Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your leave to make a statement in connection with South West Africa and its inhabitants. Unfortunately it is a lengthy statement and I must request hon. members to be patient. It will take me quite a while to make the statement.

“The people of South West Africa will determine their own future.” Mr. Speaker, this one sentence is the key to South Africa’s approach to the question of South West Africa.

South Africa does not lay claim to one inch of the territory of South West Africa. South Africa does not interfere with the internal political currents in the Territory. South Africa does not dictate the constitutional form to be adopted by the Territory and its people for their independence. We respect and protect the right of the inhabitants of South West Africa to practise their politics freely and to exercise their right to self-determination without any intimidation from whatever source.

It was this democratically sound and morally unexceptionable approach which has made it possible for negotiations to be conducted with the five Western powers since April 1977 in an attempt to ascertain whether an agreement could be reached which would be acceptable to the UN, without endangering the security of the Territory and the free exercise of the right to self-determination of the people of South West Africa.

Every right-thinking person must agree that concepts such as “freedom” and “free elections with universal franchise” remain hollow slogans unless they are exercised openly for the whole world to see. The South African Government has committed itself and remains committed to this.

If South Africa is to be punished and persecuted for standing firmly and honourably by its undertakings to the people of a neighbouring State, it will accept the consequences of its standpoint rather than to live in dishonour and to be branded before the nations of Southern Africa as an unreliable neighbour that puts its own short-lived wellbeing before the interests of the other nations of Southern Africa.

That blatant lies about the course of events are being spread in foreign media in an attempt to blame us for the present state of affairs was to have been expected. Why would the denigraters change their tune overnight?

What has happened? What has gone wrong? I should like to give the House a chronological account of events since 21 December 1978.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I went to Windhoek on 21 December 1978 to inform the newly elected Constituent Assembly about the developments in the UN concerning the question of South West Africa. We also informed them about the talks which the Minister of Foreign Affairs had had in the USA with Dr. Waldheim, with President Carter and with Mr. Cyrus Vance, the American Foreign Secretary. Our main objective, however, was to persuade the Constituent Assembly, in spite of the serious misgivings they had about the impartiality of the UN and other delicate problems, to cooperate in having the relevant Security Council resolution—No. 435—implemented as soon as possible. It was no easy task. It was a painful task. It was especially painful against the background of Swapo’s repeated public statements to the effect that Swapo would continue its campaign of violence and terror against the people of South West Africa. It was also painful because the members of the Constituent Assembly had just emerged from an election in which 80,3% of the registered voters had voted for them. But because such a tremendous amount was at stake for everyone in Southern Africa, and because the settlement plan which had been agreed on would not endanger the security of the Territory if its clear provisions were adhered to, we deemed it in the interests of all of us in Southern Africa to persuade the Constituent Assembly to co-operate in having resolution 435 implemented as soon as possible. In doing this, we were also honouring our undertaking to the five Western powers.

†The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs was able to inform the UN Secretary-General on 22 December 1978 of the South African Government’s decision to co-operate in the implementation of Security Council resolution No. 435. It was emphasized in the same communication that flowing from our decision—and I now quote the precise wording—

1. I. There shall be no reduction of the South African troop strength in the Territory until there has been a comprehensive cessation of violence and hostilities.
2. II. A date for an election will be determined in consultation between the special representative of the Secretary-General and the Administrator-General on the understanding that the election will take place not later than 30 September 1979.
3. III. Questions on which there should be further consultation, such as the size and composition of the military component of Untag, and other matters which have already been brought to the attention of the Western powers, be resolved satisfactorily with the Administrator-General. Special reference is made to paragraph 12 of the settlement plan accepted by the South African Government on 25 April 1978 with a view to the monitoring of Swapo bases in neighbouring States.
4. IV. The maintenance of law and order in South West Africa/Namibia remains the primary responsibility of the existing Police Forces.
5. V. The Administrator-General shall exercise the legislative and administrative authority in South West Africa/Namibia during the transitional period until independence.

The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs in conclusion invited the Secretary-General to arrange for Mr. Ahtisaari to visit South Africa and South West Africa with expedition in order to complete consultations on the outstanding issues. The most important outstanding issues at that time were the size and composition of Untag, the emplacement of its personnel and the completion of the status agreement.

A second letter was addressed to Dr. Waldheim on 22 December 1978, in which several viewpoints of the Constituent Assembly were conveyed to the Secretary-General for consideration.

On 30 December 1978 a bomb was detonated on business premises in Swakopmund. More than 30 people were injured. A protest in the strongest terms was lodged with Dr. Waldheim on the same day over this senseless and dastardly act of violence by Swapo, following the statement by the organization’s leader in Dar-es-Salaam on 28 December 1978 that Swapo would not only continue with its campaign of violence but, moreover, intensify it.

The following are some examples of atrocities which will confirm Swapo’s violent character:

*On 1 January 1979, Dr. Waldheim replied to the letter written by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 22 December 1978. On the whole, the purport of his letter was positive. He said he believed that a total cessation of hostilities was a prerequisite for the implementation of Security Council resolution 435. As regards the date for the election, he agreed that a date should be set as soon as possible by consultation between Mr. Ahtisaari and the Administrator-General. He also agreed that an election before 30 September 1979, as conveyed to him by us, was reconcilable with the settlement plan. From this it followed, in Dr. Waldheim’s words, that the establishment of Untag should commence before the end of February and that all the preceding steps in terms of the settlement plan should be completed.

Dr. Waldheim also informed us in the same letter that it was his intention that Mr. Ahtisaari should visit South Africa and South West Africa in January to complete negotiations concerning operational requirements.

As regards the extremely important question of the monitoring of Swapo bases in neighbouring countries, which had been expressed in clear terms in the letter written by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 22 December 1978, Dr. Waldheim replied in equally clear terms as follows—

Can there be any doubt about the meaning of this categorical statement by Dr. Waldheim? He told us that the neighbouring countries had assured him that they would co-operate fully in ensuring that Untag was able to carry out its mandate. What mandate? The mandate spelt out clearly in the schedule to the settlement plan, i.e. “monitoring of both South African and Swapo troop restrictions”.

Where and how is the commission to be carried out? Once again in the words of the settlement plan: in respect of the restriction of Swapo forces to their bases. These are clear terms and clear provisions. Swapo must withdraw and be restricted to its bases, and that restriction to its bases must be monitored by Untag. Not a word is said about any possibility of creating any bases for Swapo forces who happen to be in the Territory at the date of commencement of the implementation programme. Not a word is said about this in the settlement plan. Not a word was said about this at any stage in any of the negotiations with the Five. Not a word was said about this in any of the talks with Dr. Waldheim or Mr. Ahtisaari. This was never contradicted or even questioned during Mr. Ahtisaari’s talks with us in January 1979. The Foreign Ministers of the five Western countries wrote a letter to our Minister of Foreign Affairs on 5 February 1979. It was a positive letter. It contained no word of contradiction concerning the monitoring of Swapo bases.

Our Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote further letters to Dr. Waldheim on 6 February, on 8 February and on 14 February. He received letters from Dr. Waldheim on 8 February and on 17 February 1979. They contained no word of contradiction concerning the monitoring of Swapo bases.

By 20 February, however, it had become known that Swapo was refusing to have its bases in neighbouring countries monitored and that it insisted on the creation of bases inside South West Africa.

In his letter of 20 February 1979 to Dr. Waldheim, the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs objected in the strongest terms to Swapo’s standpoints and proved with chapter and verse that the settlement plan expressly provided that Swapo was to be restricted to its bases and that the restriction was to be monitored by Untag in the same way as the South African troop restrictions to their bases were to be monitored. He informed the Secretary-General that the establishment of Untag was out of the question if it had to be done on Swapo’s one-sided and drastic new conditions.

†What has since come to our attention can only be described as shocking. We became aware of the first signs of the scheming behind the scenes on 21 February 1979. The five Western nations, shortly before this date and without our knowledge, handed to Dr. Waldheim a document in which certain aspects of the settlement proposal were “clarified”, as they put it. From this document it is clear that the Five without any attempt at consulting South Africa were now supporting the astonishing concept that Swapo personnel who happen to find themselves in South West Africa at the time of the cease-fire, should be established in bases inside the Territory. The document also states categorically that the military component of Untag is not required to monitor the restriction of Swapo to base outside South West Africa. There are also “clarifications” in the document which conflict with the express understanding which had been reached between South Africa and the Five.

We also learned on 21 February that Dr. Waldheim had despatched a letter and annexure to the Heads of State of the five so-called “front-line” States, the five Western powers and also to Nigeria and Sudan, in which he, inter alia, emphasized that the settlement proposal contained no stipulation that Swapo bases outside South West Africa should be monitored. Armed Swapo personnel inside South West Africa at the time of the cease-fire would, however, be restricted to base within South West Africa at sites to be designated by Mr. Ahtisaari and would be monitored by Untag.

In the meantime it also came to our notice that the report released by Dr. Waldheim on 26 February 1979 had been preceded by four draft reports. That in itself is not strange. What is important, are the contents of certain paragraphs which were omitted from the final report. Paragraphs 22 to 24 of the fourth draft report detail Swapo points of view on a number of the most important aspects of the settlement proposal. It is quite clear that those paragraphs would show Swapo up in a very unfavourable light. What is of importance, is that the final report is worded in such a manner that Swapo can be told that its most important claims can be met without publicity being given to them. On the other hand South Africa is being told that Swapo’s extravagant claims were certainly not acceded to.

What are these claims and points of view? In the fourth draft report, which was not intended to become publicly known, they are set out as follows—

Return of Exiles:

All Namibians presently living outside the country would be expected to return to their respective homes or any other place of their choice and not to special ‘reception centres’. The UNHCR may assist in providing transportation and other necessary facilities to enable all returnees to reach their homes.

As regards the Cease-fire:

In reply to questions by the commander of the military component of Untag, the President of Swapo stated that the ceasefire which was to be declared simultaneously by South Africa and Swapo, should be considered binding only on South Africa within the three weeks following its declaration, and not on Swapo, since Swapo would experience difficulties in transmitting passage of information on the cease-fire to all its freedom fighters in Namibia in time. The three weeks would be needed to regroup the fighters and to move them to bases to be established in various locations within Namibia. He further stated that only after regrouping would Swapo be able to restrict its troops totalling about 2 500 to bases to be established at the following areas: Windhoek, Katima Mulilo, Ondangwa, Tsumeb and Rundu.

Return of Swapo troops:

With regard to the peaceful repatriation of Swapo freedom fighters, the President of Swapo said that it was Swapo’s understanding that their freedom fighters in neighbouring countries at the time of the cease-fire would return to Namibia with all their weapons, equipment and ammunition. They would also bring the necessary material to establish bases and would have the right to provide all necessary supplies for these new bases if necessary from abroad. The President of Swapo made it clear that any effort to disarm the returning freedom fighters would be forcefully resisted. The declared objective of Swapo was that as South Africa withdrew its forces from Namibia, Swapo would return its fighters from neighbouring countries into bases in Namibia, train them and eventually convert them into regular troops.

*It is when these premises of Swapo, as conveyed to Mr. Ahtisaari, are kept in mind that the new drastic deviations in Dr. Waldheim’s report are so much more disturbing. Who, after this, can have any doubt about the meaning of the new provisions which—

1. (a) contain no assurance of the effective monitoring of Swapo bases in neighbouring States, and
2. (b) grants Swapo the right to acquire bases in South West Africa where they never had or could establish bases?

The worst shock is that the five Western powers support these clear and deliberate deviations and regard them as a fair and reasonable solution. When representatives of the five Western powers tried to persuade the Minister of Foreign Affairs on 24 February that these deviations were no deviations at all, he replied that the South African Government had lost its faith in the ability of the West to honour its undertakings.

I would not blame the leaders of South West Africa if they did not want to negotiate any further with the Five. In fact, they have had the right all along to determine their own future and to consult whom they wished in the process. For that reason we indicated that we would have no objection if the Constituent Assembly should decide to hear the interpretation given by the representatives of the Western powers to the Secretary-General’s latest report. In other words, we deliberately wanted to prevent any subsequent allegations that the South African Government had conveyed to the Constituent Assembly a one-sided analysis of Dr. Waldheim’s report. We went so far as to advise individual leaders not to insist on having the Constituent Assembly formally addressed as a body by representatives of the Five. Although we do not agree with the attitude of the Five towards the recognition of the Constituent Assembly, we nevertheless wanted to prevent technical-juridical approaches from standing in the way of the Five’s furnishing information to members of the Constituent Assembly.

The South African Government therefore learnt with appreciation of the trouble taken by representatives of the Five to go to Windhoek to convey directly to the leaders of political parties the views and standpoints of their Governments concerning Dr. Waldheim’s latest report, and to answer their questions.

I also want to mention that before leaving Windhoek, my colleague and I addressed the leaders of the Swapo Democrats and the leaders of the Namibia National Front and briefly elucidated the report of Dr. Waldheim. They expressed the hope that we would continue to strive for a peaceful settlement. At the same time, however, both parties conveyed to us their standpoint on the question of Swapo bases. These standpoints are contained in Press statements issued by the two parties before meeting us.

Both statements will be tabled by me and also released to the Press, and it will be noted that both these parties are opposed to the establishment of Swapo bases within the territory. In fact, the NNF declares that such a thing “would, furthermore, constitute a fundamental breach of an explicit and unequivocal undertaking given to the NNF by representatives of the five Western powers on 31 March 1978 to the effect that no Swapo bases would be permitted within Namibia”.

As hon. members will all know, the Constituent Assembly adopted a motion yesterday which will also be tabled by me and released to the Press. From this it will be seen that the motion draws attention, inter alia, to serious deviations from the Secretary-General’s settlement plan, especially with regard to the establishment of Swapo bases in the Territory and the requirement that Swapo bases across the border should also be effectively monitored. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would consider having these resolutions which I am going to table included in Hansard.

It is their belief that if these deviations were to be accepted, the fairness of the proposed elections would be seriously affected and the safety of the inhabitants would be jeopardized.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs conveyed the reply of the South African Government to the Secretary-General of the UN last night. I am going to table that as well.

†This reply does not slam doors. Even on the difficult question of the composition of Untag we have bent over backwards to be accommodating, this in spite of the fact that, in the course of our contacts, South Africa proposed several African countries, none of which was accepted. We also suggested several Asian, Latin American and western European countries—all of our suggestions falling within the pattern of equitable geographical distribution. And yet again none was accepted.

The question can now be put: Where do we go from here? Our position remains unchanged. We stand by our express undertakings. We stand by the settlement proposal which we accepted on 25 April 1978. We stand by our undertakings to the people of South West Africa that we will not allow a political solution to be forced on them from outside. We stand by the provisions of the settlement proposal which clearly stipulates that Swapo personnel be restricted to their existing bases and that Swapo’s restriction to those bases be monitored. We stand by the settlement proposal which contains no stipulation, directly or indirectly, expressly or implied, that Swapo personnel who may, either fortuitously or for a short duration, be in the Territory for the purpose of sabotage are entitled suddenly to come forward on the day of the cease-fire with a claim to be assigned to camps which do not exist and in so doing achieve the establishment of bases in South West Africa they could not succeed in establishing through force of arms.

South Africa has, before today, been left in the lurch by the five Western powers. There was the undertaking which we were given on the question of Walvis Bay. During our negotiations with the Five they undertook to try to keep the question of Walvis Bay out of the Security Council and declared that, if the question should arise, they would take the view that it was a matter which could be settled between the new Government of South West Africa and the South African Government at a later stage. The Five openly breached this undertaking when they sponsored and voted for a Security Council resolution which declared that Walvis Bay must be “reintegrated” into South West Africa. The Security Council resolution further supported the initiation of steps necessary to ensure early achievement of the decision.

A second example of the breach of an understanding is the West’s silence when Dr. Waldheim, without any consultation with South Africa, to which he was bound, decided to include 500 UN troops in the UN task force. The highest figure which had been mentioned on the side of the West during our long negotiations with them, was 3 000. Even this figure was, at that stage—at the end of 1977 and early in 1978—unacceptable to us. Therefore, in good faith it was agreed that the number of UN troops was a matter which should be settled between the special representative of Dr. Waldheim and the Administrator-General. Neither South Africa nor the five Western powers at any time foresaw that the figure would be more than 3 000. Notwithstanding this and because so much was at stake, South Africa eventually accepted a figure of 5 500 troops, of which up to 20% would, in practice, be on leave.

Another example of a categorical assurance which the five Western powers gave to us, was that the ordinary weapons of Citizen Force members would not have to be surrendered. Only weapons requiring operation by two or more persons were involved. Now we believe that the Five, in a clarifying memorandum to Dr. Waldheim, have stated that all weapons, without qualification, should be surrendered.

There are other examples. There is the history of how it came about that we agreed to the reduction of our troops. Initially we were told that we would be responsible for the security of the Territory until independence. For the UN it would suffice if they could station officials with our units to observe that the latter did not interfere in the domestic political process, so that the officials would be in a position after the election to certify that no intimidation had taken place on the part of South Africa. The five Western powers, however, also abandoned this approach. In a co-operative spirit and for the sake of a peaceful solution, we again modified our position and agreed to a new basis for maintaining security. We negotiated a troop reduction on the explicit condition that a situation of total peace would first be established in the Territory, the implication being that peace would obviate the need for large forces.

All along the road are the wrecks of shattered expectations which we in good faith nurtured in the belief that the West would stand by their undertakings.

*The latest breach of an agreement was not the last straw. It was much more. It goes to the root of the most important aspect of the settlement plan, i.e. that there must be peace and that the peace must be “visible”. It affects the most fundamental factor, without which successful implementation is not possible, namely belief in one another’s motives. Nevertheless, South Africa stands by its undertaking. We insist on the implementation of the settlement plan as submitted to us and as accepted by us. If there are others who deviate from it, they must bear the consequences. For the sake of the welfare and mutual trust of all nations of Southern Africa, South Africa refuses to become a party to any covert arrangement intended to prevent a neighbouring people from freely expressing its will. From first to last, therefore, we stand by the wishes of the people of South West Africa.

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I further wish to inform the House that as a result of the latest incidents in the operational area, the S.A. Defence Force was compelled to launch a limited reactive operation against the Swapo bases this morning. More particulars in this connection will be furnished in due course by the Chief of the S.A. Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, I now lay upon the Table—

Press statement issued by the Swapo Democrats on 28 February 1979

1. 1. In the past two weeks we have been on the receiving end of a steady barrage of press-statements, public announcements and newspaper articles which tend to convey the impression that we are in a period of severe crisis. With the publication of the Report by Dr. Waldheim to the UN Security Council on the 26 February we are given to understand that this crisis has taken a severe turn for the worse. We are told that the Waldheim Report is a serious deviation from the original UN Plan for the settlement of the Namibian independence problem, that the situation is very ugly, that people are having second thoughts about the trustworthiness of the UN and that we are close to breaking point. In other words, the whole UN initiative is on the verge of breaking down, we are once again on the edge of the precipice and that we may have to consider alternative arrangements in order to set Namibia once more on the road to independence.
2. 2. In the opinion of the SWAPO-Democrats the gravity of the crisis is being exaggerated beyond all reasonable limits. We therefore feel that it is necessary, at this juncture, to call upon the people of Namibia to remain calm and to consider the present situation in a cool and logical fashion. We urge the population not to allow themselves to be affected by panic or impatience. While we are aware of the seriousness of the present position we wish to stress, at the same time, the need for caution. We must remind ourselves of our responsibility to the whole sub-continent and must, at all costs, prevent the existing tension from deteriorating into a major catastrophe.
3. 3. In particular, we wish to warn against all attempts to stampede us into hasty and ill-conceived decisions. Our perception is that we are drifting towards a situation where shortly, and sooner rather than later, some one or some group will propose that we should abandon the UN initiative altogether, that Namibia should go it alone and that some form of internal settlement along the lines of a UDI be declared. The SWAPO-Democrats wish to go on record that we firmly warn of the dangers inherent in such a step. We furthermore wish to state that we will not be a party to such a declaration. The Western powers and African states like Nigeria have assured us of their continuing support for a fair and democratic election. They have also made it clear that the government which emerges from such an election will be certain to receive international recognition. Alternatively, a party which does not participate in such elections will no longer enjoy recognition and support in the West and in Africa. This is all the more reason why we must resist all attempts, from any quarter, to jeopardize a correct and proper implementation of the UN Plan.
4. 4. Our view is that, while the Waldheim Report is imperfect and has definite areas of weakness, in its entirety it does NOT amount to a deviation from the Western Proposals or Resolution 435 (1978). It is obvious that the Waldheim Report is imprecise in its stand on the monitoring of guerilla bases in neighbouring territories and that the procedures to be followed regarding guerrillas inside Namibia at the time of the ceasefire are inadequate and not quite acceptable in their present form. However, these are matters which lend themselves to further discussion and further consultations. We still maintain a basic optimism that given time and good-will from all sides these outstanding points of dispute can be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. In short, we urge all parties to continue to act in the spirit of the original Western Proposals and to continue to work within the framework of the UN initiative. In our opinion this still provides, even at this time, the most reasonable and most acceptable basis for arriving at a peaceful transition to independence.
5. 5. Notwithstanding the above, we firmly reject all proposals which seek to permit the establishment of 2 500 armed guerrillas at five special bases inside Namibia. This is contrary to the UN Plan and we are pleased that the Waldheim Report does not sanction the setting-up of such bases. We wish to point out that it is necessary that the elections should take place in a country which has passed beyond the armed struggle and in a general atmosphere of peace and tranquillity. This means the reduction and restriction to base of all S. A. troops, the demobilisation of the tribal Home Guards and the disarming of citizen groups. To allow any political group to have a body of armed men stationed inside Namibia during the election period would only encourage other groups to retain their arms and would render impossible the suppression of extremist and politically dangerous groups such as the white resistance movement, Blankswa and WWB. We are not surprised at the emergence of these rightwing groups, but we are perturbed that the authorities have not found it necessary to condemn their activities.
6. 6. We also wish to make known our dissatisfaction with the attitude of Dr. Waldheim, who tends to regard the independence dispute as entirely a matter between SWAPO-N on the one side and S.A. on the other. He ignores all of us in this country who do not support Nujoma. This is deplorable as there is no doubt that we are in the majority. It is time that Dr. Waldheim recognizes that all of us who are living and working in this country are very interested in the implementation of the UN Plan and that even our co-operation and participation will be essential if this Plan is to work smoothly. We are also dissatisfied with the policy of S.A. which only informs the parties of the Turnhalle, and neglects to consult with other important groups such as the NNF and SWAPO-D.
7. 7. In conclusion, we call upon all patriotic and progressive parties to join us in striving to achieve the maximum degree of national unity. To this end we state that we are willing and eager to meet with all parties in order to emphasize the significant role which we are playing at this time and to discuss with them a concrete programme of action by means of which we can achieve our goals of national independence, democracy and international recognition through elections held under UN supervision and control.

(B)

Press statement issued by the Namibia National Front on 1 March 1979

STATEMENT BY THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

1. Having studied the full text of the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435, it appears as if there remain only three aspects which in the view of the NNF require to be resolved to achieve final and unqualified acceptance and implementation of the settlement plan proposed by the five Western Powers and accepted by the Security Council by the aforesaid Resolution.

These relate to—

1. 1.1. The monitoring of SWAPO bases in neighbouring Territories;
2. 1.2. The establishment of SWAPO bases inside Namibia;
3. 1.3. The date of the election to elect members of the Constituent Assembly.

2. MONITORING OF SWAPO BASES:

1. 2.1. Prima facie, paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Secretary-General’s report contain provisions which appear to constitute a procedure which will have the effect of monitoring SWAPO bases situated in Angola, Zambia and Botswana.
2. 2.2. However, it is felt that further clarification as to the Secretary-General’s intentions and other aspects of his proposals are necessary. These include:
   1. 2.2.1. Information as to whether the approval sought from the Governments of neighbouring States for the establishment of UNTAG offices in their Countries has been obtained;
   2. 2.2.2. If not, how the Secretary-General envisages UNTAG being in a position to ensure “the implementation of the relevant provisions of the proposals”?
   3. 2.2.3. If the necessary approval of neighbouring States has been obtained:
      1. 2.2.3.1. What “assigned functions” is it envisaged that UN Personnel will carry out in neighbouring States?
      2. 2.2.3.2. The nature and details of the co-operation with the Governments of such States which is envisaged?
3. 2.3. Should the elucidation of the above aspects succeed in clarifying the intentions of the Secretary-General, it is quite conceivable that the NNF could be satisfied that there will indeed be effective monitoring of SWAPO bases in neighbouring States.
4. 2.4. Should there be any doubt as to whether or not SWAPO bases outside Namibia are to be monitored, the NNF restates its previous stand that it favours this action most strongly. As an inducement to SWAPO to submit to such monitoring, should such submission not be regarded as inherent in their acceptance of the Western Proposals, the NNF proposes that the South African Government be approached to submit to monitoring of such of its basis on South African soil as may be immediately adjacent to Namibia.

3. ESTABLISHMENT OF SWAPO BASES INSIDE NAMIBIA:

1. 3.1. The NNF has repeatedly enunciated its standpoint to the effect that it is completely opposed to the establishment of any bases within Namibia which would have the effect of establishing a recognized and conventional armed SWAPO force within the boundaries of the Country.
2. 3.2. This would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the Western Proposals and a very material departure from the implied terms thereof.
3. 3.3. It would furthermore constitute a fundamental breach of an explicit and unequivocal undertaking given to the NNF by representatives of the five Western Powers on 31 March, 1978, to the effect that no SWAPO bases would be permitted within Namibia.
4. 3.4. The Western proposals provide for the restriction of SWAPO forces to base. This clearly implies that a base must exist to which such restriction would apply. However, the Secretary-General, in paragraph 11 of his Report, proposes the designation of bases inside Namibia to which armed SWAPO forces would be moved. This is completely unacceptable to the NNF and constitutes an implied admission that no such bases exist.
5. 3.5. The establishment of recognized SWAPO bases inside Namibia would be regarded as an invitation to SWAPO to send large numbers of armed supporters into Namibia prior to the cease-fire, aggravating an already serious situation.
6. 3.6. Security Council Resolution 435 provides that the residue of 1 500 South African forces are to completely withdraw from Namibia within one week of the certification of the result of the election to the Constituent Assembly. In the case of SWAPO, however, the only provision is that there is to be a “closure of all bases”. Does this mean that large numbers of armed SWAPO members are set loose inside Namibia whilst the South African forces are required to withdraw?
7. 3.7. As an alternative, the NNF proposes that all armed members of SWAPO who may be physically present in Namibia at the time of the establishment of an official UNTAG presence in the Country be granted a prescribed period of time (14 days is suggested) to report with their arms to the nearest UNTAG presence where they will be given the option either:
   1. 3.7.1. to surrender their arms and to be regarded as “returning Namibians” in terms of paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Secretary-General’s Report, who are thus returning “peacefully” and without arms; or
   2. 3.7.2. to elect to return with their arms to a neighbouring Territory to be determined by the Special Representative, where they will be restricted to a recognized SWAPO base to which they will be escorted from Namibia by UNTAG.

4. THE DATE OF THE ELECTION TO THE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY:

1. 4.1. The least significant of the areas of difference relates to the date for the holding of elections for members of the Constituent Assembly.
2. 4.2. Although a firm date for the holding of elections is to be determined shortly after the commencement of the Transition period, insistence now for an election before 30 September 1979 would not be justified. If further consultations on the Secretary-General’s Report are required, the insistence on a fixed election date should not be allowed to stand in their way. A short extension of the date for the election would be far superior to a final and irrevocable breakdown of two years of negotiation, where the parties concerned are closer together than ever before.
3. 4.3. A fixed date for an election before 30 September 1979 is of less importance to the people of Namibia than a final and internationally recognized democratic independence, even should this be achieved as a result of election held in October or even November 1979.

5. The NNF notes with regret that once again the Secretary-General, following the example set by the South African Government, has failed to consult with the people of Namibia. His, and his Special Representative’s consultations have been confined to SWAPO, to the South African Government and to the Frontline States and Nigeria. There are the majority of Namibians who are vitally concerned with the determination of the future of their own country, but who are being totally ignored whilst talks are confined to New York, Pretoria and Lusaka/Luanda. Had the Secretary-General followed the example set by the five Western powers in consulting interested groups within Namibia, his proposals would assuredly have been less unacceptable to large sections of the Namibian People.

1. 6.1. A solution to the Namibian problem is closer than ever before; let it not be sabotaged by hasty and premature criticism and condemnation of Dr. Waldheim, the Western Powers, and others.
2. 6.2. The Secretary-General’s Report contains no more than proposals for resolving outstanding issues, and is not mandatory.
3. 6.3. The implementation of the proposals is dependent upon the acceptance thereof by and the cooperation of SWAPO, the South African Government and the Political Parties inside Namibia, and finally the adoption thereof by the Security Council.
4. 6.4. The doors are not closed to further consultation nor indeed to a variation of the proposals contained in Dr. Waldheim’s latest report.
5. 6.5. Let reason now prevail, and rather than maintaining and extending the uncertainty and frustration presently obtaining and manifesting itself amongst all sectors of our People, the NNF appeals to all groups concerned to attempt to achieve a final solution to what has now resolved itself to a minimum of clearly defined issues.

(C)

Resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly of South West Africa on 5 March 1979

THE ASSEMBLY

Takes note of the Report of the Secretary-General dated 26 February 1979 concerning the implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 (1978) and of the letter from the Western countries dated 28 February 1979 to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of South Africa.

Cognisant (A) of the fact that SWAPO has made certain new demands in recent statements;

(B) of the fact that the Secretary-General, as a result, consulted only with the Five Western countries and then took the decisions in paragraphs 8 to 18 of his Report of 26 February 1979;

Is convinced that certain decisions contained in that Report deviate seriously from the provisions of the Report of the Secretary-General as accepted in Resolution 435. In particular the Assembly focuses attention on the following:

1. (A) paragraph 11, which makes provision for the restriction of SWAPO armed forces which happen to be in South West Africa at the time of the cease-fire, to bases at places which will be determined by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, after consultation, and the fact that the movement of the SWAPO armed forces to these bases will not be regarded as a tactical movement in terms of the cease-fire agreement;
2. (B) paragraph 12, in which it is alleged that there is no specific provision for the monitoring of SWAPO bases in neighbouring states.
   Confirms (A) that there are no SWAPO bases inside South West Africa;
3. (B) that SWAPO armed forces which happen to be in South West Africa at the time that the cease-fire agreement takes effect, must return to their existing bases, in terms of the original proposal;
4. (C) that these bases, which are situated in the neighbouring states, must be effectively monitored by UNTAG. In this connection, reference is made to:
   1. (i) the following provision in the annexure to Security Council Document S/12636 of 10 April 1978—“as soon as possible United Nations Special Representative and staff (UNTAG) arrive in Namibia to assume duties. UN military personnel commence monitoring of cessation of hostile acts and commence monitoring of both South African and SWAPO troop restrictions”;
   2. (ii) paragraph 13 of the Secretary-General’s Report S/12827 of 29 August 1978, which reads as follows: “to monitor the cessation of hostilities effectively, to maintain surveillance of the Territory’s vast borders and to monitor the restriction to base of the armed forces of the parties concerned, the co-operation and the support of the neighbouring countries will be necessary. Such co-operation will be most important particularly during the early stages”.
   
   Is of the opinion that, should the latest deviating proposals of the Secretary-General be accepted, the fairness of the election will be seriously affected and the safety of the inhabitants will be endangered.
   Is shocked by the letter from the Five Western Powers dated 28 February 1979, in which they support the latest decisions of the Secretary-General and describe them as fair and reasonable: “It reflects a positive approach and makes practical proposals which we support.” In this way, their inability to defend and abide by agreements and understandings which they themselves have reached with the parties concerned is again demonstrated. As a result, the inhabitants of South West Africa are losing their confidence in the Five Western Powers as a contact group.
   Requests the South African Government to:

1. (A) make no concessions whatsoever in respect of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Secretary-General’s Report of 26 February 1979;
2. (B) ensure that the election for a Constituent Assembly in terms of Resolution 435 is held not later than 30 September 1979;
3. (C) insist that political detainees in neighbouring states be allowed to return to their country to participate in the election process;
4. (D) allow no withdrawal of the South African Defence Force to take place until a situation of visible peace reigns in the Territory.

Decides, in the event that the settlement plan has not been initiated by 15 March 1979, and in the light of the desire of the inhabitants of South West Africa to achieve independence for South West Africa as quickly as possible, to convene this Assembly on 2 April 1979 to consider the steps necessary to lead South West Africa to independence.

(D)

Reply by the South African Government to the United Nations Secretary-General dated 5 March 1979

Shortly after receipt of Your Excellency’s Report (S/13120) on 26 February 1979 the South African Government conveyed its contents to and discussed it with the political parties in the Territory committed to a peaceful solution.

As you know, it has consistently been the policy of the South African Government to consult fully with the people of South West Africa. Their interests are at stake. They must decide on their future. This procedure was followed on all occasions when serious issues arose in connection with the negotiations and consultations. For example in April 1978 before accepting the Western Proposal in its final and definitive form, and also in December 1978 before informing Your Excellency of the South African Government’s decision to co-operate in the expeditious implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 (1978).

Leaders of the various political parties also held meetings over the past weekend with representatives of the Five Western Powers involved in the negotiations. These political parties have made their position clear to the South African Government indicating how in their opinion the whole envisaged process is being influenced by the introduction of new elements in Document S/13120.

The leaders of the people of South West Africa, as represented in the Constituent Assembly, formulated their position in a motion adopted today by the Constituent Assembly. I attach a copy.

They emphasized the serious deviations in your Report of 26 February 1979 as compared with the settlement plan relating, inter alia, to the establishment of SWAPO bases in the Territory and the monitoring of SWAPO bases in neighbouring countries. They expressed the belief that should these deviations be accepted, the fairness of the envisaged election would be affected seriously and the safety of the inhabitants jeopardized.

In a statement issued on 1 March 1979 the Executive of the NNF stated, inter alia, that the establishment of an armed SWAPO force within South West Africa would constitute a fundamental breach of an explicit and unequivocal undertaking given to the NNF by representatives of the Five Western Powers on 31 March 1978, to the effect that no SWAPO bases would be permitted within Namibia.

SWAPO-D has also indicated that it is not prepared to accept an arrangement allowing one only of the parties participating in the election to have an armed force restricted to bases in the Territory.

Before receipt of your Report S/13120 issued on 26 February 1979, I indicated in my letter to you on 20 February 1979, that in the view of the South African Government there were no outstanding issues of such a nature as to prevent the commencement of the implementation of the settlement plan. I could foresee no impediment to the conclusion of the Status Agreement. It would have been more satisfactory and also more practicable if our latest suggestion in regard to jurisdiction had been accepted. The South African Government did not and does not wish to make this an obstacle to the implementation of the settlement plan. I am convinced that the agreement could now be formally completed.

The question of composition likewise could be solved without undue difficulty, bearing in mind the reasonable and flexible attitude that had been adopted by the South African Government.

In view of the most recent developments in regard to composition, I feel that I should once again record South Africa’s position on this matter. Over many months of negotiations with the Five Western Powers and later with you yourself, South Africa has been assured that its views on composition would be taken into account fully provided only the principle of equitable geographical distribution would be observed.

We were also informed that the practice of consultation on composition was based on long-standing UN precedence, recognizing the views of the host country. It was emphasized that practicalities and the importance of ensuring the co-operation of the receiving country ruled out the emplacement of specific contingents without its agreement. To avoid any future misunderstanding the South African Government wish to reiterate our intimations that it would not be willing to accept countries which had in the past identified themselves too closely and actively with the aims and activities of SWAPO. Such forces could not be expected to act with absolute impartiality.

You will recall that in our recent contacts with you and your personnel on the question of composition, we leant over backwards to be accommodating.

In the course of our contacts South Africa proposed several African countries, none of which was accepted. It also suggested several Asian, Latin American and Western European countries—all of our suggestions falling within the pattern of equitable geographical distribution—and yet again none was accepted.

In spite of all this, the South African Government as a token of our desire to be accommodating would still be prepared to consider the UNTAG composition announced by you on 1 March 1979, on the understanding that:

1. (a) SWAPO armed personnel, like the South African forces, are to be restricted to existing base. The restriction to base is to be monitored by UNTAG as is unambiguously provided for in the proposal and confirmed in your reply to me dated 1 January 1979. This was also made clear to you in my letter of 20 February 1979.
2. (b) SWAPO would have no right to create bases or be designated bases in South West Africa. The settlement proposal contains no provision directly or indirectly, expressly or implied that SWAPO forces who may either accidentally or for a short duration be in the Territory for the purpose of sabotage are entitled suddenly to come forward on the day of the cease-fire with a claim to be assigned to camps which do not exist and in so doing achieve the establishment of bases in South West Africa.
3. (c) As stated in your letter of 1 January 1979, “A comprehensive cessation of all hostile acts” is an essential prerequisite to the implementation of Resolution 435.
4. (d) In regard to the envisaged election date of not later than 30 September 1979 which, in terms of your letter of 1 January 1979, you considered to be “consistent with the Proposal”, I wish to recapitulate my plea so often conveyed to you since December 1978 that time was running out. In particular, I wish to draw your attention to my letter of 20 February 1979, in which I stated, inter alia: “It will not be possible for the South African Government to associate itself with any move to delay the elections beyond the end of September 1979 and thus further postponing or denying the people of South West Africa the right to independence.”
5. (e) That political detainees in neighbouring countries be allowed to return to South West Africa and to participate in the election process.

It will be observed that the views expressed by the political parties in South West Africa committed to a peaceful solution are in essence consistent with the South African Government’s attitude as outlined above.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that it has been agreed that the House will adjourn before supper tomorrow evening. Consequently the House will not sit after supper.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading of this Bill I raised a problem which occurs in clause 11, where, in the proposed new subsection (2)(A)(e) and (f), reference is made to archaeological and paleontological finds. The problem that is occurring at the moment is that on particular battlefields—during the Second Reading I referred to the battlefields of Kambula in Zululand and Fort Melville near Rorkesdrift, which are in the process of being proclaimed, and there are other proclaimed battlefields such as Rorkesdrift itself and Isandlwana— the public is using either Geiger counters or metal detectors in their search of artefacts. These metal detectors have been advertised recently on TV and there have also been programmes dealing with them. People use these metal detectors to pick up artefacts such as medals, belt buckles, artillery shells, spears, etc. These artefacts are extremely important to those particular battle sites. The problem is that where people have been brought before the courts for removing such artefacts, the courts have ruled that these artefacts could not be defined as being of archaeological significance. For that reason I should like to suggest an amendment for the hon. the Minister’s consideration at this stage. If he wants to define it further, he can then do so in the Other Place. I move the following amendment—

By including a definition of the words “archaeological finds” we would make it possible to implement the law.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland was kind enough to let me have a copy of the amendment he proposed to move. I have a difficulty with the word “human” as it appears in his amendment. The hon. member proposes in his amendment that archaelogical findings should be restricted only to material artefacts and monuments of human behaviour or activities. However, I believe it is important for us to realize that we in South Africa live in a country where a great deal of archaelogical research is being done. One thinks for instance of the work done by Prof. Dart and others. Their work has led to the idea being voiced abroad that Africa is the original home of man, the place where man first made his transition from a tool-using ape to homo sapiens.

I have mentioned before that when Benjamin Disraeli was asked the question whether he supported the doctrine of Dr. Darwin or whether he believed in the Creation as described in the book of Genesis, he said he hoped that if it was a question of being on the side of the apes or on the side of the angels, he would be found to be on the side of the angels. Whether we accept the theory of the evolution or not, there is no doubt about it that there is a considerable body of evidence in scientific circles that the remains of early man and his predecessors are to be found in Africa, and more particularly in South Africa. Therefore, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, before accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Maitland, he would not like to take some further advice on the matter.

We are told that Africa might be the home of the missing link. [Interjections.] I often wonder what the missing link would say should he walk into this House. He might say something nice and kind about all the Breeders, or something like that. [Interjections.] I think it would be wrong if we were to exclude the pre-human remains, the tool using apes or whatever the technical description might be. I am not really conversant with all the terms used. However, we know that there are important remains of that particular nature here in South Africa. Therefore, I believe the hon. the Minister is unnecessarily restricting the sort of thing he is trying to protect. I believe the hon. the Minister would be wise to take some advice on this thing. He could then, perhaps in the Other Place, move an amendment which would cover both these aspects, not only the human remains but also those who are just as important…

Are you including the mortal remains of your old United Party?

Mr. Chairman, whenever I see the hon. member for Von Brandis, I always think of an old ruin. That I must confess. [Interjections.] However, I think the hon. the Minister should consider the suggestions I have just put to him. Perhaps the hon. member for Maitland might like to react to what I have said now.

Mr. Chairman, my particular problem exists in respect of the battlefields. By the way the hon. member for Mooi River has expressed himself, I gather that what he has in mind is going beyond battlefields, and also covers other spheres. He seems to have in mind other places where metal detectors can be used or abused in removing, and even destroying objects of historic interest I should be delighted if we were to follow the hon. member’s suggestion. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could also exercise his mind, as well as those of his officials, on the subject and then consider the matter further in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, the suggestion by the hon. member for Maitland is substantiated by the argument used by the hon. member for Mooi River. As soon as we come up with a definition we must meticulously formulate in order to cover fully all the objects we have in mind. Definitions contain certain words and phrases. If one wants to include them in legislation one has to be very careful. I have also on many occasions thought that I have found the missing link, but so far I have been proved wrong. I can understand nevertheless that the hon. member for Maitland is perturbed about the discovery and removal of other objects from the battlefields he has mentioned.

*I think it is a good suggestion that we reconsider this whole matter, for it covers a wider field than the hon. member for Maitland has in mind. It also applies to the field which the hon. member for Mooi River has just brought to our attention. We must reconsider this matter, in co-operation with even the HSRC. If perhaps it has to be dealt with in the Other Place shortly and there is not enough time to do this in the meantime, it will nevertheless receive the necessary attention so that we do not delay this matter and so that the damage to which the hon. member has referred, cannot be inflicted. This matter must be resolved in the best possible manner. I wish to thank hon. members once again for the suggestions. The matter will, as I have indicated, receive attention in this manner.

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the hon. the Minister’s remarks, I should like to withdraw the amendments.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, we are experiencing a problem with this clause. We ask the hon. the Minister in a friendly manner, to reconsider it thoroughly, and if deemed necessary at a later stage, to amend this clause.

Where the hon. the Minister can delegate his powers, the Secretary of National Education is appointed as one of the officials to whom he may delegate. This is, of course, quite correct. However, powers may also be delegated to the Director of Archives. Therefore, what is happening in practice, as it appears to me, is that the Director of Archives is actually being placed in a position of senior status and therefore has a higher status than the Director of National Monuments. Therefore, instead of the Director of National Monuments going directly to the Secretary of National Education with whichever needs he may have, he will probably, if the powers are delegated to the Director of Archives, first have to go to the director and then, through him, to the Secretary of National Education.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that, as it appears from the report of the HSRC, the director of archives is also a member of the HSRC. Therefore an official serving in the HSRC has actually been given higher status than the chairman of the council. This is how it appears. We did not submit an amendment to amend this, as this is an administrative matter which, to my mind, is better left in the hands of the hon. the Minister and his officials for consideration.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North said, specific provisions relating to procedure are followed, so that the director of archives always consults the Director of the HSRC as well. He would not be quick to go over his head. However, we shall nevertheless see whether some of the administrative problems to which the hon. member referred, do exist for we do not want the status of the Director of the HSRC to be detracted from in any way. The regulations with regard to the procedure will be checked so that that which the hon. member has pointed out, can indeed be done.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, I had agreed, after discussions with him and a body known as Acma—to which I referred during the Second Reading debate on the Bill—not to move amendments to the Bill during the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister indicated that a special committee would be established in terms of the existing Act, on which interested Government departments, bodies such as Acma (Advisory Committee in Marine Archaeology) would be represented. There they will put their heads together in order to see if it is possible to bring before the House separate legislation to deal with wrecks at the very earliest opportunity.

The only remark that I should like to make in relation to clause 9, is first of all to refer the hon. the Minister to the provisions of the proposed new section 10A, which provides for the declaration or the possible declaration of a wreck which is older than 50 years, as a national monument. For reasons that I discussed privately with the hon. the Minister, I am of the opinion that the new legislation might perhaps make provision for wrecks older than 100 years to be declared national monuments.

Can you tell us those reasons?

I think the reasons are fairly obvious. If one declares a wreck that is 50 years old as a national monument, then one is declaring wrecks that have been stranded or wrecked since the First World War as national monuments. I think it singularly unlikely that any of the wrecks off our coasts within the last 50 or 60 years, or a little bit longer, is likely to be of importance as a national monument.

Historically they are important.

They are not historic wrecks in the normally accepted sense. Also, in the furniture world, for example, an article that is 100 years old or older, is usually accepted as an antique. I think according to international practice where wrecks of this kind are dealt with in other countries, it is generally accepted that an age of 100 years constitutes an historic or an antique wreck.

The second matter that I wish to refer to very briefly, appears on page 10 of the Bill where the new proposed section 10A(3) states—

On the assumption that this Bill is going to become law, this particular provision is therefore going to apply, and I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that one of the existing problems is that when someone discovers a wreck and sets about salvaging that wreck, and the whereabouts of that wreck is known, the big danger exists of pirate divers descending on the wreck and looting it without themselves having discovered it, or having any claim to it. Hon. members will know that if one wants to establish legal title to a wreck that is under water, one has to produce evidence that one has discovered the wreck, that one is working on the wreck—e.g. the erection of a buoy above the wreck—and one must be seen to be working the wreck at all reasonable times, e.g. when the weather is suitable for diving. These are very difficult aspects to prove legally. During the Second Reading debate reference was made to the difficulty experienced by the gentleman who was salvaging the wreck of the Sacramento off Port Elizabeth. Trouble was caused by a pirate who also participated in the salvage work, and raised a couple of cannon. In order to get that pirate diver or looter, who had done no research and who really had no claim to the wreck whatsoever, off that wreck, a considerable amount of money had to be paid in an out of court settlement between the legitimate salvor and the pirate diver. It actually happened that the legitimate salvor, who had done the research and who was working the wreck, employed someone to assist him with the salvage work. The story attached to this is—I pass it on because I think it is not unimportant—the salvor disclosed the position of the wreck to the person who was assisting him, and this person, in turn, was paid R2 500 for the information by a pirate salvor who then went from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth, started salvaging the contents of that wreck, harmed a number of the historic treasures in the wreck and then had to be bought off for the sum of R22 000.

So, the point I am making is that if it is the intention of the council, after this Bill has become an Act, to require persons in possession of information about wrecks to disclose their knowledge to the council, this becomes public knowledge, and I would therefore urge the council, through the hon. the Minister, to act with great circumspection in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, as was indicated, we have agreed on the appointment of a committee to investigate this whole field. As regards wrecks of 50 years or older, at present we apply the 50-year rule to all movable articles. I would request the hon. member for Simonstown to leave it at 50 years. I do not think we can lose anything by doing so. I think that it is better to be on the safe side. In any event, after this matter has been investigated and referred to the committee, I think this matter can be handled with safety.

*As regards people who sit and wait for the disclosure of certain information, the hon. member is correct in this respect, that in particular cases, it is better that no statements be made, for then it becomes public knowledge and the treasure hunters will descend on such a wreck. Therefore we will ask the council to be very careful about the way in which they make statements and the way in which the information is disseminated, so that we can keep the wrecks and their contents reasonably safe until such time as the legitimate people can get there first. I have taken note of the request by the hon. member for Simonstown and I think that we can comply with his request administratively.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, for the same reasons I stated earlier I will not be moving an amendment to this clause either. We on these benches welcome this clause, particularly the general provisions of the clause. One of the most important provisions to be inserted in the existing legislation is that the council may now step in and stop salvors from exporting goods which they have salvaged from a wreck. This is one of the real problems which face us at present. In the case of the Sacramento, for example, 40 cannons have been raised. Fortunately in that particular case the salvors were people who had the interests of the country at heart and who are conservationists, apart from being divers and salvors, and are consequently keeping the cannons here. But less scrupulous people would be prepared, for the sake of money, to export the salvaged material. However, this clause will enable the council to step in and prevent the export of goods which have been salvaged to destinations overseas where they may be lost without trace.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I referred to the fact that this clause had two aspects, namely one whereby regulations are to be made by the council and the other whereby regulations are to be made by local authorities. I felt that the wording of the clause was not very specific in this regard. I believe that the real intention is that where powers are given to the local authority that would be in respect of monuments which are owned by or fall under the direct control of local authorities. In order to make the position clear I move as an amendment—

1. (1) On page 14, in line 51, after “land” to insert:
   which is under the control of the local authority and which has been—
2. (2) on page 14, in line 54, after “any” where it occurs for the second time, to insert “such”.

This amendment will make the position perfectly clear that the regulations and the actions of local authorities are solely confined to the monuments which are their property or fall directly under their control.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. member’s amendment. I think the legislation, as it reads at present, specifically provides that it is only land which is under the control of a local authority, but if we can put the matter more clearly by way of such an amendment, we should do so, and I think the proposed amendment will improve the wording of the clause as a whole to some extent.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I pointed out possible problems which may be experienced in the interpretation of one phrase in the clause, i.e. “is about to be declared”. The same terminology is also to be found in the proposed new section 10A(4) which is inserted by clause 9. I am afraid that problems may arise in the interpretation of these words. Sometimes the declaration of a monument is a very lengthy process. It commences when the council becomes aware of the fact that a particular building or other monument should be declared, and with all the negotiations and consultations, it sometimes takes years before the actual declaration eventually takes place.

I am not quite clear about what the drafters of the legislation have in mind in this particular case. When precisely does the province get the power to spend money on such a proposed monument if it has not been finally declared a monument? When the stage has been reached that provisional declaration is actually taking place, one is of course dealing with a specific date and then there is clarity about the matter. It is possibly the intention that when negotiations are initiated, the monument is already “about to be declared”, but it is also possible that drawn-out negotiations may be conducted without any ultimate declaration in fact being made, and the province could, in that stage, already have spent money. I am only mentioning the fact that we should perhaps look at this terminology in the future. I do not wish to suggest that we amend this, but I only wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is a matter to which we should perhaps pay attention.

Now I wish to make a few remarks about the historical background of the proposed new subsection (3). I am grateful for this and, as the hon. the Minister said quite rightly, this addition was initiated by the representations which came from the provinces via the Administrators’ conferences, viz. from all the provinces jointly. What I would in fact like to mention today for interests sake is the fact that the powers now being proposed here, are not the full powers requested. Nor do I wish to request today that we should make amendments. However, for the sake of the record I wish to point out that quite a few of the powers requested, go further than is being proposed here. I want to give the House the wording of the proposal as drafted by the legal advisers of the provinces at the time. The proposal and request was that the Financial Relations Act be amended as follows—

I wish to point out that in a few respects the powers proposed then go further than is being proposed now. In the first place hon. members will notice that powers are being requested in respect of movable as well as immovable properties. In the second place, the test for the power would not be actual declaration, but the judgment of the province concerned that a particular article or property is worth preserving, even though it has not in fact been declared as such. In the third place, the proposed powers differed in the important respect that it was requested that the provinces should also have the power to make grants-in-aid available to bodies and individuals, to restore or maintain their buildings, for instance.

In this regard, I wish to point out that there is one category of person who, to my mind, deserve a public motion of thanks for the praiseworthy work they are doing in the field of conservation. I refer to those people who find themselves in the unfortunate—sometimes it is indeed an unfortunate position—of becoming the owners of declared monuments. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes it is a trial for the owner of a building or a property when his property is considered for possible declaration as a monument For instance, there are quite a number of farmers on farms who, at tremendous cost and in the national interest, have restored buildings which have perhaps not yet been declared, but which may be declared at a later stage. I think this is a good opportunity to thank that group of people publicly. Particularly in the Western Province there are many farmers who have made great sacrifices, for instance by restoring farm houses and other buildings on farms and who get no recognition or assistance of any kind for doing so.

This also applies to the owners of certain houses in urban areas. At that time the provinces took the view that it would have been a good thing if as a gesture of gratitude for the work done by these people, they could make a contribution to the costs incurred in this regard. We accept that it has not yet been possible to do this, but I nevertheless think that it is appropriate that I should break a lance for these people on this occasion and at least thank them in public for the tremendous work they have done in the interests of our cultural historical heritage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised two matters. Firstly, he drew attention to the words “is about to be declared”. I do not believe that that should cause us any problems, for those words also appear in the existing Act, for example in section 5(3). So far we have not encountered any problems with those words in the general application of the Act, and we trust that we shall not encounter any in future either. However, if they cause problems in future, we shall have to reconsider them. Meanwhile we shall leave them as they are.

The hon. member also pointed out that the provinces have asked for wider powers than those the Bill provides for at present. He said, however, that he accepted it like that. I also think we should leave it at that. I should just like to associate myself with the last idea the hon. member put forward, viz. that we should convey a vote of thanks to those people who are the owners of declared monuments. I am thinking of farms here in the Western Province where the work is often disrupted by visitors. Such visitors are people who often have no consideration for the owner and the circumstances on the farm. The farmers accept it like that, however, and I think they deserve a word of gratitude.

There is an idea that the payment of compensation to those people could be considered at a later stage. We should keep that in mind. I thank the hon. member, in particular for his last kind thought with which I associate myself.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, at this the third stage of the Bill I think it is appropriate to make one or two remarks about the clauses of the Bill about which I spoke at Second Reading.

First of all I want to refer to the Advisory Committee for Maritime Archaeology, which is referred to as Acma. Yesterday morning I had discussions with the hon. the Minister in his office. I think it is appropriate that we should express our gratitude to the hon. the Minister for making himself available at short notice. We should also particularly like to express our appreciation to him and to an official in his department, Mr. Agenbag— who for some years has been trying to find the solution to the difficult problem—for the very sympathetic way in which they handled the representations that were made to them.

I should also like to record what sort of people are represented on Acma to show that it is not just an unauthoritative body, but that it consists of people who can be described as experts in a particular field. For example, I want to mention G. Avery of the S.A. Museum. He is a marine archaeologist. I also want to mention Dr. T. H. Barry, the Director of the S.A. Museum, Mr. F. R. Schweitzer, the Chief Archaeologist of the S.A. Museum and Prof. M. J. van der Merwe of the Archaeology Department of the University of Cape Town. Apart from these gentlemen there are an attorney, an engineer, an archaeologist, a freelance journalist who specializes in archaeological studies and who has written papers and books, a surgeon and an historian. These are the sorts of people who have come together since the finding of those valuable relics in the Sacramento a few years ago and formed the association called Acma.

The committee the hon. the Minister has agreed to set up after this Bill has become law, will include not only representatives of this particular body, but also other people who have a contribution to make, as well as representatives of the various Government departments who have an interest in this particular field. At Second Reading I referred to these departments as being the Railways and Harbours Administration and the Department of Customs and Excise and people administering the Merchant Shipping Act. All these people together I am sure will find a solution which has certainly been difficult to find so far. At this stage I should also like to record my thanks to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, Dr. Koornhof, for his willingness to see the representatives of Acma and myself during the recess after the last parliamentary session, again at short notice, to discuss our problems with him and for giving us a sympathetic ear.

What has emerged from this debate is that there is a general realization that South Africa possesses a cultural treasure chest under the seas. This treasure chest must be opened and the treasures must be displayed to South Africa and to the world. But not only must these treasures be opened up and displayed to the world. We have to learn and to practise the art of preservation, the art of preservation of antiques of the kind such as cannons that have been lying under our seas off our stormbound coasts for the last 300 and more years. Then, having learnt how to preserve them against exposure to air, after they have been brought out of the wreck and salvaged, we must find a mechanism whereby they can be conserved and suitably housed for posterity in the Republic.

This Bill, and the discussion that has been held in the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage, have clearly shown that the provisions of the Bill, while being a useful stop-gap and useful in the sense that they can prevent archaeological treasures lying under the sea at the moment from being salvaged and exported overseas, can lead to this abuse being stopped and preventive action taken. To that extent the provisions of the Bill are useful. Nevertheless, it is generally realized that there has to be special legislation to deal with such an involved subject as this. Mention has also been made of the fact that in most European countries, for example Great Britain, France and Greece, countries that I can think of, there are special laws on the Statute Book dealing with the working wrecks and salvaging their contents.

Anyway, I think the hon. the Minister has appreciated the problem at very short notice and with deep understanding, and I am most grateful to him for agreeing that separate legislation should be introduced. If separate legislation governing wrecks is to be introduced, it seems to me quite possible that it will no longer fall under this particular Minister and his department. It may well be dealt with by other Government departments. However, if that does happen, then this hon. Minister, who has shown himself to be so interested in archaeological culture, will not be excluded if things are taken to their logical conclusion. The final and logical conclusion, after separate legislation has been introduced to be administered by a department best suitable for administering that legislation, is that this hon. Minister will have to establish, and we will have to give authority to the Minister to establish, a maritime cultural museum with all the accoutrement that goes with it. There is no question about it. There are 1 600 to 1 700 wrecks lying around our coasts, wrecks which will one of these days be salvaged, and some of the contents of those wrecks which are of historic value to South Africa will have to be housed in a national maritime museum. I made the suggestion, I think, two years ago, that there should be localized maritime museums in the various coastal towns around the shores of the Republic. I do not think that was a bad suggestion, but what is necessary is that in addition to the local museum, for example at Port Elizabeth and another one at East London, there should be a national maritime museum, and I would submit that a place like Cape Town, because of all the shipwrecks which have occurred within easy distance of Cape Town, would be the most suitable place for a national maritime museum. If such a national maritime museum were established, then the Government would have to see that it is provided with adequate funds to be able to buy salvaged materials to be housed in that national maritime museum. Cape Town would have to be the centralized operation point for such an undertaking, whereas local museums in coastal towns without easy accessibility to as many wrecks as perhaps Cape Town, would be able to cater for local finds and should therefore also be subsidized, at any rate on a provincial basis.

For example Simonstown?

No, I am not parochial and therefore the suggestion of the hon. member for Moorreesburg has made, that there should be a maritime museum at Simonstown, does not necessarily find favour with me. I think it would be better if Cape Town were to be the headquarters of a national maritime museum. Only when a national maritime museum has been established, will the maritime treasures which still have to be uncovered, be safely housed and preserved and conserved for posterity. When that is achieved, it will be the end of the chain of events which have been set in motion by the placing on the Statute Book of this Bill which we are about to pass today.

Mr. Speaker, I briefly want to support the importance and necessity of this Bill on behalf of this side of the House, and in particular the two very important points of departure, viz. making the general public aware of some of our possessions which are of national importance, and which nevertheless do not come to our attention, and, in the second instance, the arrangement with regard to the provincial authorities. I can, of course, mention that the importance of this matter has already been accepted by the public. Incidentally, I want to refer to an incident near Volksrust in this regard. After the tremendous floods of 1975 a fossil was washed open in one of the nearby ravines. It was the fossil of a buffalo which lived between 10 000 and 20 000 years ago. This fossil is the only one of its kind in the world. The horns of this animal, presumably a pelorovus, measure three metres from tip to tip. [Interjections.] We could probably conjecture that this was a forerunner of the Africander. The boys who discovered this fossil, handled it with care and reported this find to their mother, Mrs. Hamman of the farm Bronkhorstfontein. She was thoughtful enough to contact Dr. Vrba of the Transvaal Museum. As a result this fossil, which had begun to disintegrate immediately after exposure, was saved, under the expert care of the right people of course. In my opinion this is a unique discovery, a discovery of great archaeological importance. It is just possible that funds may be made available to cordon off that whole area for research by our experts.

I also want to refer to another example, an example which may not be of archaeological importance, but is, nevertheless, a very interesting. On the road between Standerton and Morgenzon there are two footprints of a man fatally struck down by lightning in 1881. Daniel Poggelenberg Erasmus was killed by lightning in 1881. Even today the farm belongs to a certain Daniel Poggelenberg Erasmus. However, there is one unfortunate aspect. The grandsons of Daniel Poggelenberg Erasmus are still staying on the farm and they feel heart-sore because a certain story or legend has grown up round the incident. In A. D. Keet’s poem, the “Onderveldse boer en sy koringmied”, it is alleged that the farmer concerned was supposed to have cursed the overcast weather and was then struck down by lightning, right next to his haystack, Therefore, it is being alleged that Daniel Poggelenberg Erasmus cursed the weather and was then struck down by lightning and that this is why the two footprints can still be seen there to this day.

Of course, this is incorrect. Daniel Erasmus had gone to inspect his newly-shorn sheep, when a sudden storm broke. He was then struck down on that spot by lightning. However, the fact remains that his footprints are still to be seen at that spot to this day. They are just off the road and the two footprints have been fenced. This place is a tourist attraction and I think that, if a little notice board furnishing the information with regard to Daniel Poggelenberg Erasmus and his footprints were erected, this could become a resting place for many people on that beautiful Transvaal Highveld. While spending a little time there they can take cognizance of the important event that occurred there.

This year, of course, the Zulu war of 100 years ago is also being commemorated. Yesterday the hon. member for Maitland referred to the battlefields of that war. I just want to mention that, at Rorke’s Drift for example, a unique event took place. After that battle the Victoria Cross was awarded to 11 people for bravery. This number has never been equalled in history, and it will probably never happen again. The Victoria Cross was awarded to 11 people participating in one specific battle. What is also interesting is that a soldier with the surname Vause as well as one with the surname Raw took part in that specific campaign. And so did a general with the surname Wood. Now we can read in those books—and it does not matter who wrote them—how brave they really were.

Where were the Hefers?

They were doing other work. I also want to describe to this House the activities of A. Cohen and others, the present owners of the old Simmer and Jack mine. This old mine in Johannesburg has been converted, and I almost want to say into what is virtually a living national monument. Processing is still being carried out at that mine—it is, therefore, still in operation—but all the former structures used in gold mine development have been brought back to that mine. This is a special attraction and a visit to those people is really a special occasion. They take visitors on a tour through the mine to show them its various processes.

By your leave, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay homage to the hon. Minister who, as member of Parliament for that area, made a special contribution to the establishment of this beautiful tourist attraction or national monument on the reef.

Having examined the annual report of the NMC, one notes that Gen. Louis Botha’s birthplace is now being restored and honoured. There is a magnificent statue of him that dominates Stalplein. What grieves me, however, is that nothing has been done to Gen. Louis Botha’s beautiful homestead on his farm Rusthof. This is one of the most beautiful gentlemens’ residences in the Transvaal. This is something we must attend to. In the Cape Province simple fishermen’s cottages are declared to be national monuments. [Interjections.] I do not want to object to this; this is part of our development. But more attention should honestly be given to Gen. Louis Botha’s beautiful old gentlemens’ residence with its special history and architecture. That place deserves it, because Gen. Louis Botha was one of the great men in the history of our nation.

When dealing with the second principle, viz. that provinces be authorized to incur expenditure, homage must really be paid to the executive committee of the great province of the north for the task those gentlemen took upon themselves to convert the village Pilgrim’s Rest into not just another tourist attraction, but to restore it to what it was in the days of the diggers.

That was a fine idea.

In this way that village with its romanticism and tragedy, its legends and sagas has been preserved for posterity. However, it is also functional so that it does not merely stand there as an attraction, but can be occupied, lived in and utilized. At present it has become a national asset to us.

At the end of this debate in which both sides of the House participated so well, I want to make an appeal to our service organizations to appropriate funds on their part as well and not merely to wait for the Government to contribute its share, so that these beautiful places of historic value can be maintained. I am thinking of many of our organizations that raise funds at functions from time to time, and in particular I think with appreciation of the Durban Teacher’s Training College which has taken upon itself the task of maintaining Dingaan’s Kraal at Ungungundluvu. The students of this college have taken upon themselves the expenses involved in this project. In my opinion this is a commendable example, and if more of our service organizations were to undertake the task of maintaining these attractions in their immediate vicinities, the Government’s task in this regard would be alleviated.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make just a few final comments on this Bill, because I think we have now discussed it sufficiently. It was a joy for everyone who has this matter at heart, to see so many hon. members in the House participating in the debate and giving the hon. the Minister their moral support for what he will hopefully do in future in this regard.

Secondly, I should just like to say that it will be desirable for the National Monuments Council to inform tourists in some way of places of interest which are to be found in a particular vicinity or area. Where such places of interest are privately inhabited or where they consist of rock art, certain problems may arise. But tourist maps published by private organizations may possibly be of some assistance in this regard in co-operation with the council and the hon. the Minister’s department. Finally, Sir; If the hon. the Minister wishes to have a monument erected to him in the end he will have to set one aspect straight, viz. that Government property shall also be subject to the provisions of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Standerton indicated certain attractions and historic aspects that presided in his area, but I think every hon. member in this House can probably make a similar speech by indicating what exists in his particular constituency or area. I rise primarily to pay tribute to the people who own national monuments.

Now you are talking!

I think it should be borne in mind, as I indicated during the Second Reading debate, that 80% of our declared national monuments are privately owned. The restoration and maintenance of these monuments have rested primarily in the hands of the owners. Although there has been a tremendous degree of co-operation with the National Monuments Council as such, with the staff of the National Monuments Council, the restoration work and the continued maintenance of these monuments have been done by the owners of those monuments themselves. I think this House should express its appreciation to those people who willingly—in almost every case—have accepted responsibility for the maintenance of those monuments. I even know of cases where the ownership of such property will, on the death of their owners, revert to the National Monuments Council. I think we should recognize this spirit that exists in our country.

I should like to make one other reference in this regard. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Simonstown. I am sorry to see that the hon. member for Swellendam is not in the House. Hon. members will recall that in his maiden speech he considerably embellished the attractions of the constituency that he represents. In passing he referred to one particular area in his constituency, i.e. Bredasdorp. I do not know whether the hon. member for Simonstown has ever paid a visit to Bredasdorp or not. He should realize that there has been an attempt by the Museum Society there to try to display the history surrounding the wrecks which lie off the southern coast, particularly around Cape Agulhas. That society has made tremendous efforts to obtain and to display for future reference in that museum—which has also been declared a national monument—historical and archaelogical finds from those wrecks. I have no hesitation in telling all hon. members in this House that a visit to that museum is well worthwhile. It is completely exclusive, in the sense that I believe it is the only one in South Africa that has made an effort to preserve and display the records and history of the wrecks off our coast, something for which the hon. member for Simonstown has so energetically pleaded during the course of this debate. I suggest that this museum should be a starting point for what he has in mind. If the hon. the Minister has not had the opportunity to visit this museum, I want to extend an invitation to him to pay this museum a visit.

I know it well. I have been there many times.

It is certainly well worth a visit.

The other aspect of this Bill—apart from the provincial aspect, which I do not wish to elaborate on as I think the hon. member for Standerton has made it very clear—which is important is that there is now a Monuments Council with more beef. It now has greater powers to achieve the objects which are set out in this Bill. I think hon. members will feel with me when I wish them luck and success in their operations and efforts to preserve the cultural heritage of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Transport in the House, because a certain amount of the discussion on this Bill has been about railway stations. The hon. member for Durban Central during the course of the debate stated that the Durban station had actually been built by accident I do not wish to bring the House under the wrong impression. In a matter of this nature it is vitally important that the truth should be known. With that in view I want to quote from a report in The Daily Nevi’s—

The report goes on to say—

The report further says—

I want to draw this to the attention of the hon. the Minister and tell him that there must be amongst the stations controlled by his department, throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, a considerable number of buildings which would qualify as national monuments. One of them is very well-known, and that is the railway station at Howick. [Interjections.] In the Durban station we have a prime example of a late Victorian railway shed and in Howick we have a top-class example of a 1904 model corrugated iron station built to the very latest specifications of the Natal Government Railways. After a great deal of prodding from me, the hon. the Minister and his department agreed to carry out renovations to the station, and indeed they have recently carried out the renovation job, something we are very grateful for. However, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister who is dealing with the Bill whether he would not like to take up this matter seriously and consult with his colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Public Works and the hon. the Minister of Transport.

I shall use it for tourism.

Well, that is indeed an idea! One could have a special tour to the Howick Station.

And to the falls.

It so happens that at present there is a steam engine that is run up from Pietermaritzburg to the Howick Station, and I think that if we attack the matter with due seriousness, a great deal of what is well worth preserving would, in fact, be preserved. I certainly hope that is the intention of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, once again we had an interesting discussion on this occasion, and this shows how wide-spread the interest in this matter is. I think we are really privileged to have this type of subject on the agenda every now and again in order to get away a bit from the everyday grind and deal with more exalted matters.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Simonstown for his kind remarks, especially the sentiments he expressed about officials who have been working hard on this specific Bill and on the problem areas we have encountered.

*The hon. member also referred to specific experts in various fields, people who are particularly interested in the salvaging and conservation of objects from ships which are ultimately connected with marine archaeology. One is glad that he mentioned that matter here, and I believe that we have now found the course which we have to adopt in this regard and that in future we will in fact be able to deal with this matter in a specific way. I want to say at once that if the hidden treasures on the sea-bed have already excited so much interest amongst people, there are high hopes that the visible treasures on land will also be treated with greater respect by many people. I do think that we have made a little progress in that direction.

Now I come to the nautical museum the hon. member referred to. I want to assure him that it is a fine idea and that we Transvalers, who often carry off cultural treasures from the south, will try in this case to have it established here in Cape Town. We will not build it by the great waters of the Vaal Dam. This, of course, is a matter with which private individuals can make a start in the meantime. The department may also be interested later on. Then, of course, it becomes a proclaimed institution and then the co-operation between the private institutions and the authorities will be treated on its merit in that way.

The hon. member for Standerton said a few words about the general growing awareness of historical and cultural assets. I am glad that he was able to participate in the debate. Actually I felt a little sorry for him because he really wanted to discuss this matter seriously and with dedication during the Second Reading debate, but anyway, he had an opportunity to do so now. I think the buffalo horns he mentioned is another good example of conservationism as well.

What about the feet?

There is only one thing I am afraid of. Even if we place Erasmus’ name where those feet are, a mischievous person might write on another sign, “Do not curse the weather.” I do not say it will be like that, but still!

I also appreciate his reference to the Simmer and Jack Mines. I had a lot to do with this matter and I also had the honour to officiate at the opening of this tourist attraction. Where they previously dug up gold from the bowels of the earth, in my opinion they now have a golden tourist attraction on its surface.

I undertake to give consideration to the matter of the Gen. Louis Botha’s house. As a house from a period which is of architectural value, I think it is no more than right that it should receive consideration.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North also made a contribution. He referred to State-owned property. I do not want the impression created that State-owned property may not be declared at all. State-owned property is also declared. I think perhaps there should only be better contact between Government departments and some of my colleagues, and I think we should pay attention to this. I also want to tell the hon. member that there are many institutions which make a point of providing route maps and directions to monuments in their immediate vicinity. Perhaps, though, one should get something more comprehensive which can indicate where the monuments throughout the country are situated.

We go to a lot of trouble to make comprehensive maps available.

My hon. colleague says that great pains are taken in this regard to promote tourism. Therefore we can liaise with one another and involve them in this council as well to promote this matter further.

The hon. member for Von Brandis, as the hon. member for Algoa, expressed gratitude to the owners of national monuments. If I am not mistaken—I do not know the property where he lives so well—he himself is maintaining a national monument. He therefore speaks from experience, also as far as the trouble visitors sometimes cause us is concerned. However, the owners put up with this and all of us are very grateful to them for that.

The hon. member for Mooi River once again spoke about stations. We shall arrange that the station at Howick is declared, but then the hon. member should know that he will never get a new station.

It can be built next to that one.

That is what usually happens in such a case. The hon. member will have to arrange this further with the hon. the Minister of Transport.

I conclude. We listened to many pleasant stories with regard to certain monuments. It is said, for example, that with the construction of the Durban station provision was even made for the roof to carry a certain amount of snow. Apparently that is not correct. There are, however, also the pleasant stories which are true. At Pilgrim’s Rest, for example, there is a small corrugated iron church which was transported there for the purpose of holding religious services. Today it is a very cosy bar the people there use. We must, however, ensure that we uphold the right values in this regard.

I have great appreciation for the contributions made and the support I received from hon. members. If each of us return to the areas we represent and promote this matter there with the same enthusiasm, I believe that it will be a great step in the direction of conservation work.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of the Bill is fourfold, namely—

1. (1) to give effect to proposals made by the Archives Commission relating to the destruction of archives that do not warrant permanent preservation and to reduce the period that has to elapse before archives and accessions are made available to the public;
2. (2) to clothe the Director of Archives with new functions, inter alia, the determining of conditions for the microfilming of archives;
3. (3) the elimination of certain ambiguities; and
4. (4) to make provision for further delegation of powers.

Since the first Archives Act came into operation in 1922 the Archives Commission has been entrusted with the task of granting approval for the destruction of archives which do not warrant permanent preservation. Initially this was a relatively uncomplicated task. Early in the ’fifties, however, the picture changed drastically. Thousands of files were involved in an application at that time and, with the approval of the Archives Commission, it became custom for officials of the State Archives to select the files. Analysis reports were compiled, and on the basis of these reports the commission granted the necessary authorization. The Archives Commission is now of the opinion that it no longer wishes to be saddled with this task and that it should be the duty of the Director of Archives and his staff.

The Archives Commission is also of the opinion that the period that must elapse before archives are made accessible to the public must be reduced. At present, archives are made accessible every five years, and the period that has to elapse before access is granted varies between 47 and 52 years. The commission points out that in the majority of Western countries, the closed period is at present 30 years and it is proposed that taking into account the fact that we make archives accessible every five years, the system of making them available after a period of 30 to 35 years be adopted.

Moreover, the amendment Bill vests in the director the new function of determining conditions for the microfilming of archives. The Bureau of Standards, in co-operation with the State Archives and the National Film Board, has drafted specifications with which films designated for permanent preservation must comply. When an office wants to place its archives on microfilm it usually entails the intention of destroying the original archives. Therefore, where the microfilm or microfiche takes the place of the original it must be seen to that the film is manufactured and stored in such a way that for practical purposes it will have a permanent life.

The function of granting approval for the introduction of filing systems in offices falling under the Archives Act was transferred to the State Archives by the Public Service Commission years ago. The State Archives has performed its task in an outstanding fashion and it is deemed desirable that this function be included in the Archives Act. In the past, the private sector has applied to the State Archives for assistance in this regard. The fact that an advisory function is included in the Act will afford status to such advice.

Finally, provision is being made for the fees which the State Archives may impose for certain services to be provided, instead of their being prescribed. Provision is also being made for the further delegation of powers in order to expedite the handling of affairs.

To sum up, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that these amendments will ensure more effective administration of the Archives Act—which is surely something we all strive for.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill because we are of the opinion that it can only contribute towards historical science in South Africa. We have reached the unfortunate position in our school training that to a large extent the history course has virtually disappeared from our syllabus. At this stage it is impossible to say with any certainty who is to be held responsible for this deterioration, but I, who belong to the old guard, can only say that if we go on in this way and eventually do not know what circumstances were like in South Africa in 1955, 1945, 1935 or even in 1925, we will eventually be living in a kind of short-term existence in this country. Up to now the archives have apparently been largely in accessible to present-day historians. For example, if one wants to write about the history of the 20th century and one has to let 50 years pass before one can look at the original documents, then it goes without saying that the end product will only be of importance to a very esoteric circle. What we need, and this applies to schools and the university as well, is teaching of modern, present-day and contemporary history, viz. the events which took place in the life of the oldest person in South Africa, so that we can form a proper and complete image of the period in which we are living. This step which the hon. the Minister has taken in reducing the period of prohibition of access from 50 years to 30 years is in my opinion— and, I believe, in the opinion of all authoratative historians—a very important and effective step in the right direction in giving us a better grounding and a greater interest in history, and encouraging more research into contemporary history. We therefore support this measure, not only because the proposed amendments will greatly improve administration, but also because we are now going to have a more real contact with the past. We take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment Bill before us today is an exceptionally important one. A country without an archives is barely imaginable. A country without an archives is a destitute country because it is essential for the historian, for the economist, for the sociologist, for the student of law and for the scientist. For the student of politics this legislation is just as important as an archives is to any country.

Over the years preservation has become more and more important. It is with pride that we can take cognizance today that the new hon. Minister in this important post is also establishing a national consciousness which will be of increasing importance for our people.

The Government has in this case a bounden duty towards the past, the present and the future. That is why it is essential that there should be thorough administration and that is why it is necessary that there should be a continual renewal of methods adopted in the course of time. However the public, too, has a joint responsibility in regard to preservation. That is why we welcome the statement that archives are to be made accessible after a period of between 30 and 35 years has elapsed. The acceptance of the Second Reading of this legislation entails the elevation of preservation to a profession of the highest rank and this is a specific aim of this legislation. Special rules must be drafted, there must be special conditions, there must be special rooms that are absolutely 100% fire-proof, flood-proof, theft-proof and dustproof. When we consider this legislation today we call to mind the chaotic situation that would develop if every Government department were to preserve articles in a thousand different places in their own fashion.

As a result of this legislation it will now be possible to make use of a computer and this computer will enable us to achieve a greater measure of success in the collection of important data. Revision of the Archives Act necessarily entailed the effecting of certain amendments relating to the administration and the period during which archives are kept. But of particular importance is the milestone achieved this year when a start was made with Narem, viz. the national register of manuscripts. What is now happening here is that the archives service, in co-operation with the South African Library Association, is causing certain collections of manuscripts in the possession of archives depots, libraries, museums and similar institutions in South Africa to be registered at a central point. It is such computer terminals which will be of great importance for the gaining of information and consequently the register is being systematically extended and supplemented.

Researchers are now being placed in the position of having easier access to collections of manuscripts. Data processing, too, takes place at such a computer terminal. It is of importance to know that information concerning 1 million files has been available on demand already. Can hon. members grasp what 1 million files mean and what a tremendous task it must have been to collect that information? Over the year terminals have also been installed in the reading rooms of archives depots in Cape Town, Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg. Formerly this was only available in Pretoria. By introducing this new computer service, data can be obtained country-wide. In South West Africa, too, which is on the point of becoming independent, it has been seen to that the necessary information is made available at various points. Arrangements have been made for the archivist of South West to come to Pretoria to be trained. I can also refer to the Department of Plural Relations and Development which carried out an investigation into the requirements in regard to the instalment of an autonomous archives service for the Venda Government after independence. In the same way the department concerned furnished assistance to the archives services of Bophuthatswana and other Black Governments. What is of importance here, particularly for the farmers and others in agriculture, is that the Maize Industry Control Board was the first statutory body which applied in terms of the Archives Act to be declared a State office for the purposes of the Act. It is matters of this nature that are of importance to us, too, because in the process, methods and codes of operation for the processing of maize and many other important details come to light.

In Pretoria the question of accommodation remains an important matter, however—a matter to which the Government will have to give attention. It appears that accommodation for archives material is a critical problem. In this regard I refer to page 25 of the latest annual report on Archives—

I know that when the necessary money is made available, this matter will be given the necessary attention and that all the centres in question will eventually acquire suitable accommodation for their archives material.

To me, the care with which a nation preserves the monuments of its past—as we have seen it embodied in the previous piece of legislation as well—is the measure of the degree of civilization attained by the nation in question. That is why this legislation is so important. To me the archives of a nation are its unique treasure. The archives of a nation constitute its most precious treasure. The archives of a nation are its greatest monument. The archives of a nation constitute the most wonderful memory a nation can possess. That is why public documents ought to be accessible to researchers. However, there must also be proper archives management. There must also be suitable buildings, as I have just said, buildings in which these important treasures can be preserved.

South Africa is a far younger country than most others. Fortunately we have been able to avoid the mistakes made by old European and other countries and we can learn what is best for us. Until 1919 every province preserved its archives documents on its own. In that year the administration was centralized and a chief archivist was appointed for the country. As the hon. the Minister also mentioned, it was provided in 1922 that the archives be centralized in the capital city of a specific province. By means of that centralization a strong national consciousness developed, and students and other interested parties began to collect national documents and carry out an increasing volume of research. That, too, is why we are grateful to have been able to go to Pretoria as a study group on National Education. Our company consisted of hon. members of the NP, the NRP and the SAP, and we also visited the Archives in Pretoria.

It is just a pity that no hon. members of the PFP accompanied us. If they had been there could also have been very interesting information emanating from the computer. It could of course also have occurred that the computer would eventually have intimated that it was so confused by the PFP’s policy that it really did not know where it was. Consequently it is perhaps as well that hon. members of the PFP rather stayed at home.

Buildings play an important role in the care, preservation and arrangement of documents. In the majority of countries, the national archives are accommodated in buildings specially equipped for that purpose. The use of old historic buildings is interesting. For example, in Brussels, an elegant building from the 13th century is equipped with floors of iron and stone and galleries and shelves of metal in order eventually to serve as an archives.

Separate buildings are used for administrative purposes and for security reasons the documents are preserved in other buildings. There are certain buildings in which the use of electrical power is prohibited because it apparently damages those documents. Those buildings are dependent on natural light.

Then, too, there is the question I have investigated—and the hon. the Minister must please state whether this is correct—of it being said that steel shelves are not as efficient as wooden shelves. If a fire were to break out, the wooden shelves would bum. The top books would then fall onto the bottom ones and in this way at least certain books would then be preserved for posterity.

When steel shelves are used, all those books are automatically burnt to cinders. This is what one study of the subject has to say about that. I do not know what the case is in South Africa. In this study the question of restoring of volumes and the destruction of book insects is also dealt with. All these are matters of relevance in this regard.

Today the computer is a fait accompli. It would have taken technical staff 10 years to eliminate the backlog if this computer had not been in use. The index cards of the inventory have become out of date. The annual increase is at present 4 000 linear metres. In 1971 there were eight different archives. Even then the distance was 51 km and it appears that at present the distance is 99 km. That is the distance which a member of the official Opposition has to travel during a by-election to recruit one vote in a rural constituency. [Interjections.] Eventually millions of cards would have been necessary to keep up this process. That is why it is as well that the computer is now being introduced. Its introduction will enable the archivist to spend more time on purely technical work. Now he need only handle a file once before being able to carry on with other matters. The recording of data is carried out by means of 50 million characters per annum. This is the number of characters the hon. Opposition requires to put one question to an hon. Minister. Hon. members can think for themselves what major problems this entails. Therefore the computer may be regarded as a developed discovery. It facilitates research in regard to specific sources. It can also be projected onto a display screen in the reading room.

I wish to refer hon. members in this regard to applications for files that have already been dealt with in the records control section. A total of 842 500 files have already been disposed of. Therefore action can now be taken and more effective archives may be kept at all three levels of government. Only archives material that qualifies for permanent preservation is now assured of a depot. Since 1960, a total of 353 422 linear metres of archival material has been destroyed. This comprises a distance of 353 km. The data processing forms completed already reach a total of 204 526 linear metres. These are merely a few figures I want to mention to hon. members.

However, today I wish to dwell on another matter. I do not wish to dwell on these figures and on the hon. Opposition. I also want to point out to the House that the destruction of valueless documents must be handled with the greatest circumspection. Documents are often destroyed when they ought still to be preserved. That is why in overseas countries copies are first made of those documents before they are destroyed. They are preserved so that they can always be referred to. It also happens in this regard that a committee is sometimes unable to take a unanimous decision as to which documents must be destroyed. At least the hon. the Minister now has the right to decide on the matter in consultation with the archivist. The archivist now also has the right in this regard to decide for himself.

In England a schedule is tabled for four weeks to explain to both Houses which documents are to be retained and which destroyed. In a number of countries ministerial or departmental documents are not readily destroyed. In Holland, for example, Royal permission must be obtained before certain documents may be destroyed. In Vienna each ministry has its own State archives and in the provinces the director of State archives corresponds directly with the Ministers. The question of co-ordination is therefore one that is everywhere at issue.

As far as the training of staff is concerned, it is interesting to see how these people are trained, and what their knowledge of library and archives management must be. In certain countries they have to have a thorough knowledge of English, Dutch, Italian and Spanish. The study of subjects such as French, Latin and history are special requirements set to those staff. In this regard they also have to study courses in civil law and ecclesiastical law. Hon. members probably realize why this is so important.

Looking at our history one sees that it is the Orange Free State that has been supported by the State in this regard since 1872 as to the preservation of archives. The first book on the Free State Republic was published as long ago as 1876. It is only later that efforts by the Public Service to write history, came to light in the Transvaal. In the history of the South African Republic it is of great importance that it was former President M. W. Pretorius himself who, at the age of 77, was entrusted with writing the history of the public service of this Republic. He was appointed at a salary of £300 per annum plus travelling expenses. At that time he was already 77 years old. What is interesting about this is that at that date there were only 78 living Voortrekkers. Can hon. members imagine, if there were 78 supporters of the PFP throughout the country, how those hon. members would have to travel around to get to those people. They would not have time to come and sit in this House because they would have to keep travelling in order to get hold of those 78 Progs.

Order! What clause is the hon. member discussing at the moment?

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the clause which provides for incidental matters. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

He then got other people to go and visit those 78 people. They received expense forms according to which they could claim their travelling expenses, but the Republic was not satisfied with that and he was eventually discharged. That was only one of the problems he encountered. The Government expected of him to visit these people by carriage or coach and he did not see his way clear to going to visit those 78 living Voortrekkers. In 1895 a certain Mr. Ode was discharged as State historian because he had been guilty of slander, sowing suspicion and abuse of alcoholic liquor. All these things happened.

As far as the present staff situation is concerned, there are 157 posts—78 technical posts and 79 administrative posts—including technical and clerical activities. In this regard I want to refer in particular to the role of women in the archives service, because in my opinion this is an important aspect. In the 15 years up to 1976, 111 women were appointed as archivists as against 73 men. What this amounts to is that for every four men in the archives service there were seven women. Over the past five years the female staff has varied by 79% and the male staff by 70%. But 50% of the female staff consists of married women. Conditions of service and opportunities for promotion must also be made more attractive for the women. At present, 60% of the staff of the archives consists of women, and it is said that if the present state of affairs continues, 80% of the staff will consist of women in 10 years time.

I now wish to discuss another matter, viz. that the State archivist must move in a wider sphere with his expertise. I want to make a plea for business and industrial enterprises also to be made aware of the importance of archives. There have been ministers sitting in this House such as the late Messrs. J. W. Jagger and Stuttaford, who possessed major commercial businesses, and one wonders what has become of the archival documents and important documents of these major family businesses.

There are specific enterprises that are playing an important role in the economic revival of South Africa, causing South Africa to become a prominent industrial country. If a company is proud of its past, then there is a bounden obligation on that company, and it owes it to posterity, to establish its own archives. The collection and preservation of these records must not only take place in libraries but must become an integral part of the modern community and must be made accessible to the public by private companies. International companies, such as Ford, Firestone, Coca Cola and IBM already have their own archives with historians, archivists and businessmen attached to them.

In this regard I want to refer to the Business Archives Council established in Great Britain in 1934 with the express aim “to preserve business records, offer guidance on their management and to encourage interest in business history”.

How many valuable documents are not being lost at present? How many valuable documents are not being lost in Rhodesia? Rhodesia borders on South Africa, and at present there is a crisis in Rhodesia. There are many mining companies in Rhodesia which form part of the history of Rhodesia. It is important that the archival documents of these mining companies be preserved. There have been mining companies in Johannesburg which even at one stage, played a role beyond the borders of South Africa. They are in possession of important data which must be preserved.

There were the founders of Comer House, for example, H. Ekstein and Company, and the Argus Publishing Company, each of which, in its own way, played a major role. The latter established a newspaper, The Star, in Johannesburg. Certain mining companies with interests in Comer House in Johannesburg also financed certain tramways in Mexico. They even had financial interests in St. Petersburg in Russia. The exploitation of oil in Trinidad was assisted by mining companies which were in fact founded in Johannesburg. The cotton plantations in Egypt and the Sudan were laid by mining companies founded in Johannesburg. Hon. members can see what the rest of the world owes to South Africa. We assisted countries beyond our borders to get where they are now, and now they are attacking us. In this regard I want to refer to another matter which is of the greatest importance to me. In front of the parliamentary building stands a statue of Queen Victoria. It is quite clear that this statue has a link with Queen Victoria Street. The name Queen Victoria Street clearly refers to Queen Victoria of Britain. Perhaps it would be easy to remove the statue of Queen Victoria from in front of the parliamentary building and re-erect it in Queen Victoria Street. However, how can one take the statue of Paul Kruger on Church Square in Pretoria to Cape Town? This is a special matter to which attention may be given. In Queen Victoria Street one finds the Huguenot Memorial Building which was erected in 1903. It is the property of the Dutch Reformed Church. At present the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is accommodated there. However, there was an inscription on that building which someone has removed. No-one knows what happened there, but now every effort is being made to have that inscription inscribed on that building once again. The church has been asked whether it would grant its permission for that inscription to be re-inscribed on that cornerstone. As I said, that is how Queen Victoria can again be linked with President Paul Kruger in spirit, because the inscription that has been removed and which will now be re-inscribed on that cornerstone will read as follows—

If the archives can assist us in finding out why that inscription was changed, why it was omitted, then those two people, who were politically apart from one another, will again be together in spirit when the copper plate is attached to the cornerstone of the Huguenot Memorial Hall. This proves that history and historical research are among the most interesting things under the sun.

One need only look at the role which South Africans and the Dorsland trekkers played in South Angola, for example. There are matters lying concealed in Luanda, but certain photostatic copies are preserved in our museums and archives. Consequently we are grateful for the legislation before us today. We are very grateful that the hon. the Minister has introduced this absolutely essential legislation so that the past may live again and we can feel that what South Africa possesses, forms part of our heritage. It is our most precious treasure, our past, our present and our future and we are very proud of it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat took us on a very wide-ranging discussion of archives. I must say that I appreciated very much the way in which he did it. I thought it was a very interesting speech. He did, however, refer in passing, with a flight of prophetic fancy, to the fact that after the next election there would be only 78 supporters of the Opposition in the country. We can, of course, accept that remark in the spirit in which he made it.

What the hon. member was, in fact, saying was that technology succeeds technology, and in this Bill steps are being taken to rationalize a situation that has arisen as a result of the entire archives system being flooded to overflowing with documents, bits of paper. One of the typifying characteristics of our present governmental institution is the flood of paper that emanates from it year after year after year. As a result the archive system is now being forced to resort to computer and microfilm technology to be able to preserve, within a reasonable amount of space, at least some of the information on the stream of paper that emanates from the governmental system. We welcome this and regard it as a very up-to-date way of handling things. We are very glad indeed, as the hon. member mentioned, that it is possible, by means of computer technology, to link up certain areas and to make information from the archives available to various centres throughout the country. There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that there has to be a great deal of destruction of paper that has come from Government departments and has gone to the archives as a matter of course. Those documents have to be weeded out and discarded or destroyed simply because there cannot possibly be enough room in which to store all this information.

One of the things that worries me a little bit in regard to the destruction of records of this nature has to do with the fact that throughout the country all kinds of historical societies, local organizations of people interested in the history of their own particular areas, are springing up almost overnight. I am sure that every hon. member here has documents in his possession relating to his work as a member of Parliament, documents which he sends off to a place where they are stored, used for research or something like that and which would be of considerable interest to, for instance, a local farmers’ association or the local borough in time to come when people start going into the history of their organization, borough or whatever it might happen to be. Not being up on the technology involved, I do not know how it could be done, but if records are to be destroyed, I think it would be desirable if somehow they could be scanned beforehand in order to establish whether there might not be local bodies which would be interested in those documents. It seems to me that this is something that could fruitfully be undertaken for the benefit of the growing movement throughout the country of local historical societies and local movements of preservation.

Then I come to the question of the opening up of archives on a 30-year basis for research purposes. When the archives are opened in 1980, there will still be members in the House whose period of political life will stretch back to the records that will then become available. I think this will apply to at least two to three members. However, they would have been junior members at the time and would therefore not figure prominently in the documents of the archives made available for research to students of history. I think it is a very good thing indeed to bring the period of research closer to modern times because we live in a time when history is accelerating. I suppose that to people who lived in other ages it must have seemed that time was accelerating and catching up with them, but there can hardly ever have been a period in which history seemed to be changing as rapidly as it is at present.

Anybody who has been a student of history will have studied the rise and fall of empires, people rising to tremendous power and people suddenly being destroyed, but there can hardly ever have been a time in history like the present time in which changes are so much the essence and the fabric of our everyday lives. It is the task of the historian to try to explain to the present generation what conditions governed past generations making them take the decisions they did take. He must do so for the purpose of attempting to look at the present problems we have to face and of trying to learn from the lessons of the past or the failures of the past. For that reason, I think that the nearer to the present-day the archive material made available to researchers can be brought, the better it will be.

However, there must obviously be a period within which documents in the archives cannot be made available. One cannot make available documents relating to yesterday, last year or the year before because of the tender feelings that are at stake and the fact that it concerns the immediate history. I nevertheless think that the idea of reducing the period is a very good one and I hope that people who are active in research in this country are going to take advantage of this and that we will see a large number of publications and documents resulting from research done on material up to the year 1950. We are going to have to learn very fast indeed if we are to survive in the current situation in which we find ourselves. In the period from the beginning of the Second World War up to 1950 a lot of decisions were taken that have patterned the whole system under which we are living today. The motives of people, the ideals on which they based their motives and all that kind of thing are of immense and even vital importance to us at a time like this when things are changing so rapidly. We therefore welcome the Bill and will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River is a member with a special love and appreciation of history. That is how we have learnt to know him in this House and I think that the hon. member has made an exceptionally significant contribution to the debate on this Bill. I am sorry that the hon. member for Durban Central was not able to be present today due to circumstances. He, too, is a member who has been concerned with archival activities for a long time and one is grateful for the work he has done in this connection.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that this Bill had a fourfold task. Among other things, it must give effect to the proposals of the Archives Commission with regard to the destruction of archives which do not warrant permanent preservation. The hon. members for Mooi River and Rosettenville referred to that I must say that the hon. member for Rosettenville made a very interesting speech, a speech that was far more interesting than the trip to Matjiesfontein. The hon. member stopped at various stations and told us about many interesting parts.

I want to advance certain arguments concerning the first aspect of this Bill, namely the provision that the function of granting approval is now being taken away from the commission and is becoming the full responsibility of the director and his staff. When the original Act was introduced there was a sound and practical reason why it was essential that the commission had to perform this function. However, the fact that this responsibility has been taken away from the commission at its own request casts no reflection on the work which the commission has done over the years. On the contrary, I think that the fact that they are able to transfer this responsibility to the director and his staff today attests to the good work they have done thus far. I think this House must express its appreciation for the work done by the commission in this connection. It is also a feather in the cap of the director and his staff that the members of the commission felt that they were fully capable of carrying the responsibility of doing this work.

I want to refer to the problem to which the hon. member for Rosettenville referred. As far as archives are concerned, one must not distinguish between “valueless” and “valuable” archives, but rather between archival documents which do not warrant permanent preservation and archives with sufficient value to be preserved permanently in an archive. The concept “valueless” must not therefore be used because there are really no archival documents which are totally valueless. Every document is the bearer of an attestation, a fact, transaction or facts about an event. In archival terminology the word “ephemeral” is used, a word with a specific meaning which also applies here. Therefore, in the process of selection the distinction drawn is between what is important enough and what is not important enough. These cases require sound judgment and solid, logical and scientific norms. It is not easy to lay down norms. There are certain guidelines which have to be followed in the selection of archival documents. They are based on the sound judgment of the person entrusted with the selection. However, there are other factors that he also has to bear in mind. The first is that archives have differing values. There are direct values relating to the body that created it. There are also administrative and accounting values, and such a document is also valuable as regards the protection of property and other rights of the body concerned or the individual.

There are also documents with indirect value. Such documents usually relate to customs or have functional value for the purposes of documentation. In this regard I have in mind for example policy documents, organizational documents, procedural instructions, reports, administrative documents, domestic documents and information documents. Then too there are archives that are essential for research into the human sciences. Then there are administrative documents, statistical documents and scientific documents of importance to natural science. In the selection of archives, the archivist must also bear certain things in mind. The place of the office in question in the organization of which it forms a part, and the possible duplication of specific information, are two examples of this. I agree with the other members who have spoken that one must not be quick to destroy. I think that within the archives, science has developed to such an extent that the staff that have been working with this for years, people with a sound training and sound experience, will be able to make a very responsible choice between what must be preserved and what must not be preserved. It is therefore clear that selection work has many different facets and raises innumerable problems, each of which has to be solved on its own merits. I just want to bring this specific matter to the attention of the House because I am convinced that our officials and all other persons dealing with archival documents, including those working in our archives, are really responsible and scientifically trained staff. We need therefore have no hesitation in entrusting this task to them with the greatest confidence.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the Second Reading debate on this Bill I too am grateful for the support I have had from the Opposition parties. This is an interesting subject and, as the hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out, we could discuss it at length.

In the first place I refer to what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said, particularly in regard to contemporary history, since we are now reducing the period of prohibition of access to approximately 30 years. This is important because contemporary history is of growing importance today. Formerly the idea was that one had to be far removed from the event before one could assess, analyse and record them properly. There are different ideas in this regard nowadays, viz, that if one can describe the recent events it will be of great assistance for later historians. I thank him for that idea and I agree with him that we have an important new development in this regard.

The hon. member for Rosettenville has shown us that even though we speak about archives they are not a musty, dry or uninteresting subject. He made a very interesting speech about the matter with the necessary elucidation of historic events. The computer and the national register that goes with it to which the hon. member referred is an exceptional development. It is of importance that points should be established in the other archives depots where this computer may be used. In regard to the accommodation problem and also the problem to which the hon. member for Rissik referred we must admit that space has in fact become a problem. It is calculated that from 1652, when the Political Council which was in fact the governing body at the Cape after Jan van Riebeeck landed—until 1795 when the first British take-over of the Cape occurred, there is approximately 100 metres of archival material. About two years ago it was calculated that in the A court of the magistrate’s court of Johannesburg alone, approximately 150 metres of archival documents per annum were collected. Therefore hon. members can understand what a mass of material has to be looked after. It is therefore necessary to practise selection to determine which archival documents are worth preserving and which should rather be destroyed. I also just want to give the assurance that as far as destruction is concerned, South Africa is still to some extent on the conservative side. In Great Britain it is calculated that only 1½% to 2% of archival documents are preserved. In the USA it is from 3% to 5%. In a recent article in the Dutch Argievenblad it is maintained that in Russia, between 8% and 12% of the archival documents are preserved. In South Africa the percentage varies between 15% and 25%. We are therefore reasonably conservative and we need not have unnecessary fears that archival documents will readily be destroyed.

Then, too, there is the important matter to which the hon. member for Rissik referred, viz. the guidelines laid down for selection. There are in fact two important guidelines, apart from others to which I shall refer. The first is the functional value, viz. the value archives have for the continuation of administration. Then there is the research value, viz. the value of archives for research with regard to all disciplines. These two norms are usually very well applied.

Without going into all the other matters to which the hon. member for Rosettenville referred I think that I have replied to him in full with regard to that important matter. I am of course gratified that career possibilities are now being created in the archives for women as well. The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to the fact that business enterprises must be made aware of archival documents and how they are to be preserved. I think that is exactly what we are doing by way of the provision in clause 2 of the Bill, viz. by the insertion in section 3(2) of the principal Act of paragraph (c). We could hardly preserve all the comprehensive annals of large business enterprises in the depots for archival documents. Many of the big enterprises—I do not wish to name names, but they include banking organizations and all the well-known insurance companies in South Africa—have visited the archives to obtain information and advice. They are also given information on how to preserve, look after and file archival documents. They then do the necessary work in this regard. I therefore believe that as the hon. member has requested, this is also an important step in this direction. We have made specific provision for this in the clause to which I have just referred.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made mention of the changed inscription in regard to President Kruger. He asks that the archives should attempt to determine why the inscription was changed. I think that is perhaps a good task for the hon. member himself. If he himself could do research into the matter he could occupy himself in an interesting way. It seems as if he too has a special interest in and feeling for this matter. I therefore believe that we can look forward with interest to the day when that hon. member comes up with that specific answer.

†I now want to refer to the hon. member for Mooi River. He stated that we were being flooded by documents, that we were actually waging a paper war. That is very, very true. The hon. member also said technology should be employed to find ways and means of saving archive material for generations to come. The hon. member also said we should bring history nearer to our times. He said he was in favour of the shortening of this period of time from 50 to 30 years. What he has referred to is very true. I think it was Alvin Toffler the American futurist, who in his book Future Shock refers to this same matter. I may be out with the figures I use, but it gives us some indication. He says if we take the last 50 000 years in our existence and divide that into life-spans of about 62 years each, one gets approximately—not exactly— 800 life-spans. Of these 800, 650 were still spent in caves. If we take the last 25 or more life-spans—I may not be exactly correct with my figures—we come to the time when communities could first communicate, because the art of writing was invented. After another nine, ten or eleven life-spans the art of printing was invented and books contributed to a better communication. Only during the last four life-spans could man ascertain time very accurately. Only during the last two life-spans did anyone anywhere in the world see a motor-car. This, the 800th life-span, is the time in which we invented most of the articles which we use today and which make our lives pleasant. That illustrates to us the pace in which development has taken place. It is a good thing that we do get nearer to history, because we are also making history and we should know what happened yesterday and the day before yesterday.

I am delighted with the support of the hon. member in this matter.

*I think I have already referred to what the hon. member for Rissik said in regard to selection and so on. I should also like to associate myself with what he said about the exceptional progress made with this work, with the result that much of the selection work can now be passed on to the director and his staff. I wish to join the hon. member in thanking all the staff in the archives for the exceptionally scientific and dedicated work they are doing.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Presently, an order of the Supreme Court that the death of a person is presumed, merely has the effect that the missing person’s estate may be dealt with. If, in the case of an inquest where the body of the person concerned was allegedly destroyed or where no body was found, the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that death has in fact occurred, the magistrate concerned must, inter alia, make a finding regarding the identity of the deceased and the cause and time of death. Once such finding is confirmed by the Supreme Court, it has the same effect as an order that the death of the person concerned is presumed. In the case of an inquest the death is also registered, something which does not occur in case of an ordinary order relating to a presumption of death.

Under existing law a person who believes that his missing spouse is dead, must decide for himself whether he may again enter into marriage. If his belief is bona fide, he can not be successfully prosecuted for bigamy if the missing spouse is in fact still alive. The second marriage will be valid, but if the missing person should turn up at a later stage, the second marriage will automatically become void and the first one will revive. The first marriage can be dissolved on the ground of adultery.

*Under existing law, it is doubtful whether such a second marriage could ever be entered into in a case where the death of the missing person has not been registered, since the official indications would be that the remaining spouse is still married. If it were possible, however, the S.A. Law Commission, which examined the matter during its inquiry into divorce law, believes that it is not fair to leave it to the remaining spouse to marry again at the risk of invalidity. Divorce is also inappropriate. Provision ought to be made for the dissolution of the marriage by a court order. This ought to be done only at the application of the remaining spouse, except where an inquest has been held and the death is then presumed through legal action. In the latter event, death is proved with such a measure of certainty that official recognition is given to it by way of registration of the death. In such a case, the normal consequences of death, including the dissolution of the marriage, should follow automatically.

The Bill is intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill, because it affords a large measure of certainty in law where there used to be uncertainty, especially with regard to the important question of status. That uncertainty is now being removed and replaced by certainty without creating the possibility, humanly speaking, that injustice may be done, and without any need for drawn-out and expensive litigation. As soon as the date of the death and the identity of such a person has been established by way of a court order, there is nothing to prevent a second marriage, and it puts an end to all the uncertainty which existed in this connection. Therefore we gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to support this Bill. The purpose of this Bill, as already explained by the hon. the Minister, is the dissolution of marriages of people presumed to be dead. In order to give some background information I should like to refer to the book Bewysreg by one Schmidt. In it, the author examines the question of the presumption of death, and on page 128 he explains the position as follows—

For this reason it is also customary to require security from heirs so that a restitution may take place if it should subsequently appear that such a person is still living. When applications have been made in the past for the spouse to be enabled to marry again, our courts have required “a very high degree of probability”. The reason for this—and here it differs from the case of a division of estate, where security can be given—is that no provision can be made for the position to be easily rectified if the missing spouse should prove to have been alive. This is also the principle which was laid down in the ruling in Ex parte Melcher, 1948(4) of the South African law reports, from page 397 onwards. In this connection I want to agree with the writer Thomas Mann—

Clause 1 of this Bill now provides that during or after the making of such an order of death, a spouse may apply for an order that the marriage shall be deemed to have been dissolved “whereupon that marriage shall for all purposes be deemed to have been dissolved by death”. This will bring about a larger measure of certainty in law, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North rightly remarked. Therefore I gladly support the Bill in that respect.

The mere fact that someone has disappeared is not sufficient reason, in my opinion, for such a presumption of death to be expressed. Circumstantial evidence indicating that someone was in a dangerous situation or that he wanted to commit suicide is taken into account. The mere fact that a person has been missing for a long time is not decisive. There have even been cases in our administration of justice where a person has been missing for 34 years, for example, and a presumption of death has not been upheld by the court. There was another case where nothing was heard from a person for 32 years, and such an application was also turned down. In order to promote legal certainty in law, and also to render some assistance to the remaining spouse over such a long period, I should like to suggest that this is good legislation. There are also provisions contained in other legislation under which this type of problem has arisen in the past. In section 25 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, Act No. 25 of 1965, it is provided that when application is made for the death of a soldier to be presumed, an official report can be submitted by any person as proof of the facts contained therein, provided that it is accompanied by an affidavit of the Secretary for Defence in which he certifies, inter alia, that he has received the report through the normal official channels and that the person to whom the case relates has been declared “missing” by the military authority concerned. In this connection, a rule nisi is sometimes made by the court after a prima facie case has been made out.

As the hon. the Minister has already indicated, clause 2 of the Bill deals mainly with the effect of findings of death at an inquest in terms of the provisions of the Inquests Act, Act No. 58 of 1959. Section 16 of this Act provides that—

has to record certain findings which are set out in section 16(2). These include findings concerning the identity of the deceased, the cause or probable cause of death, the date of death, and whether there was an act or omission which caused the death. Clause 2 of the Bill refers to section 18 of the Inquests Act, which provides that in the case where a finding is recorded by a magistrate, it can be confirmed on review. In terms of the provisions of clause 2 of the Bill, therefore, marriages are deemed to have been dissolved after such confirmation on review. Therefore I gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches also support this Bill with acclaim. The only question which arises is why it has taken so long for this Bill to be introduced. The situation as it currently obtains in South African law, is highly unsatisfactory. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the current situation is a lot worse than in ancient law. Under ancient law a wife whose husband went abroad and was not heard of for a certain number of years—in the case of the Netherlands the period was five years—could apply to court for leave to remarry. If her first husband subsequently returned, the first marriage was revived, but if the first husband did not wish to resume the marital relationship, he could apply to court for a decree dissolving the marriage, and then the second marriage would hold good. I think these rules are obsolete in modern law. In appropriate circumstances the court will grant a wife an order presuming her husband’s death. But this, as the hon. the Minister said, is only done for the purpose of allowing the husband’s estate to be distributed. If a wife in these circumstances wishes to remarry, and she is convinced that her vanished husband is dead, she may do so. But if it subsequently turns out that her first husband was still alive, the second marriage will be invalid. The first husband might only have been alive for a short period of time and then have died. Nevertheless, if he was alive at the time of her second marriage, then her second marriage would be invalid in terms of current law.

This, of course, brings to mind the question of what happens in the case of the children of such a marriage. They would automatically become illegitimate. I think that is a dreadful state of affairs, and so I am delighted that the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill because these provisions do rectify the position. In the circumstances I have outlined in connection with the invalid marriage, it is unlikely that she would be prosecuted for bigamy if she could prove that her belief that her first husband was dead was a reasonable one, but she could nevertheless be divorced for adultery on the grounds that she had married again when her first husband was still alive. I think, however, that the Bill before us clarifies the position very well indeed and brings about a vast improvement by allowing the court, on application from the missing spouse’s spouse, to make an order that the marriage between the parties “shall be deemed to have been dissolved by death as from a date determined by the court.” After such an order has been made, the second spouse would be free to remarry and the second marriage would remain valid, notwithstanding the fact that the spouse presumed to be dead was, in fact, alive on the date of the court order.

A spicy bit of goods, eh?

Clause 2 is also very important, but I do not think it has quite the same importance as the first one. This clause relates to inquests and the findings, of the magistrate holding the inquest, as to the identity of the deceased and the date of death. Provided various other factors also apply, “the marriage in question shall for all purposes to be deemed to have been dissolved by death as from the date of death” laid down in the finding of the said magistrate. This is also a good clause, and we in these benches consequently have great pleasure in supporting this piece of legislation and, in fact, in congratulating the hon. the Minister’s department on having brought it to the attention of this House.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of this legislation has been dealt with at some length, but I just want to mention that it actually makes possible the dissolution of a marriage when a presumption of death is expressed. The hon. member for East London North referred to the position under the old legal systems and also pointed out that the effect was actually that when a man returned to his wife after she had remarried the second marriage was regarded as null and void unless that man applied for a divorce, in which case the second marriage continued.

In our administration of justice, there is the interesting case of Zeelie v. Zeelie, 1944 C.P.D., where Mr. Justice Fagan went into this aspect very thoroughly. He quotes, among other things, an interesting example from the Utrechtse Consultatien 3.13. The case relates to a soldier who was captured. After all kinds of adventures he received false information which brought him under the impression that his wife had died. He remarried and only subsequently learned that she was in fact still living. At that stage the court martial of Brabant consulted the juridical faculty of the Academy of Utrecht, which gave the following ruling: Firstly, that the man was guilty of bigamy, but because it had not been intentional, he should receive a light penalty; secondly, that the marriage was null and void; thirdly, that continued cohabitation with the second wife would constitute adultery; fourthly, that he should give up the second wife and take back the first wife; and, fifthly, that if she refused, he would be entitled to a divorce order on the basis of malicious desertion.

In his book Die Suid-Afrikaanse Persone- en Familiereg, Dr. P. J. J. Olivier refers on page 40 to the uncertainty which exists about the position in our law, with specific reference to the position of the remaining spouse upon the expression of the presumption of death. He confirms that this does not automatically end the marriage. He also refers to article 90 of the Echt Rule of 18 March 1656, which applied in Flanders and Brabant at that stage, and he examines the question of whether it still forms part of our law. Upon examining the position, he saw that there had been several applications on the basis of article 90 for an order of dissolution of a marriage on the grounds of a presumption of death, but that those applications had been consistently refused. I think we can accept that article 90 no longer forms part of our law.

As the hon. the Minister indicated, the only course for the wife at the moment is simply to marry again. If it then becomes known that her husband is in fact still living, the position is the following: Firstly, the second marriage is null and void; secondly, although the second marriage is bigamous, she will not be prosecuted because her bona fides can be proved if she was in fact under the impression that her husband was dead; thirdly, the returning husband will be able to start a divorce action on the basis of the adultery of his wife with the so-called second husband; and fourthly—here I want to disagree with the hon. member for East London North—the position of the children born out of the marriage will be that they will in fact be legitimate because it was a putative marriage, but if any further children are begotten and born after the facts have become known, those children will be illegitimate. Only the children born before that moment will be legitimate in terms of our law.

To summarize, the position is that if and while the husband is away, the only grounds for dissolution of the marriage are malicious desertion, which in turn can only be proved if the circumstances are such that there is no reason for presuming the missing spouse to be dead. If death is presumed, therefore, there is no way at the moment in which the marriage can be dissolved. P. J. J. Olivier says on page 42 of the quoted work—

The Bill which is before the House today gives effect to this request.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for Johannesburg North and East London North for the support they gave to this Bill on behalf of their parties. This Bill deals with a legal aspect which does not come before the courts every day. One understands that it is concerned with cases which are fairly rare. However, when they do occur, they can have very serious legal consequences, not only for the wife, but for the children as well, as was indicated by the hon. members for Roodepoort and Randburg, who made a very good study of the subject. Some of the children may be legitimate, while the children born after a certain point may be illegitimate. This state of affairs cannot continue, of course, and the Bill succeeds in bringing absolute certainty into our legal system in respect of this matter. I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members for their contribution.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the S.A. Law Commission has been engaged for some time in revising the pre-Union statute laws which still exist. Many of the laws have already been repealed by revision Acts. The Commission has now come to the conclusion that only the laws mentioned in the schedule to this Bill should be retained in their entirety or in part.

The Law Commission furthermore came to the conclusion that the mere repeal of the remaining obsolete provisions would not achieve the certainty in law envisaged by the whole project. Formerly, laws were repealed without clearly identifying them, and laws were even amended without specifically mentioning the law which was being amended. In other cases, laws were passed while earlier legislation which was being replaced by them was not expressly repealed. Because of these and other factors, anyone who wants to ascertain whether or not certain laws still exist is faced with an arduous task. The commission has now done all the necessary research. To make it unnecessary for anyone engaged in the administration of justice to undertake similar research in the future, it is proposed through this measure to give effect to the findings of the Law Commission and to provide by law that only the measures specifically mentioned still exist, and that all others are repealed.

Mr. Speaker, I think I speak on behalf of all legal practitioners in South Africa when I say that this Bill will be received with great joy, because in the past, as the hon. the Minister has just explained, when a court case of some nature could perhaps be influenced by a legal provision enacted before 1910, the poor legal practitioner who had to do the research had to go through all the books and make lengthy comparisons between existing principles and principles which perhaps no longer existed, etc. This whole enormous task has now been eliminated as a result of the labours of the Law Commission. We are very grateful to the commission and to the hon. the Minister and his department for the fact that we have now come to the stage where we have a list of the only measures which still exist and are still valid, a list which also indicates since what date they have been valid. This is a very important advance. Of course, one will have to accept that the Law Commission has done its work properly and that nothing has been thrown overboard which should actually be retained. We may take it that anything which is controversial or which people might want to retain, such as the question of the observance of the Lord’s day, is being retained in the schedule. Therefore we are running no risk of abolishing or repealing measures which can in fact still be of value to us. We gladly support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I speak on this Pre-Union Statute Laws Revision Bill. On the one hand, we are now repealing legislation which was important to our forebears. That was why that legislation was placed on the Statute Book, after all. To repeal it now makes one feel a little sad. But time does not stand still, and these measures already belong to the distant past. Because they have become obsolete and are no longer applicable to modern times, they have to be relegated to oblivion, like all other things which have become obsolete.

On the other hand, this Bill testifies to the fact that our legal system is not rigid, but is continuously developing and being adapted to the demands of modern times. Surely this is an aspect of the development and progress of civilization. As a civilized nation, we prefer development and progress to a stagnation and retrogression of civilization.

Because the statutory provisions which are now being repealed were valid and came into operation in the period before Union, they already belong to the distant past.

We are a young nation in comparison with other nations of the world, and for that reason the legislation referred to in the schedule, such as the legislation which was in force in Griqualand West since 1871, at the Cape of Good Hope since 1838, in Natal since 1878, in the Orange Free State since 1894 and in the Transvaal since 1869, is actually very old to us.

It is also with a measure of sadness and compassion that one contemplates legislation of this nature, because it gives an impression of the needs and requirements of our nation in the process of its development. Turning the yellowed pages of this legislation, one gains new respect for our colonies and former republics of the previous century who consciously or unconsciously realized that the founding function of the State lies in justice. We are grateful for the fact that the hon. the Minister has already made it clear that he will honour an undertaking given to the provincial administrations. This relates to certain statutory provisions which are being repealed by this Bill and in terms of which the provincial administrations have certain legislative powers. Therefore the laws might just as well have been repealed by the Administrations concerned, but for practical reasons and for the sake of convenience, it was decided, with the concurrence of the administrations concerned, that their repeal would be undertaken by Parliament. In other words, the legislative powers of provincial administrations are not being curtailed or affected in any way. For that reason, we as Free Staters are grateful for the fact that section 2 of Chapter 33 of the Statute Book will remain in the hands of the Free State.

It is interesting to look at some of the statutory provisions. There is no doubt whatsoever about the fact that the Free Staters had a thorough knowledge, not only of politics, but of Roman law as well. Section 1 of chapter 52 of the Statute Book provides—

The Free State Republic was also economically orientated in those days. The preamble to Act No. 11 of 1894, for example, reads—

Ordinance 21 of 1902 covers a large variety of crimes. I shall mention only one: a baker, a butcher or a dairy farmer could sell bread, meat or milk on a Sunday, but only before 9 o’clock in the morning and after 5 o’clock in the afternoon. We might try to follow this example even today.

Finally, I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department and the commission on the important work they have been engaged in for the past few years. It has been a great task, and for that reason it is a pleasure for me to support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in reacting to this Bill—of course, we in these benches support it—I think the first thing one should do is to congratulate the South African Law Commission with this project No. 7 of 1973, which they have dealt with very efficiently. Obviously, a tremendous amount of work has had to go into it. So one must congratulate them for their efforts. When they started this project, there were about 1 258 pre-Union statutes in operation and still on the Statute Book of South Africa. Today we are down to something like 95, and in due course it would appear that about only 46 of these pre-Union statutes would be destined to remain in our Statute Book for a long, long time. Some of interest are being done away with and others of interest are being retained. The first one of interest that is being retained in the Lord’s Day Observance Act—Ordinance No. 1 of 1838 in the Cape. It is interesting to note that today, more than a century later, we are still able to keep a lot of the provisions of this particular statute.

It is particularly interesting to note this in view of the fact that this type of legislation has recently been forced on Natal and now they are unable to have entertainment on a Sunday which they had been able to have for some time.

Are you going to reopen all those old debates?

I do not want to start that whole debate over again, but at the same time one must not forget that the State itself, through the medium of their television service, is in fact providing entertainment on a Sunday. It is rather extraordinary that that can be done from a State’s point of view, while from a private individual or a company’s point of view one is not entitled to do it.

The second thing one must note in the Bill is that there are a number of statutes, for instance the Port Elizabeth Chamber of Commerce Act, the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce Act and the East London Chamber of Commerce Act, which are all remaining, because the particular boards of executors which have arisen from these, are very proud of their historical association—which goes back a long time—and still today stick by the statutes that brought them into being all those years ago. It is also interesting to note that Walvis Bay was in fact originally Walfish Bay, and that there was a proclamation—No. 184 of 7 August 1884—which annexed the port and the settlement of Walfish Bay. The whole of that is in fact today being kept. I think it is interesting to note that this happened in 1884 and that this statute puts it positively to the rest of the world and to South Africa that Walfish Bay—Walvis Bay as it now is—is in fact part of the Republic of South Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with South West Africa.

Then one also notes with a certain amount of interest that old schools, such as the Diocesan College here in Cape Town and St Andrew’s College in Grahamstown, were in fact brought into being through these pre-Union Statutes. Once again, these are being retained. I think I should state at this stage that these are very old and historical colleges, which have fulfilled a very great need in South Africa’s educational system. It has taken a great deal of onus off the State in terms of their pupils in that the State does not in fact have to pay for these pupils right through their school career until they obtain their matriculation. It is a pity that these colleges do not get any subsidization at all from the Cape Provincial Administration. It is something I should think they deserve in terms of the tremendous service that they provide to the country in general.

There is another reasonably interesting pre-Union Statute that is now being repealed. This is the Homing Pigeon Act [Interjections.] There is the Homing Pigeons’ Protection Act of 1907, which brings to mind the fact that all those years ago when telegraph and telephone were still in their infancy, homing pigeons were in fact a very important means of communication, particularly by the army, etc. It became an offence to shoot, kill, disable, ensnare, or otherwise injure anybody else’s bird. [Interjections.] If one did this one was liable upon conviction to a penalty not exceeding £3 sterling. [Interjections.] I think these statutes bring back some very interesting old-time facts, reminiscences of times which have unfortunately passed away in our modern society.

In my view, the most important pre-Union Statute is being retained. It is one relating to something which will in fact come up on the Order Paper within perhaps the next week or so. This relates to divorce. I note with interest that Act No. 13 of 1883 of Natal is also affected in that sections 10 and 11 of that particular Act are being retained. The reason why they are being retained is that all those years ago Natal had the foresight to pass legislation in terms of divorce, which nothing in modern South African law can challenge. No modern legislation in South Africa provides for the same advantages. I do want to make a little bit of a fuss about this, because I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Justice to consider this and perhaps to consider amending the Divorce Bill which is on the Order Paper right now. Section 10 of the Act of 1883 states that every woman shall be entitled to retain, free from the control of her husband or his creditors, any property she may earn or acquire during a period in which she may be deserted by her husband, and on a prima facie evidence of desertion such woman shall be entitled to a order of a judge or magistrate protecting such property.

As I have said, there is nothing in modern South African law which can compete with this. We do have in fact an Act of 1953 which has the same effect as regards movable goods or movable property, but nothing in terms of immovable property. So, this old, old Act of 1883—nearly a 100 years old—I believe, does perhaps show the way—it has perhaps shown the way in Natal—to the hon. the Minister of Justice in this regard. To me, and obviously to the law commission reviewing these statutes, this appears to be a very good provision indeed. That is why it is being retained for Natal. I think a very good purpose would be served if similar legislation was passed which affected the whole of South Africa with regard to immovable property in respect of a woman whose husband has deserted her and vice versa.

Mr. Speaker, once again I want to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg North as well as the hon. member for East London North for supporting this measure on behalf of the Opposition. In reply to the final argument of the hon. member for East London North I wish to point out that, as far as Natal is concerned, the Act remains the same. Of course, the hon. member quite correctly indicated this too.

But only in Natal.

Yes, only in Natal. Of course it has always been only in Natal. There has not been any change. However, I do not want to debate the new Bill which does appear on the Order Paper at this stage. Mr. Speaker, you would probably stop me if I tried to do that. However, the aspect to which the hon. member referred can be debated in this House again at a more appropriate time. The Law Commission started revising the pre-Union statute laws round about 1968. Over the years we have frequently brought Bills to this effect before this House. In reality this is a history book. As the hon. member for Johannesburg North rightly mentioned, it is a book welcomed by every lawyer because he can ascertain from it exactly which Acts are still valid in the Republic.

If I may give lawyers a word of advice, I suggest that they obtain this specific memorandum. One can obtain it, upon payment of a small fee, of course. From this one can learn exactly what all the Acts in the schedule to the Bill are about. There is a brief summary of each one. I must say that the hon. member for East London North certainly referred to a particularly interesting Act, viz. the old Cape Act No. 35 of 1884, an Act which is of special interest to us today. The title of that Act is The Walfish Bay and St. John’s River Territories Annexation Act, 1884. It provided for the annexation of the two areas concerned at a date to be proclaimed by the Cape Governor. In addition, the Act regulates the position of the existing legislation in the two areas, provides for the enforcement of the Cape Acts there and grants the court of the Eastern Districts jurisdiction over St. John’s Territory.

The proclamation referred to in the Act of 1884 is Proclamation No. 184 of 1884, issued in the Cape Colony. In terms of the powers granted to him by the charter of 14 December 1878, the Cape Governor fixed 7 August 1884 as the date on which the harbour and settlement of Walvis Bay would become part of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. The boundaries of the annexed area were also defined.

On this particular day, after the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister, this old Act of 1884 is again of particular importance to us. It is also important to know that, in terms of the Bill now under discussion, this old Act is being retained. This ensures continuity as far as the annexation of Walvis Bay is concerned. This has never been touched, and I suppose it will not easily be touched.

I do not think there is any more to be said. To hon. members who are interested in history, I suggest that they obtain this memorandum. They can be assured of an evening of fruitful and enjoyable reading if they want to examine all these old Acts and the explanatory notes about them, and in particular with regard to the various provinces. I thank hon. members for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At present State attorneys are, inter alia, being appointed as Deputy Attorneys-General at a relatively early age. Because it is in the interests of the administration of justice that they be on an equal footing with practising senior advocates in the courts, they are accorded senior status upon such an appointment. This is done without their making application for it, as in the case of advocates in private practice. In other cases as well it is customary to grant senior status to advocates who are in the employ of the State, because it is fitting and desirable, owing to the nature of their functions, that they have that status.

If such an advocate leaves the Public Service to enter private practice, he must practise as a senior advocate because it is not possible to relinquish senior status. This may entail many practical problems for such an advocate. Consequently it seems reasonable to allow such an advocate to relinquish his senior status, as is being proposed in this Bill. The General Council of the Bar has been consulted and has no objection to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, just like the Bar Council, hon. members on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill. It affects a small number of persons, yet it is very important that a person should have the right to be able to relinquish his status, which to a certain extent was in fact allocated to him without his consent, and consequently to rid himself of the impediments attaching to that certain status. A person who wants to go into practice, must have that right Apart from Public Servants there may be other people who wish to return from a senior to a junior status in the advocates’ profession and who wish to rid themselves of the senior status they hold. We welcome the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is at present working far harder than he did when he was still a member of the Bench. However, it is very pleasant for us to learn that the hon. member supports this Bill, and we thank him for doing so.

It is probably very strange for ordinary hon. members of this House to find a profession that approaches the hon. the Minister and informs him that they desire this House to pass a Bill depriving certain members of the profession of their senior status. The hon. the Minister will agree with me at once that this is not an everyday occurrence and that in fact, it can only happen in the legal profession. The members of the legal profession are people who still set great store by humility and have a fine regard for justice and equity. [Interjections.] In the present Bill the State President is now being empowered to withdraw, upon representations, the senior status of an advocate who, while he was employed in the Public Service—I also want to make it clear to the hon. member for Johannesburg that this applies only to an advocate who was in the Public Service—acquired the status of senior advocate.

This Bill follows on representations addressed to the hon. the Minister by Public Servants or former Public Servants. The General Bar Council has no objections to it either. As the hon. the Minister has already indicated, what is involved here is a group of persons who have at least an LL.B, degree, who are employed in the Public Service, who were admitted as advocates of the Supreme Court of South Africa and upon achieving certain posts in the Public Service, for example the post of Deputy Attorney-General in the Department of Justice, were automatically appointed as senior advocates. Hon. members can imagine what practical problems such a person would experience if he were to resign from the Public Service to enter a private practice. In such a case one would probably find that this person, because he may not advertise, is not very well known to the firms of attorneys among which he is going to practise and upon which he is dependent for his briefs.

In the second place one is probably going to find that such a person has years of experience of criminal law and criminal legal work, but that he normally has a rather limited knowledge of the civil branch of the law. Unlike so many other professions, and because the legal profession is still really the only profession left, such a person cannot enter into a partnership with one of his other learned colleagues.

It is important to note that the Admission of Advocates Act, 1964, is not being amended here to the extent that any senior advocate may now apply to the State President for alteration of his status. Unlike the Public Service we find that, as regards the conventional matters, by means of which an advocate becomes a senior advocate, i.e. when he wants to write SA or SC after his name, another method exists. If the hon. member for Waterkloof, for example, wishes to become a senior consultus, or to write SA after his name, he must adopt a certain method. He, as a member of the Pretoria Bar, will decide at a certain stage that he is now senior enough, possesses enough experience and background and wants to become a senior. A certain procedure exists in accordance with which he must act As the etiquette of our profession dictates, the hon. member goes to his fellow senior juniors and notifies them that he intends “taking the silk”. He will perhaps, for the sake of etiquette, inform his colleagues who have served for a longer period on the Bar of his decision. He then applies to the President of the Bar Council, and this president and the Judge-President of the division concerned, make recommendations to the hon. the Minister, who in his turn advises the State President on the appointment, or non-appointment, of the hon. member as a senior consultus.

For that reason we place a very high premium on the seniority of our advocates who have become conventional seniors. After all, it is from this group that the hon. the Minister appoints the judges of our Bench. On the other hand we understand the problems facing our colleagues who acquire seniority automatically.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express thanks on behalf of our colleagues in that category to the hon. the Minister for introducing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I find myself supporting for the third time, legislation of the hon. the Minister of Justice. We in these benches can once again agree fully with a Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria East has quite correctly said that the measure is only applicable to people who have become senior counsel and who are in the service of the State. It does not apply at all to the advocate who privately practises as a senior counsel. This amending Bill brings something fairly important to light, and that is the difference between a senior counsel who is in private practice for his own account and a senior counsel who is in the service of the State. Without any shadow of doubt—the hon. member for Pretoria East made it very clear—there are very different procedures involved in taking silk through the State and taking it through private practice. I believe there is a certain feeling amongst senior and junior counsels that there should be a differentiation and that one should only really be allowed to become a senior counsel through the normal process of practising for one’s own account, that is having a private practice as an advocate at the Bar and that one should not be able to obtain exactly the same senior counsel status and take silk through the service of the State. We on these benches would have no objection to people who are in the service of the State in this particular field obtaining some recognition. Perhaps they could be called senior State advocates or something of that nature. However, I do feel that there is a case to be made out for differentiating between becoming a senior counsel through private practice and becoming a senior counsel in the service of the State. In my view, and the view of many other people, they are in fact differently qualified. As I say, we are quite happy that they should obtain status, but we believe there should be a differentiation, and this amending Bill in fact makes it perfectly clear that one has to treat them slightly differently. The fact that this amending Bill is before the House is proof of that.

We on these benches, however, support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for supporting this Bill. I should like to debate for a while the argument which was raised by the hon. member for East London North. The position is that there is no difference whatsoever between an advocate in the employ of the State and an advocate in private practice, except that the advocate in the employ of the State is paid by the State. As far as erudition and their practice is concerned, there are many advocates in private practice who almost never do civil work. Consequently there are advocates who make a living almost solely from criminal work and who specialize in the field of criminal law. The State advocates who achieve senior status in the Public Service are highly specialized people and not only in criminal law, although they do of course, from the nature of the work they do, specialize to a greater extent in criminal law. I could mention cases to hon. members of advocates in the employ of the State who were appointed directly to the Appeal Court from the Public Service, among them the late Mr. Justice Van den Heever and Dr. L. C. Steyn. The State advocates are therefore extremely erudite and highly specialized people. I want to make it very clear that there is no difference in status here. The actual reason why we are giving the State advocate the right to relinquish his seniority if he enters private practice, is that many Bars have a rule that a senior advocate may not appear alone in a court. He must appear with a junior advocate, and that means that the client has to pay for both those advocates. When a person leaves the Public Service to enter a private practice, it means that he has to begin a practice from scratch, a practice for which he is in fact highly specialized, but in which he is still perhaps rather new.

He first has to build up that practice. He may find it difficult to make the grade, although he has already achieved senior status in the Public Service. He did not have the right to refuse senior status in the Public Service—it happens automatically after a certain grade has been reached—and for that reason he must at least be granted the right, when he enters private practice, to begin as a junior advocate so that he may attract more work than he would have done as a senior advocate.

It sounds terribly academic to speak of junior and senior advocates, but it is an extremely important matter in South Africa. I debated this point in America, where many judges, in certain of the American States, are appointed by means of a vote. Someone stands as the candidate of a political party and is then appointed as a judge. It does not happen in all the States, but only in some. After I had explained how the system in South Africa works, it was said: “That is the most democratic way I have ever heard of for the appointment of judges”. And indeed, it is. A person begins with a Bar, and Bars are completely independent of the Government. The Bars do not even have a statute. They are private organizations. An advocate becomes a member of a Bar. In the large Bars the advocates are thrown together—in the smaller Bars there are sometimes exceptions. In the large Bars all the advocates meet in one building. At the Bar at which I wasza member, we had one telephone number.

Now, what is the reason for all this apparent fuss? It is very important. Someone is taught the etiquette of the Bar from the beginning. It is easy for a junior advocate to leave his chambers with the most minor problem he has and knock at the door of the most senior advocate in the building to ask him how to deal with a specific matter. According to the rules of etiquette the senior advocate is obliged to provide the junior advocate with a full explanation. It has very often happened that an advocate gets to deal with his opponent. A person is, for example, a junior advocate and his senior is his opponent in court the next day, but the senior advocate must nevertheless warn the junior advocate on points where he may expect problems. It is part of the arrangement of a Bar to teach one another how to act correctly. There is a Bar Council with strict rules of etiquette, and the advocates teach one another the rules of etiquette of the Bar. A person becomes a more senior advocate and as he grows in stature—and quite probably his practice along with his stature—he reaches a stage where he feels that he wants to confine himself to major court cases. He then applies to the Bar Council to become a senior advocate. The Bar Council, consisting of his peers, takes counsel on him and his legal possibilities, his conduct in court, his legal erudition and his competence. This is where the first screening takes place. The Bar Council then recommends that the advocate may acquire senior status. This recommendation is forwarded to the Judge-President, and there the second screening takes place. The Judge-President is fully entitled to refer the recommendation back to the Bar Council if the judges feel that the advocate is not yet ready to receive senior status. Such an action on the part of the Judge-President will be respected because it is extremely important to the entire profession that only the very best advocates acquire senior status. The importance of the entire system lies therein that the Minister of Justice is obliged by convention to make his recommendation to the executive authority— which recommendation subsequently goes to the State President—only from the list of senior advocates. The Minister is therefore restricted by convention to that circle of people who have been designated out of their own ranks as the best in their profession. The Judge-President must ask for a recommendation. The Judge-President then makes a recommendation after he has discussed with the other judges—so I assume—the advocates who appear before them in court. Out of these recommendations one advocate is then chosen for recommendation for the executive authority. This is an extremely democratic system, by means of which one eventually gets the most suitable people on the Bench. South Africa can be grateful that this system has developed in the course of centuries—at least during the course of the past 100 years—initially out of the British system. It is already at a considerable remove from the British system and is now a typically South African system. The most important aspect of this entire system, however, is that it works. I am therefore pleased that we are therefore affording these people the opportunity at least, if they subsequently want to enter private practice, to begin from scratch, as it were, at the Bar to build up their seniority, a seniority on which other members of the Bar are also able to decide.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This piece of legislation which hon. members are now being asked to consider is in my humble opinion of a completely uncontentious nature. It is being introduced for one purpose only, and that is to eliminate any snags and ambiguities that have occurred over the years and also to adapt to the circumstances of our time.

At the outset I want to point out that these amendments are the first appreciable amendments to the Act that have been effected since it was placed on the Statute Book in 1965. As hon. members will note, most of the amendments contained in this Bill flow from the amendments to the definitions effected in section 1 of the Act. These amendments are being effected only to achieve conformity with designations and expressions used by other educational bodies, to try to establish a measure of uniformity in this respect in the country.

There are a few minor amendments which are being effected merely to facilitate administration and the steps that have to be taken after certain acts, and to eliminate unnecessary work. In addition certain rights and duties of all persons in the service, officers as well as employees, are now being clarified. An important amendment is the one contained in clause 8 which deals with the retirement of teachers on pension. Their position is now being clearly defined. The remainder of the provisions of this clause are basically the same as those already contained in section 15 of the Act. They are simply being clarified in places.

Because this envisaged amendment of the Act also seeks to grant Indian teachers the right, subject to minor restrictions, to become members of their own political parties, to serve on the managements of such parties and attend public political meetings, it automatically follows that provision must also be made for action against those who do not confine themselves to the provisions of the Act.

Another matter which is being covered by these envisaged amendments is a full definition of the procedure that has to be adopted before steps are taken against the person if such a person becomes unfit or incapable of performing his duties properly. In this connection I should just like to point out that this procedure is essentially the same as that which is adopted by certain of the provincial administrations. I believe that hon. members will agree with me when I say that these envisaged amendments do not introduce any new principle into the educational system of this country and therefore I trust that it will be possible for all these measures to be piloted through with the support of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House in the interests of the education of the Indian child in South Africa. I may just point out that this piece of legislation has been the subject of very thorough consideration by the Executive of the S.A. Indian Council and that the council has set its seal of approval on the measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill in a fairly friendly and expectant tone, a tone indicating that he expects support for this measure. We concede that the Bill is an improvement on the existing Act. We have compared it with provisions relating to teachers in other fields and teachers of other races, and we find that there is a very considerable improvement as far as the Indian teachers are concerned.

For the record I must say that of course we on this side of the House hold the belief that education should be dealt with without regard to race and that it should be the responsibility of a single Government department. I think that that attitude of this side of the House has been stated on a number of occasions and ought to be well-known.

However, when we look at this Bill, we have to do so within the confines of Government policy. If education has to be dealt with piecemeal on a racial basis, our concern is to ensure that the system and the standard of education are as far as possible the same as those which apply to the White community and the communities of other racial groups. Equally, our concern is to ensure that the conditions of employment and service and the salaries of those teachers are the same as those for the White teachers.

For the most part the amendments contained in this Bill affect service conditions. As I have said, they appear to bring them more into line with the conditions applying to White teachers. There are, however, certain matters on which we need some clarification, certainly in the Committee Stage, but I think it might facilitate the debate and the passage of this Bill, including the Committee Stage, if the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading, could deal with some of these queries.

In the first place it is noted that the definition of “education” in the definitions’ clause is amended in order to exclude both university education and advanced technical education. The existing Act excludes university education, but this Bill goes further and also excludes advanced technical education.

As in all legislation dealing with matters relating to the Indian community and other communities which will be affected by the Government’s constitutional proposals, we view this legislation against the background of what the Government may intend doing in regard to their administration of the Indian community when their constitutional proposals are accepted. We assume that the powers which are provided for in this Bill will in due course be transferred to the Indian Parliament or its equivalent in terms of the Government’s constitutional proposals. In passing, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to the House whether it is the intention of the Government to hand over the administration of Indian education to the Indian Parliament in terms of their constitutional proposals, and if it is their intention, whether it is also their intention to hand over the administration of Indian university education to this Indian Parliament Is this going to be included in the powers which are going to be handed over in due course by the Government to the Indian Parliament or its equivalent in terms of the Government’s constitutional proposals?

I now want to deal with one or two other clauses in the Bill. The proposed section 5, as contained in clause 4, deals with the taking over of certain State-aided schools. The hon. the Minister may say, as he did in the reference he made to the provisions of this Bill, that this is intended to simplify administration, but in this case I believe there is a very great over-simplification of administration, because what the amendment does in regard to the taking over of State-aided schools, is to remove the need to advertise any proposed take-over of State-aided Indian schools in the Government Gazette. In terms of the new amendment it shall only be necessary to give notice in writing to the governing body of a State-aided school before that State-aided school is taken over. If one looks at the definition of “a governing body” in terms of the Act, that definition reads as follows—

This then means that all the department has got to do if it wants to take over a State-aided Indian school is to give notice in writing, perhaps to the principal of the school, because that is the person who has control over the school. The hon. the Minister will know, or he should know, that particularly in the case of the Indian community many of present Indian schools which are State-aided are schools which have been community inspired. They have been endowed by the Indian community, they have come up through the community, and I believe that the community deserves to have far greater notice of any intention of the Government to take over control of those State-aided schools. This is a matter which I think has caused some concern amongst the teaching profession in the Indian community. It certainly is not enough for a letter in writing to be delivered to the principal or to the person in control of the school saying that it is going to be taken over. I want to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply on this point. There is a need for some wider form of advertisement of the Government’s intention. We must restore a advertisement in the Government Gazette and possibly also in a local newspaper circulating in the community, because I do believe that those from the general public who have contributed to the financing of the schools are entitled to know just what the Government’s intentions are. Therefore I believe they need a far wider notice.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us some explanation as to what is intended in clause 6, which relates to the question of salaries and service conditions being determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and clause 7, which relates to the Minister’s responsibility in regard to the transfer of Indian teachers. In terms of the definition we are dealing with Indian teachers, but an exclusion is made in the Bill by adding “or employees” to “officers” in regard to Indian schools. So, in regard to employees and officers, their salary conditions or to transfer from one school to another will no longer be the responsibility of the Minister. Whose responsibility is that going to be and what exactly is the intention of this clause? Is this also with a view to possible changes in regard to the control of Indian education when the Government’s new constitutional proposals become effective? I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate why he has included the category of employees with those of officers.

I can say now that we did not have the proposed constitutional changes in mind. I can give the hon. member that assurance. However, we can discuss the matter.

Yes, we can discuss it later. The hon. the Minister has dealt with the question of section 8 of the Act, relating to the pensionable age and discharge of teachers. This Bill substitutes a new section 15 in the principal Act. I believe that the proposed subsection (3) needs some explanation on the part of the hon. the Minister. It seems to be almost repetitive, because the Minister in any case has power under previous provisions in regard to the retirement of teachers. The Minister also has powers in terms of subsection (4). But subsection (3) appears to need some explanation. It may be that it is intended to allow a teacher to request his own retirement. If that is indeed the intention of subsection (3), than I believe that it should be stated more clearly. I must also comment on the proposed new section 15. It has the effect of removing the existing section 15(4)(g), which provides that women who marry are to be compulsorily retired. I am very pleased and welcome the fact that this provision, which was an archaic provision in any case, is now to be dropped from the legislation. It is quite clear that women teachers who marry should in no way be penalized just because they seek to marry.

The Indian Teachers’ Association has referred to a provision which apparently obtains in terms of which women teachers when they marry, are given some form of gratuity. A query has been raised as to whether in future teachers who marry, and perhaps then continue in service for a few months or a few years after their marriage, will in any way be compensated in regard to the gratuity which is apparently given to them at present.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with the question of the participation in politics, and one notes that the Bill refers to the fact that if a teacher participates in politics, this is dealt with in terms of the provisions relating to misconduct.

In this sense the specific provision is that if a teacher uses his position in the department to promote a political party or if he speaks at public political meetings, this shall be treated as misconduct. But as the hon. the Minister has said, it is an improvement on the existing situation in that it at least allows membership of political parties, it allows them to go to public meetings, although it restricts the degree to which they can participate in the activities of political parties. The hon. the Minister is correct; it is similar to the provisions which are contained in most of the provincial ordinances. There will, of course, be arguments—and I think the hon. the Minister can expect this—particularly at this stage as far as the Indian teachers are concerned, where the community is going to be involved in elections to elect the Indian Council, and where more so than in other communities the Indian teacher plays a very prominent part in his community at this stage. I think the hon. the Minister must anticipate that there will be some complaints on the part of Indian teachers because a restriction is placed on their participation in political activities.

Do you share their opinion?

No, I do not. I believe that the provisions which obtain in the Natal Provincial Administration ordinance relating to teachers, are much more restrictive than that which obtains in the ordinances of the other provinces. To my mind this is a healthy provision. There has to be some restriction, although they must be allowed the right to exercise their normal rights of citizenship. They must not be stopped from participating in local government elections if they have that sort of inclination. However, the intention should be that if they participate in elections which relate to the body which employs them then, of course, a restriction is going to be placed on them. As I read it, this is the effect of the Bill. In that respect it is very similar to the provisions, as I say, which relate to the other sections of the community.

I should now like to deal with the question of discipline which is dealt with in clause 11. This is a curious provision, because it says “If the Secretary has reason to presume that any person is unfit”. This differs from the other ordinances which stipulate that the Director of Education of the province would have to be satisfied. I am a little worried about the “reason to presume” that a person is unfit to perform his duty as a teacher. This seems to create a very powerful presumption on the part of the director, and there is some concern among the Indian teaching community as to how this provision will be allowed to operate. It is a disciplinary provision, it is true, and if a report is made one would think that the report would have to be made on affidavit. The teachers are also concerned as to how the follow-up of such a presumption is going to take place. They are concerned that if it is allowed to be conducted by the inspectorate, there could be the danger of some vindictiveness on the part of certain of the inspectors in respect of the activities or the fitness of …

Which presumption are you talking about?

I am talking about clause 11.