the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned the decentralization project in his budget speech. The hon. member then asked me whether there was enough money. He was replied to by the hon. member for Pretoria West. I do not think it is a fair question to put to me in any case. I can say, however, that the hon. the Minister of Finance has already indicated how far the Government is prepared to go and what other assistance the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs and others will give him in time to come.

Is there sufficient private capital available?

That is a question that should be put to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, not to me. It is unfair to put that question to me.

I put the question to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs.

Put the question to me and I shall reply.

A question was put to me with regard to the exploitation of Bantu labour in factories and what assurance could I give? I think the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has a proud record, notwithstanding what anybody says. We had a job to do in the past in creating the right atmosphere. We have not been assisted a great deal in this by utterances from people on the other side of the House.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked whether it was fair to say that it was incitement to mention a blowing up of the Vaal Dam. I say it is not incitement, nor will it be if the hon. member mentions it. I said that in connection with decentralization and the need for it. If this question is brought into line with the disturbances caused by school children, I put the question: Were those children unemployed? It is plain enough that they were incited. Hon. members opposite know that the children who burnt down the schools did not bum down the schools because of the 1967 Act. Yet this matter was brought into this debate. I can tell the hon. member that if there is exploitation because of this Bill, it will certainly be stopped as far as my department is concerned.

The Opposition asked me who would benefit from this Bill. I think that was their main theme. South Africa will benefit from it. In the case of those people who have a legitimate claim to extend their factories and who apply for permits in the normal way, as so many of them have done, we shall legalize the employment of Bantu who are legally in those areas. We shall also assist in getting people to decentralize by giving them all the assistance to create job opportunities elsewhere and to get their factories working on a profitable basis elsewhere. That will also be to the benefit of the workers who will live in those areas, as well as to their families and the areas concerned. South Africa will benefit from it because the over-population of areas in Johannesburg will at least be stopped. The hon. the Minister of Community Development recently in a speech which he made here said that over-urbanization was acknowledged as being a world problem.

Over-urbanization is going on all over the world and is creating slum areas. He stressed this point over and over again. Do the Opposition members agree with the rest of the world that this over-urbanization is a major problem with which we have to cope? This legislation is one method by means of which we are coping with the problem. As far as I am concerned I have no hesitation, even though I am accused of doing this without sincerity—I say this to the hon. member for King William’s Town—in accepting full responsibility for the amendment to the Act. I can give him the assurance that this Act will be applied in such a way that we shall assist both employers and employees, as long as they obey the law—which is there not to punish them, but to assist them—in giving them the proper allocation of labour and other requirements which they need for the extension of their factories.

Mr. Chairman, clause 3, which is a whole restructuring of section 37 of the principal Act, is obviously to take care of the conflict of interest between minority shareholders and majority shareholders. Basically I think that the proposed section 37 does so very well indeed. The only point that I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is that in a situation of a conflict of interest between the majority shareholders in a company and minority shareholders there is also one other section of people that could be prejudiced, and that is the creditors in the subsidiary companies. If one has a situation where one is looking at the protection of the minority shareholders one would assume that as the conflict of interest could also prejudice the creditors to the company, the situation of those creditors should also be taken into account. I note that the proposed section 37(S) says that—

It need not necessarily mean, because the minority shareholders are prepared to go along with the majority shareholders, that the deal is as it should be. I think that the creditors could still be prejudiced in a situation like that. The question that I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is whether there is any real necessity to have subsection (5). Could it not be left out altogether?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. This clause is actually supposed to facilitate the movement of capital in the form of loans and even the provision of security within company consolidations. The hon. member will remember that the existing legislation actually makes it impossible for a controlled company to borrow money from its controlling company, unless it obtains the permission of all its members. What we want to do here is to make this permissible, not only as an exception, as the existing Act reads at the moment. Naturally, the whole spirit of company law, and of this amendment too, is that sufficient information should be made available so that people whose rights are or may be affected can obtain that information. Unfortunately I cannot delete subsection (5) of the section, because it will then mean that when all the members of a company—in other words, the majority and minority shareholders—agree to a loan or to providing security, it will nevertheless have to be covered by the other provisions. I think that this is wrong. However, I think that the important protection for creditors—I concede there that we must also take steps in order to protect them—are the statements which must reflect the loans.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is a considerable improvement on the existing Act. We are grateful that the period within which a notice of change must be lodged with the Registrar of Companies has been extended in terms of the proposed clause 18. I feel that this period, which is being increased from seven to fourteen days, is actually still too short. In order to illustrate this, I want to tell the House about a personal experience. This took place during the past month.

A directors’ meeting of a company in which I have an interest was held in Bloemfontein at the beginning of March. Certain changes were made as regards some of the directors and officials of the company. In terms of the provisions of section 216 of the existing Act these changes had to be reported to the Registrar of Companies within seven days. This Bill is now bringing about a very welcome change by extending the period to 14 days. However, I feel that in practice, a period of 14 days is still too short. This meeting took place on a Saturday. We sent away the documents and the necessary forms so that they would reach Cape Town by the following Wednesday. Four days is quite a reasonable time if one takes into consideration the distance between Bloemfontein and Cape Town. However, certain information had to be obtained from Newcastle in order to complete the forms. Then they had to be sent to the auditor of the company in Bloemfontein. Only then did he have the opportunity to inform the Registrar of Companies of the changes in terms of the Act. If only a relatively short delay occurs, it may mean in practice that a large number of companies will not be able to comply with the provisions of this section, because the period of time is too short. We are very grateful that the period has been extended to 14 days, but I want to request the hon. the Minister to extend the period to at least 21 days. I believe that postponement can be granted on certain conditions in terms of the provisions of the Bill, but I cannot see why it is necessary for the Registrar of Companies to be burdened with a special permission. Nor can I see why the companies must run the risk of being prosecuted if they cannot comply with the provisions of the clause, merely because of the limited time. I believe that it should be rectified at this stage by extending the period.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s argument is quite valid; indeed, it is precisely because of the circumstances to which he referred that we are extending the period for the lodging of certain documents. If the hon. member refers to section 177 of the principal Act, he will see that the Act provides that on payment of the prescribed fee, the Registrar of Companies can grant permission for the late lodging of documents required by the Act. The fact is—and I am supporting the hon. member’s argument—that many documents are sent by post, and that the postal deliveries are often delayed. It may be that such a delay in the delivery of post is by no means due to any action by the directors or officials of the company. Clause 14, which we have already accepted, makes a further amendment to section 177 of the Act and provides that the registrar can grant extension of the period for the lodging of documents as required by the provisions of the Act—not necessarily on request, but of his own volition. In other words, an extension of the period of time no longer has to be applied for. The clause also provides that, if the registrar is satisfied that the late submission of documents is not due to any neglect on the part of the company or its officials, he will not recover from companies the levy imposed for a late submission. I want to suggest that we leave the Bill as it is so that we can see how it works in practice and whether we should amend it later. However, it seems that we have created machinery in terms of which no penalty need be imposed for the late receipt of documents—especially when the officials or director are not to blame for it.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, before I commence the comments which I wish to make on the Third Reading of the Bill, I should like, if I may, on behalf of this side of the House, to express our congratulations to a member of the personnel of the hon. the Minister’s department who will not be giving members of the House very much of his very talented services in years to come, because he has now been promoted to the office of Deputy Registrar of Companies. I am referring specifically to Mr. Bräsler, with whom many of us have worked very effectively and with great advantage to the work of the House. He has been very helpful to us in regard to many of the Bills that have emanated from the department of the hon. the Minister. I would like to wish him well in his future career as Deputy Registrar of Companies and I hope he will have as much success as he has enjoyed in the capacity in which he served as law adviser to the hon. the Minister’s department.

The Bill is indicative of the value of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law and the ease with which suggestions from interested parties such as the accounting profession, businessmen and financiers in the country can be dealt with. This committee enables adequate consultation to take place, and presents the hon. the Minister with recommendations which are very helpful and very useful in the smoother working of this particular legislation.

I would particularly like to raise a matter which was raised at the time the parent Bill was before this House. The measure introduced many new procedures which at that time seemed perhaps rather complicated. These were procedures which we believed— and, I think, correctly believed—were going to increase the cost of administration of companies in view of the rise of secretarial fees and fees in respect of other aspects of company work which did in fact take place. If one reads the provisions of clauses 13 and 14 of this Bill, this is already evidence of efforts being made to streamline some of the procedures which will be of some financial value to the companies themselves in so far as the administration costs are concerned. Clause 13 particularly will help in the decreasing of secretarial fees and clause 14 will also help as far as the imposition of penalties is concerned. That and other features of this Bill are very useful and very important. I would commend to the hon. the Minister that he should propose to the standing committee that they look further into the question of streamlining the procedure with regard to the rendition of various forms and the provision of information from time to time, more particularly annually because it is in that special field that secretarial fees have risen very steeply indeed. As far as larger companies are concerned, it may perhaps not be as detrimental from a financial point of view as it is in respect of the numerous smaller companies which exist throughout the country. They feel the effects of this and I can give examples of small companies where very often the secretarial fees are such that one does not even want to maintain these companies. Some of them are important because they are property holding companies and they have to carry on. If the hon. the Minister will therefore give that matter some thought I hope it will be advantageous to those who must administer the Companies Act. With that I would like to say that the evidence shown here of the value of the standing committee is something which we should note.

Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to react quickly and briefly to the remarks made by the hon. member for Jeppe. I support his personal remarks on Advocate Bräsler. I may say that he will not be far from me and that I shall still make use of his good services in dealing with legislation, especially the technical parts. Of course, the whole approach of the Standing Committee on Company Law is also intended to prevent a loss of efficiency and to introduce the formulas laid down by it in such a way as to avoid, as far as possible, a resultant increase in costs. Therefore I shall tell the hon. member immediately that his approach is an approach which I support myself. He will remember that during the Second Reading debate I pointed out that the fact that computer services will be installed in the office of the Registrar of Companies will mean that information which has to be provided in forms at the moment can be fed into the computer. Gradually, as this begins to function effectively, we can start doing away with routine information which is actually no longer necessary. This also emphasizes that what the hon. member is asking for is already the approach of the Standing Committee. I shall use his argument as a further confirmation of this.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The large amounts voted and spent each year by the Government for the rendering of assistance in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, are evidence of the extent to which these credit facilities have become indispensable to the farming industry. Assistance is divided into three categories, short-term, medium-term and long-term assistance. The proposed amendment to the Act is in connection with long-term assistance, and more specifically assistance which is or was rendered in the redemption of mortgages and other farming debts and the acquisition of agricultural land, whether private or State-owned land, with a view to achieving an economic farming unit.

When the Farmers’ Assistance Act was passed as far back as 1935 it was realized that a measure of control was necessary where long-term assistance was rendered to farmers who were less well-endowed with capital, on the one hand to keep the farmers on the land and on the other to preserve the land for the farmers as far as possible. For this reason provision was made for the endorsement of certain conditions and restrictions on the title deeds of land which is mortgaged in favour of the State as a result of assistance rendered. This principle was perpetuated by the passing of the Agricultural Credit Act in 1966, which Act how provides for the rendering of assistance on a co-ordinated and purposeful basis. At the moment there are numerous title deeds on which such conditions and restrictions are endorsed.

The relevant conditions and restrictions are closely connected and in the main control the following three aspects, while there are still amounts owing by the mortgagor in respect of assistance rendered: Firstly, that there shall not be further mortgage on the property without the permission of the Minister; secondly that the property shall not be sold in execution, by a creditor other than a mortgagee, without the approval of the Minister; and thirdly, that the mortgaged property shall not form part of an insolvent estate without the permission of the Minister, but that it shall become the property of the State on the date of sequestration subject to existing mortgages.

The Bill now before the House for consideration relates to the latter condition.

†Action in terms of the powers which are vested in the Minister under section 35(1)(e) of the principal Act, is usually only taken when there is reason to believe that a farmer who stands to lose his property due to circumstances beyond his control, can recover should he be allowed to continue with his fanning operations. Under normal circumstances it is seldom required of the Minister to use these powers, namely to refuse to grant permission for such a property to become an asset in the estate of the sequestrated owner. At times of prolonged droughts or other natural disasters, over which the farmer has little or no control, it is imperative, however, that the Minister shall have the power to take steps to ensure that the deserving farmer be placed in a position where he can rehabilitate and be retained in the farming industry.

Serious problems have not yet been experienced as a result of action taken in terms of the said provision. A situation has, however, been reached where doubt has been expressed in regard to the Minister’s competence to exercise the powers vested in him by section 35 without becoming liable for the payment of amounts owing under bonds ranking even lower than those in favour of the State. The amendment proposed in this Bill will eliminate the uncertainty which existed in regard to the matter.

*The amended provision embodies the principle that if permission is granted that a mortgaged property be left as an asset of the estate, it should thereafter be dealt with as though the relevant condition had never been endorsed on the title deed, as has indeed been the case up to now. The State claim can then be proved in the usual way in terms of the provisions of the Insolvency Act, whilst not encroaching upon the order of precedence of any mortgagee.

Mr. Speaker, we have here the unusual situation that the State is taking powers of a precautionary nature. The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained that in the process of supporting the deserving farmers who, due to no fault of their own, have landed in economic difficulties, there is now a question mark—I think it goes no further than that—being placed against powers for which provision has been made in the original Act and which have been used in the past. We on this side of the House believe it is wise to take these powers to put beyond any doubt the fact that the Minister can help deserving farmers to remain on their ground where circumstances are beyond their control. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned drought as an example. Anybody who looks at the economic situation today, particularly as regards the farming community, can well see that provisions of this nature may be used more frequently than was the case in the past. Sir, we support the Second Reading of this Bill and hope it will meet the purpose for which it has been introduced.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, this Bill provides for the fact that in exceptional circumstances farmers can retain their land. The exceptional circumstances which can arise, and for which preventive measures are being adopted, are for instance drought conditions, as the hon. member for Mooi River also pointed out. It is perhaps necessary to go into these circumstances a bit further. In practice it often happens that high-pressure salesmen visit farms. When for instance a new type of oil has come on to the market, the salesman drives from farm to farm telling farmers of the good qualities of that product. Before the farmer knows where he is, he has bought a whole lot of that stuff. A drought could then suddenly set in or he could have a poor crop that year, with the result that he cannot pay the account. In normal circumstances such a creditor can have the estate of the farmer sequestrated. This inevitably involves a risk to the farmer’s land in the process of sequestration. In such a case the Minister is empowered, in terms of this Bill, to ensure that the farmer’s land is not included in such an estate so that the farmer will be able to retain his land.

One can also perhaps look at circumstances such as those we find ourselves in at present. I refer to economic problems and a shortage of cash on the part of those who supply fanners with credit. Under the circumstances it is possible that they would not be prepared to give the farmer the opportunity of settling that debt within 60 days or even a year. If the farmer suddenly has a poor crop, the creditor can have his estate sequestrated. Once again the farmer’s land will be at stake.

A further implication of this Bill is that it will make the people who supply farmers with credit more careful. They will not, without more ado, simply supply a farmer with credit. In this connection one thinks especially of essential financing institutions in agriculture such as banks and co-operatives which can also be faced with the problem of not being able to get their money. I think that clause 1(1)(a) makes provision for the fact that essential financing institutions such as banks and agricultural co-operatives can, in terms of the proposed new paragraph (e), apply to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for a second or even a third bond. This new subsection clearly states—

In other words, the ordinary holder of a mortgage bond retains his right and is excluded in these situations. In effect this then means that responsible and essential suppliers of agricultural credit, such as cooperatives and banks, must make provision for this in good time and must then obtain the consent of the Minister to register a second or a third bond, thereby securing proper cover for their financing.

The Bill further makes provision, in the new subsection (1B) for the maintenance and management of such property, i.e. from the time of sequestration until the Minister eventually gives his consent. For that period there must be proper control and management of the property so that it cannot, in the meantime, be neglected.

I think this is a good amendment; it is a better definition of the principle of the old Act and it better enables those who supply farmers with credit to know where they stand in terms of section 35. I think this is a good amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we also support the Bill. It is clear that the Bill removes doubts as to whether the Minister does have the powers he is supposed to have in terms of section 35 of the Act. We agree with this.

Mr. Speaker, we also support the Bill. It merely clarifies the law. Previously the Act stated that the Minister could authorize that land should not form part of the owner’s estate, and now the Act is more specific and precise, but it does not change the law. For those reasons we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to all those who participated in the debate. I am very pleased about the unanimity. It goes to prove one thing at least and that is that these are good amendments. I think it also constitutes a motion of confidence in the officials who made a very thorough job of a very technical aspect. Any doubts that may have existed about the interpretation of this provision have now been removed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House contains a simple yet very important amendment which became necessary to ensure smooth and proper functioning of a particular section in the Removal of Restrictions Act, 1967.

The said Act, to put it very briefly, empowers an Administrator in the public interest to alter, suspend or remove certain restrictions and obligations in respect of land which are contained in the title deed.

Section 4(3) provides that when an Administrator considers an application in the above connection, he may grant the application and, inter alia, may impose the condition that the applicant shall pay to any objector whose land or real right in land will in the opinion of the Administrator, be adversely affected materially by the granting of the application, an amount of compensation which, in the absence of an agreement between the applicant and the objector, shall be determined by the Administrator.

As a result of an application which was recently approved by the Administrator of the Transvaal without the award of compensation, the case of Northwest Townships (Pty.) Ltd v. Administrator and J. P. Burks was heard in the Supreme Court, in which an order was requested that compensation should be paid for a real right which was adversely affected. The court ruled that a real right had been destroyed and the matter was therefore compensatable. Many more of these cases are anticipated in the various provinces, which could embarrass the Administrators if the correct action is not taken in regard to the assessment of affected real rights. The same applies, of course, in the case where the Administrator awards compensation of his own accord. It is no more than right, too, that the owner of a real right which is affected should receive reasonable compensation for his adversely affected right, and that anybody who benefits from it, should pay reasonable compensation.

The provincial authorities in the Transvaal have stated in representations that the Administrator does not have the necessary machinery with which to make a satisfactory assessment of the adverse effect on an objector’s property or real rights. The townships board is not in a position to be of assistance to him in this respect, in view of the fact that its members are appointed by reason of their knowledge, mainly, of planning matters. In the normal course of events they have no knowledge of valuations and the provincial authorities are of the opinion that valuation courts which have local knowledge of property values should rather be used for the determination of compensation.

A comparable state of affairs arises in the case of the amendment of a township planning scheme, which incidentally has no relation to the Removal of Restrictions Act. In the relevant ordinances of the different provinces provision is made for the appointment of compensation courts to determine compensation where the approval or amendment of a town-planning scheme prejudices the rights of persons. The compensation courts are composed of people with specialized knowledge and experience of the determination of values of land and rights and are thus properly equipped for the task in question.

After consultation with the four directors of local management of the provinces, they recommended that the Act be amended to empower an Administrator to order that the amount of compensation referred to in section 4(3) shall be determined as though it were a claim for compensation arising from the adoption or amendment of a township scheme for which provision is made in an ordinance dealing with town planning.

That recommendation is incorporated in the Bill. As no application for alteration, suspension or removal of restrictions by the Administrator can, however, be granted in terms of the existing provisions of the Act when objection to such an application is lodged, without approval of the Minister of Community Development, I consider it to be necessary that the Minister should also be empowered to order that compensation shall be determined by such a compensation court when it is necessary in his opinion and the Administrator has not so ordered. I want to give the assurance, however, that I shall not arbitrarily disregard the Administrators’ decisions in this regard. There is exceptional mutual cooperation between the Administrators and myself, but I do nevertheless feel that the Minister should have a say in the matter in view of the fact that the ultimate decision as to removal or otherwise rests with him.

Mr. Speaker, it is an accepted principle that the owner of property should be compensated when his proprietary rights are taken away or are diminished as a result of action by an authority, be it the central, provincial or local authority. The method and procedure for determining compensation have been the subject of debate over a long period of time. In so far as the general basis is concerned, agreement was reached after consideration by a Select Committee over a period of time and it was formulated into the Expropriation Act. In his remarks the hon. the Minister indicated that in the case of the removal of restrictions which may adversely affect one property and beneficially affect another there has been the problem of the Administrator being the sole arbiter as to whether or not compensation should be paid and also as to the extent of the compensation. The Bill before us is obviously to clarify the position and to ensure that there are not instances where an owner whose proprietary rights are disadvantageously affected is not adequately compensated. I think the hon. the Minister is wise and correct in dealing with the removal of restrictions, for the purposes of consideration of compensation, on the same basis as would be done in the case of a change in town-planning schemes. The question with regard to the position in Natal was raised in the Other Place. In Natal the town-planning schemes are not applied in the same manner as they are applied in the other provinces of the Republic. The hon. the Minister explained that a compensation court would be established by the Administration in Natal to deal with those specific cases. From my inquiry subsequent to what was raised in the debate in the Other Place, it seems that that is a satisfactory position so far as Natal is concerned.

The position is that there is to be an additional provision to ensure that there will be no hardship as far as the owner is concerned. The hon. the Minister will be able to refer the matter back to the Administrator if he should decide that the matter should be referred to a compensation court. We believe this is the correct procedure and that it is an improvement on the law as it now stands. For those reasons we support the measure that is before the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is common cause—the hon. the Minister said it was—that when people have their real rights in land adversely affected, there should be compensation and that in this instance the Administrator is the person to determine it. We now have a provision that in certain circumstances, if the Minister requests the Administrator, he shall see that this is dealt with as though it were a claim arising out of the implementation of a town-planning scheme. This is good and well, but the hon.

the Minister did indicate that claims for compensation in relation to changes in a real right of land were not the same as claims for compensation in the implementation of a town-planning scheme. Yet, what is attempted here is to say that for the purposes of the machinery for compensation, it should be dealt with on the same basis. We have no objection to the concept or the procedure, but as we read and understand various provincial ordinances, they specifically exclude compensation on a large number of grounds where township schemes are concerned. Surely the intention, of the Bill is that the criteria of township schemes should be applied for compensation, but not in instances where compensation is excluded. The Transvaal provincial ordinance specifically stipulates that in a whole variety of cases there shall be no compensation where a new township scheme or approved township scheme is applied. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, if it is his intention that there should be compensation because of the removal of restrictions, this will not be negated by applying an ordinance which stipulates that for a variety of reasons there should be no compensation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the effect of this clause may be to negate the compensation provision, because whereas in the past it was accepted that there should be compensation, each ordinance is different, and certainly as far as the Transvaal ordinance is concerned, it precludes giving compensation where, for instance, a town-planning scheme regulates the position of buildings and open spaces and limits the number of buildings. This was clearly not the intention of this particular legislation. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the application of this Bill will reduce the area of compensation and in fact will negative compensation in certain instances, or whether it is merely to have an established machinery to give effect to the principle of compensation where a person’s real right in land is adversely affected.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches are satisfied that the machinery created by this clause will improve these conditions. Consequently we shall not oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my appreciation to the Opposition parties for their attitude towards this Bill. I want to give the hon. member for Sea Point the unqualified assurance that the only object of this Bill is to give the Administrators and the Minister the machinery which can be used in order to determine the compensation that should be paid for any act by the Administrator which affects the real rights of the owner of a property, the title of which is amended, or even of the lessee or person who has other rights to that property. These valuation courts, which do still exist except in the case of Natal, have great experience in determining such affected values. We want to put them at the disposal of the Administrators under the Department of Community Development. The criteria which will apply will merely be what the loss is that the affected person suffers. Compensation will then be paid according to the present Act.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise only one point with the hon. the Minister. In the speech which he made in the Other Place and here this afternoon he referred to the determination of compensation by the valuation court. I believe the hon. the Minister has the compensation court in mind in regard to town planning. The term “valuation court” may lead to confusion, particularly in the Cape Province, and if I am correct I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would clarify the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am so grateful that the hon. member has drawn attention to the terminological inexactitude.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments contained in the Bill are in no way drastic amendments, and I want to express the hope that I shall receive the general support of hon. members for this measure.

The provisions of the Bill amend the Bantu Education Act, 1953 and the Bantu Special Education Act, 1964. Because the different clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled, I shall just briefly elaborate on them and offer further explanations where necessary.

In clause 1 it is proposed that certain definitions in the Bantu Education Act be amended. The present definition of “education” excludes “higher education” as defined in section 17 of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945 (Act 38 of 1945). “Higher education” is defined in the latter Act because it determines the powers of provincial councils in regard to education; or rather, to define clearly what education does not rest with the provinces. The definition “higher education” has therefore understandably been amended and supplemented from time to time to regulate the control of the provinces or the central government over certain types of education. It was, for instance, thus amended when the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967, was passed. The said section 17 has already been amended six times since 1953, when the Bantu Education Act was passed, with the result that certain types of education are now included in higher education, a state of affairs which is no longer applicable for the purposes of the definition of “education” in the Bantu Education Act. Thus, for instance, advanced technical education, which is higher education in terms of section 17 of Act 38, is in fact available in terms of the Bantu Education Act.

Instead of defining higher education for the purposes of the Bantu Education Act, 1953, it is thought preferable to define all education which is not administered in terms of the Act. Thus university education, special education, and “training”, as it is termed in the Bantu Employees’ In-Service Training Act, 1976, are excluded. All other types of education can therefore be made available in terms of the Bantu Education Act.

The existing definition of “native school” and “Bantu school” is replaced by the definition of “school” because the word “Bantu” is unnecessary in “Bantu school”, as I shall indicate later in connection with clause 4. The definition of “school” corresponds exactly with the existing definition of “Bantu school”—except for the insertion of the word “centre”. “Centre” is included with a view to the establishment of centres for the education of adults, night schools and departmental industrial centres as an extension of the school syllabus.

Due to changes in the names of certain ranks of officials, the definition of “Secretary” is no longer applicable. The proposed definition will enable the Minister to appoint an official to exercise certain powers which, in terms of the Act, should be exercised by the secretary. That is to say, in cases where the secretary himself did not exercise such powers. Attention is drawn to the fact that the definition of “Secretary” in the Bantu Special Education Act, 1964, is being similarly amended.

The Bantu Education Act does not provide for the appointment of teachers not attached to a specific Government school. Schools situated in self-governing areas naturally fall under the control of their governments. When those governments do not have qualified teachers available, White teachers employed by the Department of Bantu Education are seconded to the homeland governments for service to those governments. Such teachers can naturally not be appointed to the establishment of a specific Government school and, of course, neither to the establishment of a school which is not controlled by the Department. The existing legislation therefore complicates the administration in regard to the granting of assistance in this sphere to self-governing areas.

Clause 2 consequently provides for the inclusion of a new section 10quat, in terms of which teachers can be appointed additional to the establishments provided in terms of section 10(1). It is also the intention to second such teachers to governments of self-governing areas in terms of the proposed section 10quin.

Although the regulations concerning the conditions of service of teachers attached to Government schools provide for the secondment of teachers to the service of other governments, the Government law advisers are of the opinion that such a provision should be contained in the Act itself. Attention is drawn to the fact that in clause 6 similar provision for secondment is being made in the Bantu Special Education Act, 1964.

The power of the Minister to make regulations in terms of section 15 of the Bantu Education Act is confined to Government schools and community schools in regard to certain matters. For instance, the Minister may make regulations in connection with courses in respect to Government schools and community schools only. In the case of hostels, the admission, expulsion or discharge of pupils, the medical examination of teachers and pupils, and religious instruction, the Minister may make regulations in respect of Government schools only. The amendments contained in clause 3 envisage the extension of the Minister’s powers in regard to the above-mentioned matters, in order that he may make regulations in respect of all schools, as defined in section 1.

Because the provisions of paragraph (d) of section 15(1) in regard to the making of regulations in connection with examinations are open to misinterpretation, it is proposed that it be substituted by a separate provision, viz. paragraph (d)bis.

“School” is defined in section 1 as a school—or other institution—for Bantu children or persons. The word “Bantu” in the term “Bantu school” is therefore unnecessary, and it is accordingly proposed that wherever the words “Bantu school” appear in the Act they be substituted by the word “school”. Likewise “Government Bantu school” is to be substituted by “Government school”, and “Bantu community school” by Community school”. This amendment will also apply to all regulations made in terms of the Bantu Education Act. In clause 7 a similar substitution is being made in the Bantu Special Education Act, 1964. Mr. Speaker, I have now explained the most important aspects of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in some respects this Bill can be regarded as a step in the right direction. We on this side of the House always welcome such a step from the Government. We are very conscious of the fact that the pace of change of the Government is desperately slow, so slow, in fact, that one at times feels like grabbing hon. members on the other side, shaking them a little and saying: “Wake up! This is 1977.” In clause 4 a commendable attempt is made on the part of the Government to eradicate from the principal Act the word “Bantu”. We welcome this because in future Bantu schools and Bantu community schools will legally be known only as Government schools and community schools. This is a definite attempt to normalize educational terminology in South Africa. As far as that is concerned, we welcome it. However, this Bill and therefore the principal Act, will still be known as the Bantu Educational Bill and as such will be administered by the Department of Bantu Education. In this connection I want to ask the hon. the Minister: What has happened to the promise of the Government that a new name would be found for the Department of Bantu Education? In spite of all the big talk we have had, even panel discussions over SATV, it now appears that this is not going to materialize. This is the more regrettable, especially since we are dealing here with a Bill which presents a wonderful opportunity for such a change.

*Mr. Speaker, I just want to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister can throw any light on this subject for us or whether we must simply accept the fact that the promise is only, shall I say, a “Pik-type promise” made to the UNO, in other words something which is only said to pacify people at a certain stage. The amendments introduced in the legislation comprise a variety of principles, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has rightly said.

Order! I do not feel very happy about the expression used by the hon. member, i.e. that it was a “Pik-type promise”, a promise which, so he suggests, is made without any intention of keeping it. I think the hon. member should rather withdraw it.

If that is how you feel, Sir, I shall withdraw it. I withdraw it unconditionally.

Order! I am sure there are other words the hon. member can find to describe what he means.

Yes. I shall in no way refer to a “Pik” or anything else. Let me just say that it seems to me the promise does not have a very good chance of being implemented.

Mr. Speaker, the diversity of principles comprising the legislation affect matters such as the use of White teachers in the education departments of the homelands, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. This meets with our approval, as of course does the addition of the word “centre” to the definition of “school”. As explained to us in the explanatory memorandum, the latter term was added with a view to the establishment of centres for adult education as well as industrial centres.

I want to express the hope that in future the State will do much more in regard to these aspects, i.e. industrial centres and adult education, than is presently the case. At the moment this is dreadfully limited. I am not saying that nothing is being done in this regard. Something is being done, but in comparison with the huge potential that exists, what is being done is really very slight. Similarly adult education for instance, is something I believe should be tackled with great enthusiasm and imagination. I hope this can be done, for otherwise it would not help us very much to include this word in the definition of “school”.

In regard to seconding teachers for service in other departments, I want to say that I am glad this is being done with the consent of the teachers. However, I hope the department will not make the same mistake here that is sometimes made by other Government departments, i.e. that of seconding people and then forgetting about them in those posts. As a consequence their promotion is often prejudiced. Sometimes this can quite easily be a dead-end for such persons.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, in clause 3 he is, of course, extending his powers. This is not so much a matter of the deletion of the word “Bantu”. That amendment is, in any case, introduced in clause 4. This is concerned with the extension of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s powers in regard to various aspects. Whilst he could previously only make regulations in regard to government and community schools in connection with matters such as courses, religious instruction and the admission and discharge of pupils and students, etc., he is now assuming much greater powers enabling him not only to do so in regard to government and community schools, but in future also in regard to all schools, in other words everything covered by the definition, including private schools and State-aided schools. I must immediately tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that although this is something we do, in fact, approve of, we toyed with the idea for some time before deciding that we could approve of it. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps give further reasons to indicate why it is so absolutely essential that he have these extended powers.

†Sir, if one reads through clause 3, one sees that there are a number of matters concerning which the hon. the Minister will now have the power to issue regulations. In this regard it is sometimes really sad to think that the central figure in the education of these people is in fact the hon. the Minister. Let me say that I have nothing against him as a person. The fact is, however, that the central and most powerful figure—outside the homelands, of course—in the education of the African happens to be a person who is responsible to a legislative chamber in which there is of course absolutely no chance of representation in any form whatsoever for the African people concerned. When one reads through legislation of this sort, and especially clause 3, one sees in the minutest detail how we in this House in fact govern people without giving them any say whatsoever. I think that that is a sad state of affairs. We must realize that this is something that cannot last for ever.

*When it comes to the principle of the delegation of powers, we have a problem. I understand why he wants to introduce this amendment. As is explained in the explanatory memorandum, certain of the posts mentioned have already disappeared. However, we cannot agree that powers should simply be delegated to any officer of the department. If one looks at the definition of “officer”, one sees that it includes anyone who is on the fixed establishment of the department. We will move amendments in regard to this matter during the Committee Stage. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will consider our amendments well because we believe that a line must be drawn somewhere.

In conclusion I just want to say that the explanatory memorandum of the department is something we greatly appreciate when we are dealing with legislation such as this. We are also glad that we have had so much time to study it. We will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to react to the veiled plea of the hon. member for Durban Central that the people this legislation concerns, should receive representation in this House. It actually falls outside the scope of the Bill. Allow me merely to say that the opinion he expressed is certainly going to make him very acceptable to the party of the hon. member for Sea Point. Apparently, these are simply preparations he is making in order to take that step.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to give the undertaking that we on this side, too, will support the Bill. It improves the existing Act and makes it more streamlined. It also makes for greater administrative efficiency and will eventually raise the standard of Bantu education.

As far as the reference made by the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned, the reference to the so-called promise of the hon. the Deputy Minister that he would change the name, I want to say that as I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister, it was not so much a promise that the name “Bantu education” would be changed, as an invitation to everyone, the hon. members of the Opposition included, to suggest an acceptable name. I think the hon. member for Durban Central could have immortalized his name today if he had suggested a very original and acceptable name.

I suggested “the Department of Education”.

It is very easy to criticize but the hon. member had the opportunity today to make a positive contribution for once, and he failed dismally.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the subject of Bantu education always excites attention and concern throughout the country because of the developments which have been taking place lately and also because of the changes which are envisaged in this area, changes which are long overdue. We had a number of references to this by the hon. the Deputy Minister and some of his officials and colleagues in the department, and one anticipates and looks forward with great interest to the developments which still lie ahead. One is tempted at such a time to make direct reference to some of these areas, but I shall try to reserve those to the Vote.

As far as “beloftes” are concerned, I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but could one talk about an “A.P.-belofte”? Would that be sufficient? I am not sure. The hon. member for Port Natal suggested that we should make some recommendation about a new name for the department. It seems as though the names of a great number of the departments are going to be changed. We have heard about a change of the name for the S.A. Railways and Harbours and now a change is being suggested here. It looks as though the hon. the Deputy Minister is becoming more and more progressive as he goes on, in the proper sense of the word. As one progressive to another, I want to compliment him on this move. I do not think that he need look further than the Department of National Education. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Central that one does not have to go beyond that. Education is education. The hon. the Deputy Minister is on record as having said that, and if one looks at the matriculation certificate in this country, it is of equal standard. I am talking now about educational standards. It is a very good thing for South Africa when we start talking about Coloured education, Bantu education, White education, national education and every other kind of education. In short, the people who really need education are the people over there and if we can succeed to educate them to a better understanding of education, that would be a very good thing.

We shall support this Bill. We believe it is a significant improvement to the principal Act. There are certain changes in definitions, changes which have been well motivated by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The definition of “education” follows and it is quite natural and normal that this should be done in the light of the arguments which he presented. The definition of “school” is also dealt with. Now, I suppose, we come to the crux of the change in the legislation, namely the removal of the word “Bantu”. This has a long history and one does not want to go into detail on this matter at the moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows better than most the kinds of names that have been used to describe a group of people, because he has used them in this House only recently. So, we are very glad that he has decided to make this kind of improvement. One wonders whether he is going to get a few more letters written on the subject. Quite seriously, one is grateful that this has been considered. It still remains under a specific department. Yet this is a sensible move. The hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned that he has talked with Blacks themselves, and, of course, there is some inconsistency in describing …

You say this is a progressive move?

That is right! This is a very progressive move. The very fact that he found time to talk to some Blacks is quite a progressive move as well. We congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and wish him further conversations. Who knows, he may bring about many more changes if he continues to to talk and listen. I want, in all seriousness, to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to enlarge just a little on the insertion of the word “centre”. This, I think, is a very significant move referring, as it does, to adult education, to the reintroduction, I assume, of night schools and then of course of industrial centres as well, which are also post-school education centres. I want to refer specifically to the whole aspect of night schools. One does not have to go into the whole history to realize that there were a great number of these schools for adult education …

Order! To what principle of the Bill is the hon. member referring now?

Mr. Speaker, I am referring specifically to the insertion of the word “centre” in terms of the definition which the hon. the Deputy Minister has already spoken to.

What clause is that?

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the proposed new section 1(d). That is clause 1 of the Bill.

Order! The hon. member may continue.

I simply want to ask for a little elaboration on this. Reference has already been made to this in past debates and I hope we will hear of some specific progress in this area because there are many people in the urban areas, White people who are quite prepared to give up their time, their energy and their expertise in these adult night classes and night schools for Black youngsters and for Black adults. One hopes that with the minimum amount of delay there will be a movement in this direction. I believe it was a most retrogressive step to close the night schools as they existed in the urban areas in the past.

The whole question of making it possible for White teachers who are qualified to be made available to self-governing territories I believe, is very good and very wise. If the administrative details need to be fixed up in order to make this possible, I believe, it should get the support of this House. With regard to the proposed amendment which the hon. member for Durban Central is going to move a little later in the Committee Stage, I would say I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself realizes that there is an anomaly here in the delegation of power—I think that is absolutely right—but in terms of extending it as wide as it does, in the way the Bill is now formulated, I believe it could be put in a better way, a tighter way, so as to ensure that only senior officials have the delegated power of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not have to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister and this hon. House that the whole area of schooling of Blacks is a very sensitive area. Therefore I believe that only hand-picked efficient senior officials should have those powers. I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister is only going to delegate to those senior people. However, I think it should be stated quite specifically.

In clause 4 we are reminded that what we are really talking about is a school for Bantu, and therefore there is no need to talk about Bantu schools. That makes a lot of sense.

I want to conclude by saying that, no matter what we call a department or an organization or a group responsible for the education of the Black people of South Africa, nothing is going to happen until there is significant change in a number of very important areas, viz. the whole area of compulsory education, the whole area of double sessions, and in particular the area of the training of teachers. Reference has already been made to this in the Bill, but it is absolutely fundamental and if there are Black teachers who imagine that, with St. VIII and a little more than that, they can continue to do the training that is required, they must be disabused of that because it is simply not good enough. I am quite sure the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with me here. If there is one area on which we need to concentrate and on which we have to spend a great deal more money, it is the upgrading of Black teachers who are already teaching in our schools.

Finally, if we are going to move significantly in this area of Black education, we will have to look very hard at the per capita expenditure for Black and for White children. At the moment it is R41 for Blacks and R621 for Whites. [Interjections.] I appreciate that this goes beyond the Bill. I simply want to say that if we are going to make a change, that is where we ought to concentrate. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer first of all to the hon. member for Port Natal who, if I understood him correctly, said to the hon. member for Durban Central: “It is easy to criticize, but what about doing something positive?” Our suggestion to the hon. member for Port Natal is that if they are looking for a name, the name should be the Department of Education. I hope to be able to give the hon. member for Port Natal some other criticisms, but also some other positive suggestions. The hon. member for Pinelands, in addressing himself to the hon. the Deputy Minister, said he was speaking “as one progressive to another”. I want to know whether this means another merger, or is this just the pivotal effect of the party on my left? It is something that I cannot understand.

Ask Japie!

The hon. member wants me to ask Japie. Japie will have a very good answer which is better than that.

As far as I personally am concerned, this Bill ushers in the end of the sad saga of Bantu night-schools and continuation classes and it heralds the promise of a new era in respect of Bantu adult education. If I may justify my comment on Bantu night-schools, I would refer to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech where he definitely referred to the education of adults and night-schools.

The hon. member for Durban Central dealt with the question of the appointment and secondment of additional teachers, but as far as I am concerned the key word in the Bill is the word “centre” which appears in the definition of “school” in clause 1. I believe that this opens up a new vista in so far as adult education is concerned. I want to point out some of the difficulties which have existed in the past and why I am pleased to hear that this movement to adult education is due to be expanded.

The hon. members for Durban Central, Umlazi and I had the privilege of going out to the Lamont Night-school in a Bantu area in Durban. There we saw the work that was undertaken by an organization known as “Operation Upgrade”. They took illiterate people and trained them in a period of three to four weeks or a little longer, after which they were able to read, understand and play a greater part in the work which they were doing. However, one of the aspects which distressed me a great deal was that there was an adult man there who worked in Wentworth, an area quite far from Lamontville. He had to go by train to Lamontville to undertake his tuition under “Operation Upgrade” and then had to catch another train to go to KwaMashu, where he stayed because there were no facilities or opportunities for him. What also interested my colleagues and me was that there was a young lad there; we wondered why he should go to a Bantu night-school, and then we found out that he had to attend the night-school because both his parents were working and he had to look after his younger brothers and sisters. The only way he had of getting any form of education was by attending the classes operated under “Operation Upgrade”. What I find difficult to understand is the time which it has taken for the Government to accept the necessity and the desirability of some positive, dynamic form of adult education. I want to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the 1969 conference on Bantu education sponsored by the Institute of Race Relations. The report of the conference has a special chapter entitled “Adult education”. I quote—

They then go on to enumerate the figures, which I too have studied. In 1954 there was an amount in the Bantu Education Vote for R46 000 for night-schools and continuation classes for adults. By 1961 the amount of R46 000 had dwindled to R2 000 and by 1963-’64 it had dwindled to R1 000. Thereafter it became a non-recurring expenditure. In 1967, however, the organizers of these classes, mostly people who were well-intentioned and doing a wonderful job, were told that no further permits for registration would be granted. In October 1968 the Bantu Education Journal indicated that at that stage there was a total of 4 700 pupils in 72 schools. They also referred to the pupil-teacher ratio. Now, however, we have the situation where, in the Bantu Education Journal of February 1977 it says that an important facet of adult education is improving literacy. That is why I am pleased about the inclusion of the word “centre” in the definition in clause 1. In my humble opinion, literacy is something which is so important that every possible means of extending literacy should be adopted. I want to make an earnest appeal this afternoon to the hon. the Deputy Minister to continue the good work of his predecessor, now the hon. the Deputy Minister of Planning and the Environment, who recognized and accepted in toto the bona fides of “Operation Upgrade”. He was good enough to give them every encouragement.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister will allow me a moment’s concession, I want to say to him that in the homelands and in the independent Transkei “Operation Upgrade” is performing a fantastic function in producing literates from illiterates in very good time indeed. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants any evidence in this respect, I suggest he approaches the Department of Health. They will give the results of a course which was conducted in Weskoppies where literacy was created out of illiteracy.

I hope my appeal to the hon. the Minister has not fallen on deaf ears. I was very interested in his reply to me on 2 March when I asked him about the existing night schools being extended. He indicated that there were extensions planned. He mentioned most of the major cities and he also mentioned Soweto and other areas.

Order! Is the hon. member not going too far into the administrative detail?

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I just refer the hon. the Minister to the answer. However, there is a point which worries me. In his speech on 29 December 1976, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration referred to adult education. Here again I come back to the word “centre” in clause 1. I quote from the hon. the Minister’s speech—

Sir, I do not know if you will allow me, but I want to refer to the report in the Yearbook, 1975, where it deals with the question of adult education. It indicates that at the moment there are roughly 13 000 pupils undergoing some form of training in adult education. The problem is, however, that amongst those who write the senior certificate examination, the failure rate is high, because the standard of education that they receive is not really adequate to equip them to write the examinations.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration when he said the following—

In which areas?

The areas have been given in answer to my question and the hon. Chief Whip may have a look at it if he wishes to. The point I am getting at is that the operative and the tragic word is “Black” residential areas. I believe it is a tragic state of affairs. The hon. the Minister might remember that when I had correspondence with him years ago, I appealed to him to adopt a human attitude to the problem and to allow the domestic workers in White areas to attend the night schools in White areas. The hon. the Minister said: “No. They can leave their place of employment and they can go to the schools in the Black townships.” I went to the trouble of sending the hon. the Minister details of the time-tables of buses an individual would have to take to travel from his place of employment in a White area to a school in a Black area, and I can assure the hon. the Minister that it is quite impossible. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister today to consider not only the establishment of adult education centres in Black areas, as was stated by the hon. the Minister but to extend them to areas where the domestic servants in the large cities will have an opportunity to avail themselves of the chance to educate themselves, to better themselves and to be able to live more decent and happier lives. What do we find around the various cities of South Africa? We find young Black employees congregated at street corners at night, because they have nothing else to do. If they do get into mischief, who can blame them? Up to the present the policy of the Government has been to deprive these people of the opportunity of attending an adult education centre in an area which is accessible to them. In conclusion, I would like to address an urgent appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to review the situation sympathetically, to recognize the problem and to seek a way of overcoming it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not occupy the House for long in connection with the Second Reading of the Bill. We shall support the Second Reading of the Bill and I want to furnish the reasons for this briefly. Firstly, we welcome the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing away with the word “Bantu” in the definition of school. Down the years, a tremendous amount of false propaganda has been made against South Africa particularly against the Department of Bantu Education. It was alleged that we had an inferior Bantu education system. In the light of the conditions prevailing in South Africa today, there are few countries in the world that can compare with us in respect of the amount of work done for the upliftment of the mass of Black people, particularly in the field of education. There are precious few countries in the world—in fact, I do not believe there is one in Africa—that compare favourably in respect of the amount of work done and service provided in this regard for the Black people of South Africa. This will be to the good because in future we shall have to redouble our efforts to bring the education of these people onto an equal footing and we shall have to move in the direction of parity with what the other population groups in South Africa receive. We therefore welcome the amendments. We think it is a step in the right direction. We also welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is changing the definition because opportunities will now be created, more than ever before, for the illiterate who has never had the opportunity to go to school. Centres are now being created in which they can receive education in an extramural atmosphere.

Whilst we are engaged in applauding the good qualities of the legislation—there is nothing in the Bill that I want to criticize—I have a heartfelt need to say—and moreover this has been said to me time and again by members of my group who are not present here this afternoon, as well as by innumerable members of the public—that if ever great disappointment was felt amongst the people of South Africa, then it was in the past six to nine months. During that space of time, Black schools were repeatedly burned down. One expresses the hope that if these centres are created, it will be realized that something good is being done and that we want to do more towards educating the Black people and that they should never use these opportunities to prejudice themselves. Through education, any nation can raise itself to a level where no one else can compete with it. If one looks at the struggle that took place in America in the years after 1955, one will find that on no occasion did the Blacks there dare or attempt to damage any of their educational institutions. Consequently, one can only express the hope that our Blacks, too, will accept this message and, under these circumstances, take it to heart.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation for the support coming from the other side of all the parties and for the thoughts expressed in connection with this Bill. I want to touch on certain of the points mentioned by hon. members and I want to begin with the hon. member for Durban Central.

*The hon. member said the tempo was a little slow. But this, of course, is a relative concept. If one looks at the tempo at which affairs have been moving elsewhere, a warning finger might well be raised, saying that one ought to make haste slowly in certain cases. We do take it to heart, however, and we shall act responsibly and with all possible speed as far as certain things are concerned. Hon. members referred to the word “Bantu” and expressed the desire that we make a decision on an alternative name for this. I want to point out, however, that this matter is not the responsibility of Whites only. Finding an acceptable name also involves, to a great extent, the feelings and the approval of the people concerned. If I am not mistaken, there is still a lack of acceptable proposals on the part of the Black people themselves, who, on different occasions, want to be called “Blacks”, “Black people” or “African”. When one translates this into Afrikaans, however, one has difficulty using the word “Swartmense” or “Swart” consistently throughout, which is why we have used the word “Bantu” up to now. However, we cannot settle this matter amongst ourselves this afternoon, particularly since the people concerned do not have a say here. These people could well give us an indication of a suitable Afrikaans word. The hon. member seems to think we have these things readymade here. This is reminiscent of the fact that there is a political party that had a political programme a few years ago. The pamphlet they formulated it in, was entitled: “You want it, we have it.” [Interjections.] I think the hon. members would have done well to have been able to deliver the goods on this score. [Interjections.] Whereas in the process, the hon. members also spoke of Bantu education and thought that this should simply be general education, hon. members are losing sight of some very important facts. Hon. members want to create a recipe for education in South Africa which is not accepted in many parts of the world; in Africa and America, for example. I have not prepared myself on this point and cannot therefore speak on it at any length. Perhaps I could raise it when we discuss the Bantu Education vote. I think I shall be able to swamp hon. members with quotations by people who do not live in South Africa, but who discuss education in relation to specific ethnic groups. I could refer briefly to the conference in Addis Ababa, where Africans gathered and where the demand they made in respect of education was that it should be Africa-orientated. It should be orientated towards the specific ethnic and cultural interests of specific African peoples.

I should be able to confirm that self-same idea with a speech by Chief Minister Mangope read at the opening of a school near Rustenburg last year. He expressed this self-same idea, viz. that too much emphasis is placed on the Western European origin, forms and concepts in the education of the Black man. He also said that the education of Blacks had to be made indigenous. I could refer hon. members to a weighty study that came to my attention and which was sent to us from Canada, a study of the Indian philosophy of education. When I read that study, it sounded to me as if it was just an English version of what we as Afrikaners have been saying for years about our Christian national education. The request is that the education be Indian-orientated. It should match the Indian background, culture and history and it should be seen in that milieu and against that background. I could quote many more such examples. So let us not now force an educational system on South Africa that does not work anywhere else in the world and which the Blacks in the rest of the world do not want either. I do not think that those people who want such a system in South Africa too know what they are talking about or that they are by any means taking into account the phenomenon of ethnicity throughout the world, since the phenomenon of ethnicity manifests itself in demands to bring education into line with the demands of ethnicity and the national character and ethos.

I acknowledge the request of the hon. member for Durban Central in respect of the teachers who are seconded to Bantu schools. I do not think they will be forgotten in any way. The hon. member also referred to the regulations that are being extended. I think it is correct to say that it is not an extension of regulations in so much as it entails greater powers, but that it is only an expansion over a larger area. In any case, the hon. members accept the existence of regulations in principle. All that is at issue here, is the application of regulations and the power to exercize them over a wider field. This eliminates a certain inconsistency. The hon. member also referred indirectly to the say or representation of Blacks in matters concerning their education. The fact is that although the representatives of the Blacks do not sit in this House, there is nevertheless a vast field in which they do, in fact, have a say. The hon. member will discover this in the report of the Department of Bantu Education if he looks at the department’s establishment. He will see how many inspectors and assistant inspectors are Blacks. He will know that Black people are in fact consulted extensively in the drafting of courses and syllabuses, and certainly have a say in the compiling of technical terminology. But when it comes to the idea of these people being co-rulers in this Parliament, we differ fundamentally, of course. I do not think the hon. member would want that himself.

In a federal system

No, let us rather leave that for now.

As far as the delegation of powers is concerned, I think I should rather wait until the hon. members have made their proposal in the Committee Stage. Perhaps I should leave it at that, because I have an answer to it I have already said in my speech that there are certain posts that have fallen away. Other new posts have been created which are not covered by the existing definition. If hon. members will exercize a little patience, however, I should be pleased to say a few words in reply to the expected amendment.

†The hon. member for Pinelands said he was speaking as one progressive to another. Basically, I do not think it is a question of being progressive or static. It is rather the direction in which one moves, the direction in which progress is being made, which is important. In that sense the hon. member for Pinelands is not progressive at all.

*He is verkramp!

Now I agree!

As a true blue progressive Nationalist to a verkrampte Prog, I want to tell him in all earnest that he and his party are trapped in a 19th century liberalistic ideology. If only they had been acquainted with history, they would have known how far behind the times they are. They are entangled in 19th century liberalism.

†I think I have replied to the question regarding national education. I think that if there is education which is to a certain extent national, it is Bantu education, because all Bantu education falls under one department. If a pupil moves from one school to another, there is no necessity for him to change his syllabus, or anything like that. The system makes provision for it that, even if a pupil moves from one centre to another, he gets the same education.

The hon. member referred to members on this side of the House as people who needed some education.

*There is a concept that is used, not only in this department, but in other departments as well in which we have to do with 10% to 15% uneducables.

Now you are talking!

Now, I do not want to apply this directly to certain parties, but political education is, in fact, needed in some respects.

Reference was also made to the concept “centre”. Hon. members expressed their appreciation for the fact that this concept has been introduced. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is necessary at this point to debate the content of the courses, and so on. The fact is that “centres” is covered by the definition of “Bantu education”. Since hon. members have referred to night schools and so on, I want to point out that the department operates eight departmental centres for industrial training. Some of these are also available in Soweto. School pupils are taken to centres like this once or twice a week to undergo industrial training, and this is supplementary to the existing school training. That type of centre is also covered by this. This also applies to other centres, of course. The hon. member referred to teacher training. I think we can go into that later, when we discuss the Vote. I think we have made remarkable progress, not only in the elimination of double sessions, but also in the provision of extra teachers and in the utilization of a certain percentage of all teachers in the elimination of double sessions. We have made so much progress—I may as well mention this quickly—that the ratio of teachers to pupils, which used to be 1:59, has been reduced to 1:49. If, then, one takes into consideration the fact that one teacher takes two classes in a double session, that ratio is further reduced. I think it would almost amount to 1:43. I can furnish a few more details in this regard when it is discussed at a later stage.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea referred to night schools. I think the reply has already been given in this House. The existing night schools receive all the encouragement they need. However, something which ought to concern us is the direction in which certain of the members of the Opposition wish to move, viz. the concentration of the activities of Black people living in White residential areas. On that issue we differ. We do not want a concentration of activities there, activities which could just as well take place in Black residential areas.

They live there already. They live behind your house and mine.

That is a very debatable point. The hon. member wants to do that and wants to get legal sanction for that. We do not want to grant legal sanction for something which in any case is wrong. In any case, they receive all the encouragement from the Department of Bantu Education. But I think we can discuss this matter a little further when the Vote on Bantu Education comes before this House.

*Mr. Speaker, my thanks go to the hon. member for Newton Park for his support and to hon. members on this side of the House who spoke in support of the Bill. What the hon. member for Newton Park said is of course very true, namely that one would have to go a long way—I hope I am interpreting him correctly—to find a parallel to this situation in South Africa, where so few are doing so much for so many. We are not saying thereby that we can now wash our hands in innocence and pretend that we have done all this. But the achievements and sacrifices that have been made, what has been done and achieved, are not to be lost sight of. The hon. member referred to the razing of schools, and so on. I think we should discuss that later when we come to the Vote. I do not want to anticipate the discussion of the Vote now.

†Some people say that certain pupils have a burning desire for training. It seems to me that some have a trained desire for burning. I leave it at that.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move as an amendment—

The implication of this amendment would be that the Minister could delegate powers to the Secretary, which would then mean that it would not be “any” officer in the department, but a senior officer. I am moving this amendment because it is quite clear to me from the explanatory memorandum that what the Minister has in mind is to retain this power in the hands of senior officers. If one reads through the explanatory memorandum one finds that the reason why the Minister is changing it at the moment is because certain ranks, which are equivalent to or higher than senior ranks mentioned in the definition, are not included. That obviously means that he is concerned that, as it stands at the moment, there are certain senior people who have been left out. It is for this reason that I am moving my amendment, which is specific in the sense that there will be no danger that powers can be delegated to people who are perhaps lacking in sufficient experience to determine and to decide on certain issues. It is in that spirit that I am moving this amendment, in order to help the hon. the Deputy Minister to achieve exactly what he has set out to achieve. Another reason why I am moving this amendment, is so that there can be no doubt about it that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself is also definitely safeguarding himself.

Mr. Chairman, I have sympathy for the ideas expressed by the hon. member, viz. that he would like some guarantee that responsible work will be done by responsible people. I understand the hon. member’s standpoint, but to cut a long story short, I want to say that there are certain types of work which must be done by certain officers, officers who are employed on a somewhat low level. Although I have not been concerned with it myself, I have been given the assurance by the department that in any event such delegations are submitted to the Minister for approval and that this delegation is the task of an official of this rank, an official who in his turn must submit the delegation to the Minister, in order to give the Minister an accurate picture of which functions are being performed by officials of which rank. Let me just point out that, for instance with the approval of leave, this is normally dealt with by an official on a very low level. Even the appointment of assistant teachers at State-aided private schools is dealt with on a very low level. If one bears in mind that thousands of teachers are involved here, and that the officers to whom I have referred have certain functions to perform, for instance the granting of leave—and we are dealing with 26 000 Black teachers in White areas—it is apparently not the sort of work for which responsibility must be delegated to someone in a very senior position.

In the second place I want to point out that there are parallels in other legislation. I refer for example to section 42 of the Educational Services Act, 1967. That section reads as follows—

And then certain sections follow—

It is not specified that it should be a senior official. The section reads further—

and then again certain sections follow—

So parallels do exist. I could refer to several more, but to save time I shall not do it. I have sympathy for the intention of the hon. member but I think we must keep it as it is in practice. In every case a submission is made to the Minister in connection with the exercise of certain delegations. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Deputy Minister has read out some quotations which refer to certain duties and functions which must be carried out by officials who do not occupy a high or senior post. I cannot however understand how it worked in practice in the past. In the past specific people were singled out, people to whom specific reference is made here. How did it come about in practice that officials who are apparently not mentioned here, in fact had that authority? Was the Act contravened in the past?

Mr. Chairman, that was the cause of the problem in each case. We want the machinery to function more smoothly.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, without arguing about the matter again, I move the following amendment—

This amendment deals with precisely the same matter, but I feel that we should be consistent in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, just to be consistent, I cannot accept this amendment either.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is reasonably straightforward and actually self-explanatory, and therefore I am not going to take up much of the hon. members’ time in dealing with it. Since an explanatory memorandum on this measure has already been tabled, I shall just briefly point to the proposed amendments and, where necessary, enlarge upon certain matters.

The four Acts which are to be amended by this Bill, viz. those of the three established institutions of Fort Hare, Zululand and the North, and that of the Medical University of Southern Africa which was passed by Parliament last year, largely correspond, and many of the present amendments to the Acts governing the universities of Fort Hare, Zululand and the North stem from principles that have already been incorporated in the Medical University of Southern Africa Act. Only minor changes are contemplated to the latter Act.

The amendments contained in the Bill briefly amount to the approval of the House being sought—

1. (a) to grant greater powers and responsibilities to the university councils in respect of—
   1. (i) the acquisition and control of stores;
   2. (ii) the initiative for the appointment of rectors and acting rectors;
   3. (iii) the determination of establishments and the initiative for the determination of the fees payable by students;
2. (b) to make provision for vice-rectors to be appointed to the Universities of Zululand and the North;
3. (c) to amend the constitution of the councils;
4. (d) to abolish the advisory councils of the Universities of Zululand and the North and to repeal the provisions relating to advisory senates in the Acts governing the three established universities; and
5. (e) to provide for convocations.

As regards greater powers and responsibilities being granted to university councils, it ought to be mentioned that in clause 2, 13 and 25 it is proposed that the councils now be given full control over the acquisition and control of stores. Where in the past the Minister appointed a rector and acting rector after consultation with the council, it is now proposed in clauses 4, 15, 27 and 36 that the council make appointments to those posts, but that it still be subject to the concurrence of the Minister. Up to now the establishment at a university has been determined by the Minister after consultation with the council. It is now proposed in clauses 9, 21, 33 and 37 that in future the councils themselves determine the establishments. Due to the financial implications to the State it is, however, deemed necessary to make the creation or abolition of those posts, as determined by the Minister, subject to his approval. The councils of the three established universities have up to now had no say in the fees payable by students. It is now proposed in clauses 10, 22 and 34 that the fees be determined by the council with the concurrence of the Minister.

With reference to the control the Minister still exercises with regard to the determination of establishments and student fees, it ought to be mentioned that that control is considered necessary, chiefly because State funds are involved. It must be clearly understood that we are dealing here with State universities which are fully financed by the State. Although these institutions are academically autonomous, like the other non-White universities they naturally do not have funds of their own at their disposal, as do the other universities.

As regards vice-rectors, hon. members will recall that the University of Fort Hare Act was amended in 1971 to make provision for the appointment of a vice-rector. It is now proposed in clause 5 that that provision be somewhat amended so that a vice-rector need not necessarily be appointed. Furthermore, it is proposed in clauses 16 and 28 that vice-rectors can also be appointed at the Universities of Zululand and the North. The considerations which applied at the time, in respect of such a post at the University of Fort Hare, now also apply in respect of the Universities of Zululand and the North. I shall therefore refer to it only briefly. The main aim is, of course, to give assistance to the rector who, at a Bantu university, has a very responsible and often unenviable task. Apart from his normal duties, which perhaps largely correspond with those of the rector at a White university, there are also many others which stem from the particular situation encountered at a Bantu university. Public relations forms an important part of his work. It must also be borne in mind that the Bantu universities play an important part in the implementation of Government policy and that there must be continual liaison between the relevant Government departments and the departments of the self-governing territories. This naturally means that the rector must often be absent from the university and in order to ensure continuity and discipline it is essential that there be someone to stand in for the rector during his absence.

Also as regards the liaison with students, the set-up in Black universities differs considerably from that at White universities. The rector’s relationship with the students to a large extent determines whether he will be successfully accepted by them as their leader. The Bantu want their affairs to be attended to at the highest level of authority and the students want to put their affairs to the rector or somebody very close to him. However, this unavoidable responsibility places a burden on the rector, making it difficult for him to meet his statutory obligations. The assistance of a vice-rector is therefore essential.

As far as the constitution of the university councils is concerned, provision is made for the fact that the governments of the various self-governing territories can appoint members to the councils of the relevant universities. This pattern has already been adopted in the case of the Medical University of Southern Africa. Provision is also made for the appointment of council members by the envisaged convocations. As a result of the appointment of members by the convocations and the said governments, it is proposed that the minimum number of members appointed by the State President be reduced from eight to four.

In clauses 18 and 30 provision is made for the abolition of the advisory councils of the Universities of Zululand and the North.

I am glad to be able to say that the advisory councils played an important role in the development of the various universities. The universities were fortunate to have, as members of the advisory councils, persons of worth and standing. They not only gained good experience in university management, but the universities were able to draw on their knowledge and experience. The university council, in the first instance, had to fall back on the advisory council in order to gain an understanding of the requirements and problems of the Black students. Prof. Kgware, who was appointed last year as rector of the University of the North, was also a member of the advisory council of the institution for a long time. Incidentally, three of the present chief ministers were also, at one stage, members of advisory councils. With the appointment of Black people to the university councils and the envisaged appointment of council members by the Governments of the self-governing territories, and by the convocations, the need for the existence of advisory councils has largely disappeared. That is why the Universities of Zululand and the North have requested that the advisory councils attached to their universities now be abolished.

As regards the advisory council of Fort Hare, however, it ought to be mentioned that that council is to be retained at the request of that university. A member of the advisory council was recently appointed as a member of the university council in order to facilitate liaison with the council. I can assure hon. members that the advisory council at Fort Hare still serves a purpose because of the particular area in which that university is situated. However, should that university, at a later date, request that it be abolished, there would be no hesitation in abolishing it.

As far as the repeal of the provisions relating to the advisory senates is concerned, it ought to be mentioned that those bodies were not established at any of the universities since no need for them arose. Those Black members of the teaching staff who qualify already serve on the senate. It is therefore an unnecessary provision and it is proposed that it be deleted.

As in the case of the Medical University of Southern Africa, provision is now also being made for convocations at the Universities of Fort Hare, Zululand and the North. The customary provisions apply, except that provision is also made for membership of students who became graduates of the University of South Africa while they were, in fact, students at these universities at the time when they were still university colleges.

Mr. Speaker, I have now explained the most important amendments. The remaining amendments are of a consequential nature and other smaller amendments, like the one relating to the delegation powers of the Minister, have been set out in full in the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the detailed explanation which he gave in connection with the Bill. This makes its purpose and substance clear to us all, and on behalf of the official Opposition I want to indicate that we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill. We support it, because it makes provision for the transfer of powers to the university councils. Perhaps these powers are limited, but it is, nevertheless, a step in the right direction. We also support the measure because we believe the Bill moves towards similar legislation pertaining to the White universities. I want to quote from an article under the heading “Analyses of Black Anger” which appeared in The Natal Mercury of February, 1976. It reads—

It reads further on—

This Bill is dealing with the delegation of control, which we accept—

In all seriousness, a huge question mark hangs over the whole aspect of the situation. Had the Government taken the advice of the Holloway Commission in 1953 and had the Government accepted the amendments moved by the UP in 1969, would the Snyman Commission have been necessary and would burning and violence have resulted? The hon. the Deputy Minister concluded his speech in regard to the previous Bill by saying that there was a burning desire for training. I, as a fifth generation South African, see it as a matter of regret that the Government’s tardiness to face facts appears to have provided the torch. I realize that the principle of the Bill was accepted in 1959 and that it is not now under discussion. However, it is noteworthy to consider the decision to establish ethnic university colleges. I have referred to this question. It is a matter for the Holloway report. I am not alone …

Order! That is not a principle of the Bill.

I accept that, Mr. Speaker, and I will not pursue that any further except to indicate that the Institute of Race Relations was, in 1969, very concerned about the question of university education and passed resolutions referring to the Holloway Report.

It is interesting that the whole concept of the Bill is to provide the extension of powers to the ethnic universities. It is also interesting to note that the progress made by the universities is satisfactory. At the moment the enrolment at all three ethnic universities stands at 5 200, whereas the total enrolment at Unisa alone is more than 5 400. I believe that segregation of the universities is leading to a great deal of additional expenditure, which at this particular moment in time the country cannot afford.

I want to refer to the question of the amendment in regard to the abolition of the advisory councils and remind the House that in 1969 the then hon. member for Kensington moved an amendment and said in support of it: “Our view is that we shall not have an advisory council or an advisory senate.” At that time the United Party moved an amendment deleting the provision for an advisory council or an advisory senate. It is very interesting to see that what the United Party suggested in 1969 the Government is slowly following in 1977. Referring to the explanatory memorandum we see that clauses 18 and 30 contemplate the abolition of the advisory councils of the University of Zululand and the University of the North.

It is not my intention to delay the House at this late stage just prior to the Easter recess. Let me reiterate on behalf of this side of the House that we accept the principle of the appointment of rectors and acting rectors. We have one reservation. This provision is dependent on ministerial concurrence. In so far as the White universities are concerned, there is only one university, the University of Port Elizabeth, which is dependent in any way in this respect on ministerial permission, approval or concurrence. The other White universities have complete independence in that respect.

There is a good reason for that.

What is the reason? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us. We also support clauses 8, 20 and 33, which deal with the establishment of convocations. We feel that this too was a point which was made emphatically in 1969 when the UP moved amendments which at that stage were not acceptable. As far as the clauses which deal with the delegation of powers by the hon. the Minister are concerned, I wish to give the hon. the Minister the intimation that it is our intention during the Committee Stage to move amendments in that respect. With these few words we on this side of the House shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I briefly want to express my support for the suggestion of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I will not speak at such length as the previous speaker because I am afraid that the well-earned Easter recess may be past before we have finished. Over the years this side and that side of the House have held fundamentally different views of the nature and task of a university, but this is not the time to discuss that question again. However, I can tell the hon. member for Berea that if the opportunity arises, we will re-examine very thoroughly the laws which we have introduced and the establishment of the universities.

There are many arguments one could advance by way of refuting what he said when he spoke about the “Black anger” and all the things which happened there. There was a great deal of criticism when this side of the House introduced the legislation in regard to Bantu universities. There was also a great deal of criticism as regards the advisory councils which we established at that time. I want to make it quite clear today that we make no excuse for the fact that this was built into the Act concerned at the time. We make no excuse today for having done this. They played a very important role and the function which they performed was a function which assisted in establishing these universities. Accordingly, we on this side of the House want to express our gratitude to those people who served on those advisory boards.

In conclusion I want to say that a university is a treasured institution in any community. It must be guarded over as a treasured institution by the community, as also by those who constitute the university. A university renders a service to the community and to science in general. It must never abandon that essential function. As regards the introduction of the councils, I trust that when co-citizens of the universities serve on these boards the watchword of these universities and their councils will be: responsibility towards the university and responsibility towards the community which is served by the universities.

Mr. Speaker, it is always awkward for those of us who do not support the idea of ethnic universities to discuss any amending Bill relating to it. Let me say, however, that because this Bill shows a distinct improvement in the legislation covering these universities we will support its Second Reading. I do not wish to delay the House; so I will be very brief. I do, however, specifically want to refer to Prof. Kgwore who, I think, was installed yesterday. I must say that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration looked quite good on television. This came as a great surprise to me. I nevertheless thought that this marked an important milestone in the history of the universities. Prof. Kgwore is, of course, a very good Methodist and we therefore salute his appointment in this particular capacity.

I believe it is to be welcomed that councils at these universities are now given more power and more direct responsibility. The appointment of a vice-rector is also something to be welcomed. The composition of the council is also being altered in terms of the legislation before us. This is also a very good step. We have already made reference to the moving away from advisory committees, advisory councils and advisory senates, and I think this is long overdue. The question is whether they were necessary at all. We, however, want to stress one point, a point which I do not think has been raised and that is the making possible of the appointment of convocations. I believe that this is a very necessary step in any university. Of course, no university can have a convocation until such time as they have existed long enough to produce their own graduates. Several of these universities have, of course, produced some outstanding graduates in the history of our own country. I therefore believe that the convocations are going to be a very great encouragement and a great improvement to the image of the universities themselves. One regret I have is that it is a great pity that it was deemed necessary to include the words in clause 4 in subsection (a)(1): “the council with the concurrence of the Minister in the manner prescribed by Statute.” This, of course, goes right throughout the Bill. I think that certain amendments are going to be moved in the Committee Stage in this regard. I do not think it is necessary, and I hope the hon. the Minister will agree to its deletion.

Let me say one final word. We should look at this Bill against the background of the Snyman Commission. It is true that in a number of instances, some of the changes contemplated in the legislation before the House figure very prominently in that commission’s report and, of course, some of the councils of the several universities referred to in the legislation have actually made representations which have now been carried out. It is nevertheless regrettable, I believe, that before the Snyman Commission, if my memory serves me, and certainly in the council of the University of the North a specific request was made for legislation which would enable the university to enrol in the normal course of events people not necessarily of one particular ethnic origin. I think that this is going to happen …

Order! The Snyman Commission’s recommendations are not under discussion at the moment.

I accept your ruling, Sir.

Let me then say once again that we support the Second Reading of the Bill and that we welcome the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Pinelands agrees with this legislation, who am I to oppose it? Therefore I want to say that there is great rejoicing in the House and with these few words I just want to say that we of the IUP will also support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, since there is so much joy over this Bill, I think it is not necessary for me to make a long speech. I wish to refer briefly to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Pinelands in connection with the advisory councils. I have a letter before me from the registrar of the University of Fort Hare. It is in Afrikaans.

*Let me read a few sentences from it—

I think that hon. members will agree that we have to respect the desire of the council of the University of Fort Hare. When they think that the advisory council is unnecessary and suggest that it should fall away, there will of course be no objection on our part. I think that in this case, we will be respecting the opinion and desire of the council of the University.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more for one to say. May I just express my gratitude for the support which this Bill has received. In conclusion I want to say that I think this House should convey its sincere congratulations to Prof. Kgware on his appointment as the first Black rector at the University of the North yesterday. I want to wish him, his staff and his students everything of the best for the growth and development of their university.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 16, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”;
2. (2) on page 4, in lines 24 and 25, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”.

We have serious reservations about the inclusion of these words, particularly as it is the hon. the Minister’s intention to extend wider powers to university councils. We feel that the extension of these powers in this Bill does not go far enough. The Minister has appointees on the council, and yet he has retained the right for himself to approve of the rectors and the vice-rectors. To us this is really a vote of no confidence in those university councils, and we see no reason why the Minister should at this stage retain the powers, powers which he has had all along. In fact, he should go the whole hog and show confidence in that university council. To us it seems a rather half-hearted and empty gesture at this stage to say on the one hand that we believe in the council being responsible and doing the job properly while on the other hand we reserve the right to control the appointment of the rectors and vice-rectors. One has to look at a university as an establishment which is growing to maturity, and if there is to be what we consider to be excessive Government control at the top, it is very difficult for those universities to reach that maturity. I think it is vitally important for the prestige of the university, at the national level and at international level—if one thinks in terms of those universities operating in what will become independent States—that this maturity should be encouraged and this flower should be made to blossom. I think hon. members will appreciate the decisive role that rectors and vice-rectors play in the growth and maturity of a university. They are Mr. Big there. They play a vital and pivotal role and have a complete overview. It is important that the rector or the vice-rector has the complete confidence of the council, of the students and in himself and that there must never be a feeling that either of these gentlemen are merely ministerial puppets or pawns in a game. This is something which could quite easily occur, and we therefore feel it is unwise at this stage to retain ministerial presence by retaining the proviso that the appointment has to be with the consent of the Minister. Obviously, we must ask why the Minister must do this. Does he not trust the council to make a proper appointment? Does he wish to pressurize them through this control? Is there some ideological reason for this? We do not like to be suspicious, but it does look as though big “breeder” is watching him, by retaining these words in the Bill. We think it is unwise at this stage to be over-paternal. The stage does come when children grow up and it is unwise to retain them, because they will kick over the traces in any case. I think the universities have had a sufficient period of growth and experience to be accorded the confidence that they should have. In other words, the council should make the full appointment.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one other disturbing feature about the retention of these words, namely that it does not bring the Black universities into line with the White universities. In the case of the White universities there is no proviso. The council makes the appointment. They are therefore fully-fledged and mature universities. It makes one wonder whether this is not out of line with Government policy, where there is separation, but inequality. Because of the retention of these words, the Black universities are unequal to the White universities. I think that particularly in the case of clause 4, dealing with the University of Fort Hare, the oldest of the Black universities with a long tradition, this is in our view a golden opportunity to have said to Fort Hare: “You are of age; here is the key to your future; you deserve it; carry on.” But this is not being done. In fact, it is interesting to see that in clause 5 the words “with the approval of the Minister” have not been altered. Approval which carries far more authority than concurrence. Yet those words are still retained. Consequently we find that the hon. the Deputy Minister is the central figure on the stage here. His shadow is cast over the affairs of the university. Yet I believe he is about as welcome at the university as a soccer ball at Loftus Versfeld. We do feel that there is a reluctance on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister to show confidence in the councils. This is something, we feel, which is not healthy for their progress. That is why I moved these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to address a truly earnest request to the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. If we compare the legislation relating to all the universities, we notice that, in the case of most White universities, one exception is made. The only exception is that with regard to the University of Port Elizabeth. In the case of that university, it is not stated “with the concurrence of”, but “with the approval of”—not “with the concurrence of”. Therefore there is a small difference, although it is not very big. If the hon. the Deputy Minister accepts the amendment, the legislation for all the universities, White as well as non-White, will read that the rector of the university is appointed by the council as prescribed by statute. This is what the whole issue is actually about. There is only one exception, but the impression is created that there are two sets of rules. We have already experienced how sensitive our Black people have become because they have the impression that they are being treated differently in certain respects. Hon. members also know that it was one of the major causes of the actual emergence of Black Power in South Africa. I think that we should exercise every care and that we should not give them the opportunity in any way of pointing a finger and saying that they are being treated differently. It will only create problems if this type of thing is allowed. I believe that we, in fact, have sufficient control, control from the side of Government as far as possible, in that the Minister has a say in the appointment of members of the university councils. I believe, therefore, that, with a view to having good relations in the future, he would be taking a wise step if he were to accept the amendments.

We must face the fact that rectors and principals of Black universities are in the front lines to a large extent. They are in the front lines when problems arise with regard to Black intellectuals. Those who want to cause trouble, take note of the differences which exist. He takes note of the differences and uses this to create problems. [Interjections.] No, there is no point in hon. members saying that I am prompting the Blacks. After all, Mr. Chairman, the average level of education of hon. members in the House is fairly high. Consequently I really cannot understand their acting here like gluttons for punishment. They do certain things which give our country’s enemies a basis for criticism. They are the people who make the laws. If the hon. the Deputy Minister accepts our simple amendments, no control is lost and the nine White universities and the three Black universities’ provisions will read precisely the same. Then we can tell our enemies: “We challenge you to point a finger at us.”

Earlier today I was ruled out of order when I spoke about Mr. Pik Botha, but I just want to point out that a few days ago he said during a television interview that we in South Africa had to put things right so that it would not be possible for people to attack us in this regard. We must make ourselves strong. This is the only thing we envisage with these amendments. If they are accepted, we shall be making ourselves stronger and have a better Bill, one which will be immune to people who want to stir up trouble. That is why I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member spoke so well and so entreatingly that if it had depended on his tone of voice, I might possibly have agreed with him. However, it is not as simple as hon. members are making out. Hon. members do not give credit for the great progress which has already been made in amending the Bill. Firstly, the progress is to be found in the fact that the initiative for appointing a rector and a vice-rector is put into the hands of the board.

In other words, they can do the selection work, examine the candidates, etc. It is only at that stage that the hon. the Minister comes into the picture. I cannot understand why hon. members are suddenly so allergic to the Minister’s involvement in this regard. The fact is that the universities are State universities and are financed by the State. The hon. member does not want to swallow a gnat, but I think he has already swallowed a camel by accepting other points, for example the Minister’s involvement in the determination of fees. After all, the point which the hon. member is arguing about now, is very much subordinate to this. One would rather have wanted to relieve the Minister of this duty. I think the hon. member agrees with me. His argument does not make sense to me. We are talking about universities which are financed by the State, and I think it is only fair for the hon. the Minister to be involved in the appointment in a secondary capacity, after the university council has already taken the full initiative. In this regard I think we have already made a great deal of progress. I also want to point out that what hon. members say, they do not have to say to us, because that is something of the future. Normal development runs in that direction. However, I think that we can hasten slowly. The Bill is a very big step for a start.

There are a few parallels. The rector of the University of the Western Cape is not appointed without the approval of the Minister of Coloured Relations. I am speaking under correction, but I think that it is the same in the case of the University of Westville. The approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs is required. Therefore we are not completely out of step. The difficulty is that the hon. member is drawing his comparison between the Black universities and the White universities.

But that is as it should be.

Wait a moment. It is not the same political dispensation. The Blacks are being led to independence along their own road. I am sorry, but in view of the reason I have mentioned, I cannot accept the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising to say that I am truly disappointed. The hon. the Deputy Minister compared the Black universities to the two other non-White universities …

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member knows what is wrong with that. It means that we in South Africa have a law for the five non-White universities and another law for the 10 White universities, with the exception of one. And then certain hon. members say that there is nothing wrong with this. But this is manna from heaven for South Africa’s enemies. Is it worth the trouble to give them all those weapons? The hon. the Minister talks about class fees, etc. This is one reason why I did not move amendments in regard to the other clauses, because I realize the specific problems which are experienced with these universities.

So sit down.

I am not going to sit down. Why should I sit down if I realize that the hon. the Minister is making a terrible mistake? If I were to sit down now, you would come and cry on our shoulders saying that a principal had been appointed, but was being undermined. Then it would be said that it was the work of subversive and undermining elements. However, who has offered these elements the golden opportunity? Who is the guilty party in that case? Do hon. members on that side of the House not love South Africa?

Order! The hon. member has gone far enough now.

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] The only thing is that I am absolutely shocked by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude. We have a very good Act at our disposal, but if one looks at the effect of this clause, one finds that it plays into the hands of the enemy. That is why I am bitterly disappointed.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I move as amendments—

1. (1) On page 8, in line 24, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”;
2. (2) on page 8, in lines 32 and 33, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”.

Mr. Chairman, our arguments here are basically the same. There is one difference, however. Here we are dealing with the University of Zululand, the only university to suffer damage during the recent riots. I also want to refer to the problem one hears of students who are dissatisfied in having Government-appointed administrative staff over them. They show their dissatisfaction in no uncertain terms. This comes back to my very point. These people are looking for a greater control over their own affairs, which is obviously Government policy. They have demonstrated most dramatically that they are ready to exercise this control.

I should just like to reply to a couple of the points the hon. the Deputy Minister has made. He came with an ethnic classification of education and he said that we should compare Blacks with Blacks and Indians with Indians and that one could not compare White universities with Black universities. As far as I am concerned, this is absolute nonsense. In the first place one is dealing with academic standards, not ethnic standards. Secondly, one has the Rand Afrikaans University, which is much younger than Fort Hare, where they do not have these controls. The Minister does not control the appointment of their rectors, yet this cannot be so in the case of the Black universities which have a longer tradition. One has to be completely just and equal in the handling of this thing. It is said that they are being given more power, but as far as I am concerned, only donkey work is handed over to the council while the Government retains the right to say “yes” or “no”. That means nothing.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 14, in line 3, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”;
2. (2) on page 14, in lines 11 and 12, to omit “with the concurrence of the Minister”.

The same arguments apply here as in the case of the previous amendments.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I know the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to accept my amendment, but would he be prepared to give the House some idea as to when the councils will appoint their rectors without him having the final say? Is that to be policy, and if it is, can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us when that stage is anticipated? [Interjections.]

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I want to state the point of view of this side of the House very briefly. [Interjections.] When we discuss the Third Reading of a bill, we pay special attention to the effect thereof. With this measure we have followed the right procedure and have done good work, especially in connection with two aspects. I refer, inter alia to the abolition of the advisory council. We are aware that the advisory council at some non-White universities never functioned properly. However, there are exceptions, for example the University of Fort Hare, and if they feel that they want to retain their advisory council, they are fully entitled to do so. I therefore fully accept the request which they made to the hon. Deputy Minister. But we are taking a step in the right direction as regards the abolition of the advisory councils at the other universities. It is in reality a step in the right direction, in view of the extension of the powers of the council, enabling it to take the initiative in the search for a suitable person to serve as rector. We are taking two sound steps in the right direction in this regard, but then we are placing an obstacle in our own path when we make an exception. It is an exception which sticks out like a sore thumb. It was so easy for the hon. Minister to adopt another stance. Then we could have had legislation and when the legislation was applied in practice, everyone would have felt that it was only to the advantage of the country. Now, however, the legislation is being questioned. I do not want to try and be a prophet. The hon. Deputy Minister said by way of an interjection that he could not be a prophet, because he did not know how long it would take before he took the final step. However, if there should be trouble, and advantage should be taken of this point, the people will know who the guilty parties really were.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react at length to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Durban Central, but I do want to ask him not to suggest trouble. We do not have trouble at this stage. A step in the right direction is being taken here and, seen in the context of higher education as a whole, it is an important step. We should, however, refrain from supplying ammunition from within this House to people outside the House, things which they would perhaps not even have thought of. It is a step in the right direction, and a logical step, because the Government policy is moving in that direction. I do not think that it would be wise in such complex circumstances to take all the steps immediately, at the same time. I shall let that suffice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

According to the provisions of the present Scientific Research Council Act, No. 32 of 1962, the CSIR is authorized to undertake research only within the boundaries of the Republic and not beyond them. The CSIR is therefore not able to enter into agreements with other countries to undertake research in those countries. This is also applicable to the Transkei and other homelands which are not yet independent.

In connection with the above, I should like to refer to Bophuthatswana, where the National Institute for Water Research of the CSIR runs a laboratory at Mabopani. In that laboratory analyses are at present being made for Bophuthatswana as well as for the Swazi, South Ndebele territories and a part of the Lebowa territory. The National Building Research Institute is also negotiating with Bophuthatswana in connection with low-cost housing. Furthermore, the Sorghum Beer Research Unit of the National Food Research Institute is acting as adviser to the latter homeland and the National Institute for Transport and Road Research is also directly or indirectly involved in that homeland in the fields of transport, road building materials and road safety.

As it seems unlikely that the independent homeland governments will be able to establish their own research councils within the foreseeable future, it is proposed that the CSIR Act be amended, as set out in clause 1 of the Bill, so that the CSIR will be empowered to carry out its duties outside the Republic in certain circumstances, in any country which requests such research—in other words, not only in the homelands and territories which have recently become independent. The research will take place at the request or with the prior approval of the Minister and on the stipulations and conditions approved by the Minister.

The CSIR is prepared, on demand, to undertake research in countries outside the Republic, on condition that it is indemnified against losses which may be incurred consequent on any act or omission of the Government of such a country. Clause 1(4) provides for the issuing of such an indemnity by the Minister of Planning and the Environment with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. In principle these indemnities can be compared to the existing statutory provision for the issue of indemnities by the Government of the Republic in favour of industrialists who undertake the founding of industries in the homelands.

Parliament amended the SABC and Escom Acts during the 1976 session in order to authorize those institutions to enter into agreements with other countries.

Mr. Speaker, I have prepared a 30 minute speech on this Bill, but in view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not proceed to deliver it. What I should like to do is to say that we support the Second Reading of the Bill. This Bill is only one of a whole series of Bills which will come before the House—the hon. the Minister has mentioned two which have already been introduced— with a view to regulating the rendering of services outside the Republic of South Africa by institutions inside the boundaries of the Republic. Those institutions render services in areas which form part of South Africa, but will in the near future become independent States. The institutions will, however, be required to continue rendering those services. This is so obviously in the interest of all the people concerned, both in the Republic and in the future independent States, that we have no option but to support the Bill. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that care is taken to see that the rendering of such services will not become a financial drain upon our resources and where countries, other than homelands which may become independent, are concerned, the rendering of services will have to take place with the concurrence of the Minister of Planning and the Environment in consultation with the Minister of Finance. We think this provision will be adequate and we support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill is intended to authorize the CSIR to do research work outside the Republic with the concurrence of the Minister and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, within the thirty seconds allowed to me by my party’s Whip I should like to indicate that we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, fortunately the Bill is supported by all the Opposition parties and I feel obliged to say that, contrary to all expectations, one finds a good deal of realism amongst them today. The CSIR is really a body to wax lyrical about. One could easily speak about it for half an hour. I believe that the CSIR is one of the best advertisements for South Africa and of course it is not entirely a coincidence that this body is to be found in Pretoria East. Everything in Pretoria which is worthwhile, is in Pretoria East in any case. The people of the CSIR are scientists, and because they operate in a scientific way, they always have positive results to show. The same applies to the people of Pretoria East: Just look at the MP they have sent to the House! [Interjections.] Last year, members of all parties had the opportunity to visit the CSIR during a tour organized by the Department of Planning and the Environment. Not only were we stunned at the scope of the research projects that we saw* but we were also very proud of what the CSIR is doing—with regard to the homelands as well. The Bill is a step in the right direction, amongst other things because it is an example of South Africa’s preparedness to share knowledge and even resources with our neighbouring States. In this case we are once again reaching out a hand towards our homelands and neighbouring States. I trust that recognition for this will not be entirely lacking. I would like to congratulate the Minister on this new measure and to wish the CSIR all the best with what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. members opposite for their support. As I have already indicated, the Bill is being introduced with a view to orderly change and adaptation in these times of change. The Bill merely seeks to enable the CSIR to undertake research in other territories and countries.

*Naturally I do not begrudge the hon. member for Pretoria East his pride in the CSIR, even though it is partly due to the fact that it is in his constituency. However, all good things do not come from across the Hex River Mountains! In any case the CSIR extends over the whole of South Africa. It is a South African institution and it represents the best of our scientific brains in South Africa, if I may add something to the hon. member’s words. That suffices.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.