Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I should like to make the following three announcements to this House.

In the first place, I regret to have to inform this House that the State President has tendered his resignation, with effect from today, i.e. 4 June 1979, to the Speaker of the House of Assembly. Senator the hon. M. Viljoen, President of the Senate, will be inaugurated as Acting State President this afternoon at 17h00 at Tuynhuys.

In the second place, the Cabinet has considered the supplementary report of the Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Irregularities into the former Department of Information—the report which was tabled today—and holds the following view at this stage—

1. (a) That notice has been taken of chapter I of the report.
2. (b) That, in so far as chapters II and III deal with the Honourable B. J. Vorster’s involvement with the activities of the former Department of Information, the Cabinet has taken note thereof and would like to point out the following:
   1. (i) that the Honourable Mr. Vorster fulfilled his duties under very trying circumstances and under great pressure during the last year of his premiership due to his state of health;
   2. (ii) that the Honourable Mr. Vorster wanted to relinquish his post as early as 1977 but that his colleagues persuaded him not to do so in the national interest at that stage;
   3. (iii) that the Cabinet would like to state its appreciation for the sacrificial services rendered by Mr. and Mrs. Vorster to the country at all times with honesty and without any personal gain;
   4. (iv) that, after consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, the Cabinet accepts that the Commission’s deductions decisions as embodied in paragraph 3.69 on page 10 of its supplementary report, do not in any way reflect upon the honesty and integrity of Mr. Vorster;
   5. (v) that, regarding paragraph 3,47 of the report, the Cabinet confirms that Mr. Vorster informed the Cabinet on 26 September 1978 as to all the irregularities known at that stage without withholding available details;
   6. (vi) that the Cabinet expresses the wish that Mr. and Mrs. Vorster be afforded the opportunity to enjoy their well-earned rest in peace.
3. (c) That the findings, deductions and recommendations in chapters IV to XV are receiving the Government’s positive attention.
4. (d) That all testimony and documentary evidence gained by the Commission and upon which it based its various reports be submitted to a Select Committee with the instruction to identify such evidence and documents of which the publication would be prejudicial to State security so that the remaining evidence can be published.
5. (e) That the appointment of the Erasmus Commission and the Pretorius Committee underline and confirm the Government’s earnestness to identify, eliminate and prevent undesirable practices in State administration as far as possible.
6. (f) The Government would like to make an urgent appeal to all who wish to contribute positively and in a spirit of patriotism towards the future of our country to view the unpleasant information episode as subservient to our mutual duty towards the Republic of South Africa. Let us stand together and serve our country in faith and with renewed inspiration.

In the third place, I should just like to announce that the Leader of the House will, as usual, in consultation with the Whips, arrange a suitable opportunity for the discussion of the report by the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the hon. the Prime Minister is an historic and dramatic statement. I express my appreciation, on behalf of the official Opposition, for the hon. the Prime Minister having made this announcement as quickly as he has done. One is almost overwhelmed by the import of what has taken place. Whatever the past has been, I have no doubt that the action that has been taken by the State President on this occasion, has been in the highest interest of the office of State President. I hope the hon. the Prime Minister will be able to fix a very early date for the electoral college which is to choose a new State President, to convene and make that election so that perhaps one chapter in the history of South Africa can be closed and a new chapter can begin.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the Prime Minister about the State President as a person. I feel, however, that it is necessary—in fact my duty—to say that whilst I accept and agree with what the hon. the Prime Minister has said, i.e. that there was no personal dishonesty or gain involved in any way—I accept that unequivocally—we in the NRP feel that there was a political responsibility that goes beyond one person and one person’s responsibility. We shall therefore welcome the first opportunity to put that view before this House and before the people because we feel that there is a collective responsibility that must be debated.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to give us the assurance that immediate action has been taken to withdraw the passports of any people implicated …

That is not relevant now.

… so that they cannot escape the country.

Try to preserve the solemnity of the occasion.

Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister and State President has taken the only honourable way open to him in the light of the Erasmus Commission’s report, and I should like to wish him and Mrs. Vorster a well-earned rest.

*Secondly, I should like to thank the Erasmus Commission on behalf of the hon. members in these benches for the work it did in the most difficult circumstances. Thirdly, the other hon. members of my party and I associate ourselves with the further steps announced by the hon. the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches intend opposing the introduction of this Bill. We do so in the full knowledge that this is a rare step to take and that opposition at this stage is normally reserved for matters where fundamental issues are at stake. There are fundamental issues at stake in a measure of this kind. We are dealing here with a measure to grant independence to the Venda homeland; in other words, to excise a portion of the Republic from the control and the sovereignty of this Parliament and from the rest of South Africa.

When we do so, we do this against the background of Government policy relating to Black people of South Africa. We do it against the background of Government pronouncements regarding the citizenship status of Black people who belong to so-called independent homelands. We do so against the background of the precedents which already exist in the form of the independent Transkei and the independent Bophuthatswana. We in these benches therefore see a measure of this kind as part of the Government’s grand plan of piecemeal fragmentation of South Africa in an attempt to satisfy the aspirations of the Black people in this country.

We must reiterate again on this occasion our total opposition in principle to the fragmentation of South Africa as a solution to the issue of Black-White relations in this country. We believe that this piecemeal fragmentation creates a dangerous legacy for the future in South Africa, and we believe furthermore that while it purports to satisfy the aspirations of some of the Blacks, it inevitably amounts to nothing more than sweeping under the carpet many of the fundamental issues which bedevil race relations in this country.

The attitude of the official Opposition in regard to the homelands is perfectly clear. In the first instance we believe that the so-called homeland areas should be regarded as underdeveloped areas and be developed as far as is possible. In that regard we have on a number of previous occasions indicated that in so far as the reasonable development of the homeland areas, the underdeveloped areas of South Africa, is concerned, such development will receive the support of this side of the House. Secondly, we believe that these areas, if they can develop an infrastructure and can constitute viable geographical regions so as to be semi-autonomous, should be accommodated within a federal or confederal relationship with the rest of the country. Thirdly, we say that if within the passage of time these areas desire to become genuinely independent, such a desire will have to be recognized.

On our part, however, we will recognize this sort of desire subject to the fulfilment of certain very definite and very important criteria. In the first place it must be shown by means of a special referendum that the majority of the people concerned want that sort of independence. Secondly, it must be given subject to the fact that the boundaries of such areas be determined to the mutual satisfaction of South Africa and the people in the areas concerned. Thirdly, and very important, no South African citizens must on account of that independence be deprived of their South African citizenship without their consent. These are very important criteria indeed when dealing with the desire of a section of the community to achieve this form of independence. This, therefore, is the broad basis in terms of which we would consider the future development of the homeland areas in South Africa.

There is no evidence that the factors I have mentioned are present in Government thinking at the present time as far as the Venda people or any other section of our population are concerned. In fact, the contrary is the case. The elections held in July last year in this homeland were interesting and significant, as were the events which followed the election in that area. We had the situation that the leader of the Opposition party, the Venda Independence Party, Mr. Baldwin Mudau, stated before the election was held that his party, which had previously opposed independence, was now maintaining a neutral stance on the issue and would leave the matter for the people to decide on in the election which was to be held. In the event, the Venda Independence Party won the election as far as elected members of the Assembly were concerned. It won it against a very strong pro-independence attitude adopted by the Venda National Party. It won the election by winning 31 of the 42 seats which were up for election at that time. The Venda National Party had then to rely on the elected chiefs for a majority.

A large-scale security crack-down followed in the area concerned, a security crack-down which involved the detention of a number of people, including some of the elected members of the Venda Independence Party. So, Sir, the whole picture which emerged from that situation was that there certainly is still great doubt as to what the attitude of the majority of the people concerned is to the issue of independence for that territory.

It is not, however, just a question of independence for the territory which we know as Vendaland that is at stake at the present time. What we have to consider, too, is the question of the rights of the Venda people in South Africa. We wonder whether they have had any real choice of options. We wonder whether the choice between full citizenship of South Africa, the country into which they were born, and citizenship of an independent Venda has been put to them, whether in fact they have considered the consequences of the choice which has been made and the consequences of this Bill if it becomes law in South Africa. We are told that some 68% of the people of Venda live within the Venda homeland itself. One wonders whether those people are aware of the fact that, by the passage of this Bill, in terms of existing Government policy they will be forfeiting their rights to full South African citizenship. We wonder whether the 32% living outside the Venda area and within the Republic of South Africa are aware of the fact that, when this Bill is passed, they will be forfeiting their rights to South African citizenship.

These are issues which we regard to be of fundamental importance in relation to the measure the introduction of which we are now asked to pass. We believe they are at the very root of Government policy, and that they are fundamental issues affecting the individual rights of citizens of South Africa. We believe that in this Bill there is a very grave and direct threat indeed to the citizenship rights of many hundreds of thousands of South Africans. For that reason we in these benches are opposed to the First Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to start off by reminding the hon. member of the great and powerful words spoken by Dr. Malan, words that have thus far stood the test of time and which, I believe, will continue to stand the test of time in the decades and even ages that lie ahead, namely that one can no more check the national progress of a people than one can stop the north wind with a sieve or sweep back the sea with a broom. Today, for the third time, we have once again reached that point in the history of South Africa. What is happening today, is absolute proof that there is no place in South Africa for what the PFP advocates. In opposing this Bill at First Reading, the hon. member is making a desperate attempt to cling to the obsolete principles of his party. The hon. member even went so far as to say that we differed on fundamental matters. That is true, but he also conceded that they were prepared, if a nation ultimately wanted to become independent, to grant independence. The Venda nation has reached the point today where they are telling this Parliament that they now wish to become independent. However, the hon. member for Musgrave now says they can indeed become independent, but only later on and then only subject to certain conditions, but not now. The hon. member went on to mention a few criteria that first had to be complied with, for example, there should first be a referendum, there should first to be consensus on the borders, and there should be citizenship. I wish to tell the hon. member that I think one can assume that these criteria he has laid down have already been complied with. There was an election in Vendaland last year. He says, however, that a referendum should have been held. I wish to tell him that a referendum would not have made any difference to this situation. There was an election last year in which two parties participated and both parties were in favour of Venda becoming independent. In fact, the name of the Opposition is the Venda Independence Party. This party was in favour of independence.

There were three major events where this matter was tested. The first of these was the election. In the second place, after the election had taken place, the Legislative Assembly of Venda appointed a recess committee. This committee consisted of members of the Cabinet, members of the governing party, members of the Opposition and three persons nominated by the Chief Minister. The committee consisted of 20 members of whom five were representatives of the Opposition. Citizenship and borders were questions that never cropped up. The recess committee amended the draft constitution which the Cabinet had submitted to them on two points, and the amendment did not concern citizenship or territory. The first amendment which the Opposition proposed, and which was accepted, was to the effect that the president of an independent Venda need not necessarily be a chief. The second amendment concerned the filling of vacancies for elected members. Territory and citizenship were, in other words, never at issue. The third occasion was when the Legislative Assembly of Venda accepted this constitution. The 31 members of the Opposition to whom the hon. member referred, voted in favour of all the clauses concerning citizenship and territory in their constitution. Those provisions were inserted in this Status Bill word for word. There was no opposition to those provisions.

The hon. member asked what the people living outside Vendaland had to say about their citizenship. There are nine members of the Legislative Assembly of Venda who live outside Venda, and in the Legislative Assembly all nine of them voted in favour of this clause. All nine of them participated in the election, and the recess committee on which they were represented, also accepted those clauses. In other words, there is no question of a dispute. There were indeed other points on which they proposed certain amendments.

I wish to tell the hon. member that a referendum would not have made any difference to this, since the vast majority of the Venda are in favour of independence. If the Leader of the Opposition in Vendaland and seven other members of his party do not wish to be citizens of Vendaland and wish to relinquish their citizenship of Venda, they would not be able to become members of Vendaland’s Legislative Assembly. If their citizens were to renounce their citizenship, there would be no one to vote for them.

What the hon. member has in fact told the Venda nation today is that they should not become independent now, but only later, when it pleases the PFP of South Africa. I wish to tell the hon. member that the Venda nation is a small nation in comparison with the other nations of the world, but that the national ideal burning in the heart of Venda is a noble and mighty ideal and that it will not be checked by that party or anybody else, regardless of what they do. I request the hon. member please to consider these matters objectively and not to drag in party politics. It is a great national cause and the future of Southern Africa that are at stake. We are dealing with nations that are expressing their desires and that are approaching this House to ask for independence. I ask the hon. member whether he does not wish to show respect to a nation, albeit a small nation, that seeks to realize its national aspirations. Surely this is not the first nation in the world to renounce its citizenship of a large territory in which many nations live, and exchange it for the citizenship of its own fatherland on which it places the highest premium. The history of Europe shows that Europe initially consisted of only one great State, the Holy Roman Empire, and later crystallized out into separate States as the national consciousness of every nation developed. Surely it is a repetition of that history that is now taking place here. I wish to tell the hon. member that the citizens of Taiwan, too, formerly had citizenship of China, but later exchanged it for citizenship of Taiwan. The same applies in the case of Bangladesh, and even of South Africa. I wish to tell the hon. member that in the international world of today, partitioning between groups and peoples is taking place at three levels; firstly at the cultural level, where one encounters cultural pluralism; secondly at the religious level; and thirdly at the language level. This is manifested in geographical partitions which people maintain so that they can co-operate with one another as separate identities and entities without fear of threats.

I am convinced in my heart that the step Parliament is going to take here with regard to the independence of the Venda nation, is a step that will beyond all doubt, ensure the right to continued existence of that nation, like that of all other nations, so that they will then be able to co-operate with one another as equals within a wider South African context, to be able to form a great and mighty bloc against the threat of Marxism, among other things. For that reason I am telling the hon. member that he is opposing the history and the aspirations of nations. He can carry on doing so, but it will be on record, as it has been on record in the past, that he wrongly interpreted the history of Southern Africa and the desires of the people of Southern Africa, that he opposed it, and that at this great moment where we are on the point of forming a power bloc of Southern African States, he made no contribution towards making a success of the effort to place the Southern African subcontinent politically in a position to go from strength to strength and to reach greater heights.

Mr. Speaker, we shall oppose the First Reading of this Bill for the reasons I shall give. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister who has just sat down, has hardly helped his side at all by referring to the history of South Africa and by claiming that the independence of Venda is going to lead to a solution of the problem we have here in Southern Africa. The situation which has resulted in the introduction of this Bill is simply the creation of the NP, and nothing else. The whole history of South Africa has been shaped in a certain direction. What is now happening is that these people are putting a request before this House that they should be given independence while an election has been held in their territory in which the ruling party was decisively defeated. They were defeated in the election, however the hon. the Deputy Minister may attempt to talk it away or to iron out the differences between the parties. That party was defeated, and the governing party now governs by means of appointed chiefs. That is the situation which pertains and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it. He cannot use that old story now in an attempt to explain away things. That argument does not wash with us at all.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also spoke about the future relationship between the different groups here in Southern Africa. I want to remind that hon. the Deputy Minister that I myself asked the previous Prime Minister whether there was going to be any kind of a structural, formal relationship between what was left of South Africa when the governing party had finished sending off into orbit all the independent States, and he stated categorically that there would be no such relationship. Now, however, we are hearing from the hon. the Deputy Minister this story about a constellation of States, and I want to remind him that a constellation, in scientific terms, is a group of stars which have a precise, ordered and defined relationship, and there is absolutely no sign anywhere in the thinking of the party opposite that there is going to be that kind of relationship.

I also wish to point out that we have a Select Committee of this House considering a new Constitution for South Africa. Nevertheless the Government is proceeding with a step which can only bedevil the relationships and the discussions within that Select Committee. They are here proceeding with something which is going to give independence in terms of the “gister-politiek” of the National Party, the decision which was placed before the Venda people; either you remain without any rights whatsoever or you take independence which grants certain rights within your own territory. That is the choice which was put before the people. It is old politics of South Africa, the old exploitation of this feeling of race, the worst element in the human nature of South Africa, which has kept them in power. Against that the NRP has a very clear alternative which we would like to have put to the people of Venda so that they would have had a real choice to make in a situation such as this.

In this regard I wish to quote a statement which was made by the hon. leader of the NRP last year on Venda’s request for independence. He said—

That is what we are seeing here today. This is the legislation to put that into effect. Mr. Raw said further—

That is what has happened. They have been given the choice of having no rights whatsoever or rights within their own homeland. Mr. Raw continued—

I challenge the hon. member for Lydenburg, who will be the next speaker, to say whether that is a proper situation or not.

Nobody is forcing them to take independence, and you know it.

I do not wish to waste my time on that hon. the Minister. There was a choice put before them: take independence, which would give them certain rights, or retain an inadequate and unacceptable status quo.

They could have waited if they were not satisfied.

That is the present situation. They could either retain an inadequate and unacceptable status quo or they could decide to take independence.

I have recently been in that area for two weeks and the uncertainty and consternation which has been created there among the entire population is something for which the NP is going to have to accept responsibility. There is no reason whatsoever for the party on that side of the House, when we are considering an entirely new Constitution, to proceed with an action like this. Why is it necessary to continue with legislation of this nature while we are now going to look at a totally new relationship? Surely the people of Venda are entitled to be invited to participate in this process? If they have by then taken the decision to become independent, it is going to be that much more difficult to interest them in any kind of future relationship with the rest of South Africa. On behalf of this party I would like to say that we offer them a very clear alternative, a structured relationship, a formal relationship in the form of a confederal relationship where Governments and peoples can come together and where they can, even if they should accept independence and this House should grant them independence—as it is obviously going to do in terms of the Government’s decision—still be entitled to choose to be re-associated with the people of South Africa, all the peoples in the formal relationship that we proposed, i.e. a federal-confederal relationship … [Interjections.]

Surely that will never work.

The hon. the Minister there says that it will not work, but the hon. the Deputy Minister has already said that it is something which the NP is considering. If our plan will not work, where does the hon. the Deputy Minister get his constellation idea?

Order! The form of the independence can be discussed during the Second Reading stage of the Bill.

Independence has been made by the NP into an end in itself. That is where they have gone wrong, because the end in itself is something which is not a real choice before the people. As an end in itself independence will solve none of the problems of the relationship between the people of that area and the rest of South Africa. The Government is in time going to be forced to take notice of what is being said here in opposition to this Bill at its First Reading today. I also want to make it quite clear that the step of opposing a Bill at First Reading is very serious indeed, and indicates how serious we feel about it. We see it as a fundamental error that is being made by the Government in this situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that this is the third step towards independence of a homeland following on the independence of the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, but we feel that this is the third step towards futility, because it will achieve nothing, will solve none of our problems and will simply leave the old question-mark hanging over the heads of the people of Venda and over the peoples of the rest of South Africa as to what kind of relationship they will have in future.

We shall oppose the First Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the hon. members for Musgrave and Mooi River—I have nothing personal against the hon. members and they must not misunderstand me—I felt as though I was moving in an old museum dating from the imperial and colonial periods. I felt as though I was listening to the grandfather who was a grabbing imperialist, to the father who was a colonialist who did not want to surrender what had been plundered by his grandfather, and to the young son who was also trying to keep the spoils intact.

The highest aspiration of any human being, of any people, is self-determination and self-respect. The brightest flame in the world is the flame of freedom, which is fanned by the word “nationalism”. The word “nationalism” means love for what is one’s own and a pride in what is one’s own. I do not know whether the hon. member for Musgrave is perhaps no longer aware of the meaning of those concepts, but I cannot understand the hon. member for Mooi River no longer having appreciation for our native soil. The hon. member for Mooi River said that we left the people of Venda no choice since they had a choice only between no rights, as was the case at present, and independence. Surely the hon. member for Mooi River knows that it is absolutely and totally untrue when he says that those people have no rights. Surely he knows that it is an untruth he is telling here. Surely it is a disgrace that a member of this House can allege that the people of Venda have no rights. By saying that he is besmirching and defiling South Africa, because he is levelling the accusation at South Africa that it suppresses people and allow them no rights. It is a disgrace. I had expected a better contribution from that hon. member. However, the hon. member is so overwhelmed by the colonialistic mentality from which he has not been able to break away as yet, that he has completely lost his perspective. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member knows that the people of Venda have rights, that they have a Legislative Assembly. He even referred to elections which had been held there. Therefore those people have the franchise and they do things on their own in their country. Consequently it is a disgrace and an untruth to say such things in this House.

He must withdraw it.

The hon. member for Musgrave told the population of Venda that they should first wait until a later stage before asking for independence. They should discuss a number of things first. Today I want to give the people of Venda the advice that they should not believe the hon. member for Musgrave because he is not even prepared to grant the people of Venda independence today. Why should he be prepared to grant them independence at a later stage?

Now the hon. member is concerned about the Bavenda living outside the borders of their country. Two weeks ago we had talks with Chief Minister Mpephu. He is facing a tremendous and very serious problem and asked us to appeal to the hon. the Minister for help. The problem concerns the vast numbers of Venda who want to return from the cities and the rural areas to live in Venda. The Chief Minister asked us for assistance and to ask the hon. the Minister to expedite their return.

Perhaps the hon. member for Musgrave is unable to understand that sentiment. In my view the hon. member has been uprooted and detribalized. Those people, however, are not detribalized. They will return to their fatherland. The hon. member for Musgrave said that their opposition to this question of independence emphasized their “opposition to the fragmentation of South Africa”. This, once again, is the old colonial mentality. They do not want to surrender what was acquired for them by their imperial forefathers. Now I want to give the hon. member the other choice which we have in South Africa. I want to read to him what was said by his own leader. On 25 May 1976 his own leader, in a lucid moment, said the following in respect of the Transkei (Hansard, col. 7495)—

They know what the alternative is: Either one heeds the powers and forces of nationalism and grants that people its inalienable, undisputed, God-given birth right to self-determination, or those powers and forces are going to give rise to a conflict Because this party is not attached to the colonial and imperial philosophy, because this people does not consist of imperialists, because this party is not imperialistic, because this party understands the meaning of the word “nationalism”, because we have respect for the word “freedom” and because we know what it means to fight for one’s right to self-determination, we and the people of Bavenda understand one another. Because hon. members opposite are strangers to the patriotic concepts of love of one’s country, self-determination and nationalism, they do not have appreciation for those aspirations existing in the heart of every patriot. The Vendas, too, have their own fatherland. They, too, are proud of their culture, their particular language, their background and their particular traditions. The Government does not want to begrudge the Bavenda those things. We are prepared to grant them their independence.

I want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that it took Great Britain many years to realize that one achieves nothing by means of imperialism and colonialism. It started a long time ago with the policy of decolonization, with the emancipation of its overseas colonies. But hon. members of the Opposition are still lagging somewhat behind the British. They are still 50 years or so behind Britain. But perhaps they will reach the stage in 50 years’ time when they, too, will believe that one has to decolonize, that one has to emancipate people. [Interjections.] Freedom is the highest ideal in the life of every people. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave displayed a very ugly form of paternalism here this afternoon. The hon. member said he wondered whether the Bavenda, inside or outside Venda, realized what this legislation would mean to them; to what extent they would be prejudiced by it. After having heard from the hon. the Deputy Minister that the entire Venda people, all the political parties in Venda, were in favour of independence, the hon. member nevertheless wanted to persist in dictating patemalistically to the Venda what they should ask for. It is high time that the hon. member for Musgrave stopped taking decisions on behalf of the Black people in South Africa. He must learn to take decisions in conjunction with the Black people.

What we are dealing with here is a request from the highest body in Venda, the Legislative Assembly. Now, however, the hon. member for Musgrave with his paternalistic attitude again wants to tell those people what is good for them, and again wants to decide on their behalf that it is not a good thing for them to ask for independence now. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Musgrave must realize that the Black people also read this House’s Hansard. When the Transkei and Bophuthatswana became independent, the inhabitants of those two States also read how hon. members opposite opposed and criticized their independence. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lydenburg worked himself up to such an extent that he completely lost his head with regard to certain of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Musgrave. Initially he spoke of imperialism and colonialism. The hon. member must take note of the fact, however, that there is a new concept too. It is the so-called concept of neo-colonialism. It involves the phenomenon of people apparently being made independent politically whereas they are actually being made more dependent economically and otherwise. This is one of the dilemmas which the Government has encountered. As the official Opposition we should be failing in our duty if we did not oppose the Bill under discussion.

This Bill must be seen as the Government’s contribution to the solution of the relations problem in South Africa. In other words, it does not concern the concept of independence only. The hon. member for Musgrave made it very clear that we were not opposed to independence as such. He made it clear that if in certain circumstances the requirements for independence were met, and if nobody lost his citizenship contrary to his wishes, we would not oppose such legislation, although we believed that it did not offer a solution to the problems. This Bill is the third of its kind to come before this House. In the previous cases it was clear that these two requirements had not been met. Consequently, there is no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case. For example, let us take cognizance of the question of the expressed will of the population. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to this as well. If we take that into consideration, surely it is crystal clear and obvious that we cannot take the elections for a legislative assembly as an indication of a people’s willingness to accept independence or not. There is a very clear illustration of that. If we take cognizance of the dilemma in which we find ourselves as regards South West Africa and the question as to whether South West Africa wants to accept independence or not, it is very clear that the issue is the way in which they should accept it. The same thing applied in Rhodesia. Then we could also take a look at South Africa itself. The issue in our last general election ostensibly was the willingness of the White population to accept the new constitutional proposals. We know now that that was not the issue, because if it was, there would have been no need for us now to appoint a Constitutional Committee to investigate the introduction of an alternative Constitution. In the same way we are saddled with the same problems as far as independence in South Africa is concerned. A very definite opportunity must be created for those people to express themselves on one principle only: Independence or not. This question should not be intermingled with the election of a legislative assembly.

As far as the question of citizenship is concerned, we have no reason to believe that it would be any different here and for that reason we say that if one believes one can solve South Africa’s relations problem by depriving people of their citizenship contrary to their wishes, one is under a most dangerous illusion. We simply cannot afford it; we know it will not work, because we have seen that it does not work. It will only fan the flames of conflict in South Africa. Let me give an example. Last year we had the incident of two Black people in South Africa having been invited to participate in a congress abroad.

We know that story.

That is the very point I want to illustrate. When they applied for a passport and other travel documents, they were told to apply via their homeland authority first. The Minister of the Interior had no choice.

What is wrong with that?

That incident is a living illustration of the fact that we cannot accept the granting of independence being possible if people lose their citizenship contrary to their wishes. We say that if this is the case, problems are not being solved; only more problems are being created. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations must not get so excited; we are not dealing with his portfolio now. He does not follow the arguments I am advancing in any event He finds it rather hard to understand such arguments.

†The Government goes ahead with this despite the fact that it itself admits that at the moment we in South Africa find ourselves in a period of constitutional ambiguity. The hon. members on the other side admit this. That is why they have appointed a Joint Select Committee to go into the drafting of an alternative constitution for the Republic. This in itself is an admission that we do not have clarity on the constitutional position in South Africa. Secondly they have appointed a consolidation commission of which the hon. member for Lydenburg is the chairman. This commission has to go into the whole question of land. This, too, is an admission that we have not solved the problem. Thirdly we have a Cabinet Committee which is going into the constitutional position of our urban Black people.

*Here we have three factors, the question of citizenship, the question of land and the position of the urban Blacks which will have to be considered.

†These factors simply indicate that the Government has not solved the problems. Yet, despite this fact, they go ahead with this policy of independent homelands in which all three of these issues are issues of conflict and issues of difference. We know it cannot work in such a way, because these are three vital constitutional issues in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development has said that we must think and talk with Blacks and not for them. This Bill contradicts this on all three of those issues because in terms of the Bill the Government is deciding for the Blacks how they should resolve the question of land, the question of citizenship and the position of the urban Black people. Therefore when it comes to this Bill, we have to ask two questions only. The first is: Have the people involved in the independence had an adequate opportunity to demonstrate their desire for independence? The answer is obviously no. The second question is: Does any person involved in such independence involuntarily lose his South African citizenship? The answer is yes. Both questions and answers together or even each one independently gives sufficient reason to oppose the First Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the hon. members in these benches is the same as the attitude which we adopted when previous Bills were introduced and that is that we do not believe that an Opposition party can oppose a Bill’s First Reading because at that stage only the short and long titles of the Bill are known. The merits of the Bill are only disclosed at Second Reading. We therefore agree to the passing of the First Reading of the Bill.

I am pleased to have seen a political comeback this afternoon in the shape of the hon. member for Rondebosch. He seems to have been absent from the House for such a long time. If one can believe what one reads in the newspapers, one sees that he is aspiring to another office besides being a member of Parliament. It is good to have him back again. He has come back to the world of practical politics from the somewhat more academic and rarified atmosphere of the university. Then we had the speech of the hon. member for Mooi River who also opposes this Bill without having read it. The principle of the Bill not even having been discussed at this stage, he nevertheless opposes it [Interjections.] All I want to say about the words and attitudes of the other two Opposition parties in this House this afternoon is that they would probably have gladdened the hearts …

You are a member of an Opposition party, John.

I said other Opposition parties. They would probably have gladdened the hearts of the Western powers which do not believe, for example, in homelands or ethnicity, and they would certainly have gladdened the hearts of many of the enemies of South Africa in the United Nations. [Interjections.]

You are gladdening the hearts of the HNP.

I shall study the speeches that have been made by hon. members on the Government side before deciding on our attitude to this Bill at Second Reading. I would suggest, however, that hon. members in the Government party who have spoken as they have spoken this afternoon, did so in reaction to the speeches of the other Opposition parties. I do not think their speeches have been all well thought out and I do not think they have made out a good enough case for us at this stage, short of considering the Bill and all its implications and listening to the hon. the Minister’s speech at Second Reading, to give it our unqualified support.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which we are now discussing at First Reading is the result of long years of talking with the Black people and not for them. This correction of a statement by the hon. member for Rondebosch I should like to make very clear here. This step, which is being opposed by the Opposition, is a very fine step. While we on this side of the House are liberating nations and people the Opposition has for a very long time, systematically been putting obstacles in its way. There is a saying that an ass does not bump twice against the same wall, but so help me, that Opposition is still going to bump its head nine times against the same wall, because this is the third time we are dealing with matters of this kind, and we shall be doing so again on a number of occasions in the future. They opposed the legislation concerning the Transkei at the First Reading, and the first reading of the legislation concerning Bophuthatswana as well. Now they are also opposing the First Reading of the Status of Venda Bill.

I want to say here today, categorically and very clearly, that the nation of Venda wants its independence of its own free will. As far as I know, no pressure was extended on the nation of Venda by any body or person of any nature to accept independence. This is a free choice by the people of Venda, who have the aspiration, the ideal and the inspiration to be free and independent, like other nations of the world. To me it is very good that the Afrikaner, with his language we understand and know so well, but also the South African, are becoming more and more synonymous with the liberation of people in Southern Africa. This is good. What I am going to say now, I am going to say in earnest, because it is true.

†I think it is a great pity that we have not yet reached the stage, in this country, of getting the maximum unanimity and support of all the Opposition parties to make all the peoples of South Africa really free so as to bring about real constitutional equality between all the constituent partners in the Republic of South Africa. If we achieve that, we will achieve a basic avoidance of friction, and then we will be well on our way towards making this country a living example of how divergent people in a plural set-up can live together in peace and harmony. [Interjections.] I say it is a pity that we have not yet reached the stage where I can also rely on the Opposition parties to assist in the process of making all the peoples of this country free and, in the process, bringing about real equality between the constituent parts and laying the necessary foundations for the centuries to come to avoid friction in the plural set-up in this country. [Interjections.]

*Hon. members said that what is happening here is to the detriment of good relations in South Africa. It is, however, the absolute conviction of those of us on this side of the House that that is not true. Exactly the opposite is achieved by what is happening here. Good relations are furthered by every people in this country that is liberated. This is one of the finest things. In many of their writings, future historians will laud the process which took place in the last quarter century in South Africa with regard to the liberation of people and nations on the southern tip of Africa. We are the proud bearers of this. Now the Opposition is again coming along with the story they have been telling for many years, like the ass who bumps again and again against the same wall—when they will learn, I do not know— viz. that “we are fragmenting South Africa”.

Are you not?

But we are not fragmenting South Africa. Vendaland has been the fatherland of the Venda for more than a century. It is not our creation, after all.

But it is a part of South Africa.

All we have the privilege of doing, is recognizing the fact that Vendaland has been the fatherland of the Venda nation for centuries, that they are proud that it is their fatherland, that they would like to have it as their fatherland and that they would like to build it up to be able to take their place in the comity of nations, like other proud nations. It is our privilege, our joyous privilege, to essentially liberate these nations without bloodshed and without and without revolution. Therefore we are not engaged in a process of fragmentation; we are liberating nations in this country. This is a fine thing.

Citizenship was also discussed. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to appeal very seriously to all the hon. members of the House, and I am addressing myself primarily to the Opposition. We are trying to further good relations in this country. Day and night I do everything in my power to achieve that, and I will not allow anything to deflect me from that path, because I know that it is in the interests of everyone in the country—Black and White. I therefore ask in all friendliness that when we discuss the question of citizenship here in future, we do so with the greatest responsibility and understanding for the creation of good relations and that we should not make trouble about it.

Who has done that?

We have to be careful in that regard. Let me say emphatically that we do not want to make anyone in this country stateless or deny him rights. We want to liberate nations and we are doing that in the only way in which it is possible to liberate nations. Therefore motives we do not have should not be imputed to us.

†Sir, I have repeatedly said in the House, for instance in the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this session, and I shall repeat it as often as necessary, that I believe in a common loyalty of all the peoples of South Africa and Southern Africa. I emphasize “common loyalty”.

Towards what?

When I speak to the people of kwaZulu or to the Venda people, I emphasize that. How can I emphasize common loyalty and at the same time stand accused of the sort of thing that side of the House accuses me of? That just does not tally. [Interjections.] The hon. members opposite are damaging the good relations between people in this country. Let history decide whether we have in fact been making people free, or whether we have been depriving them of rights. We do not want to do that. That is not our intention, and we are not going to do it. I emphasize a common loyalty of all the peoples of this country and I repeat it on purpose this afternoon. I appeal to the Opposition to assist us in this. I think it is a fair request because I know for sure that it is in everybody’s interests in this country. However, I also want to emphasize something else, namely that there is an identity of interests between White and Black in this country.

Where is that in the Bill?

If hon. members read the Republic Day speeches, they will see that almost all the Government speakers on that day emphasized that we had to find ways and means of enabling people to stand shoulder to shoulder in this country to defend what they hold dear. We are absolutely sincere about that and are heading towards that goal as sure as I am speaking in this House this afternoon. I beseech hon. members to accept my word of honour that that is what we are trying to do.

Then you must come clean on citizenship.

We can discuss citizenship at the Second Reading. But I appeal to hon. members to let us do it on the basis which I put forward, viz. of common loyalty to this country, to instill it, to further it and to emphasize identity of interest. Then we will find common ground and then we will make a tremendous contribution, also through this Bill, to the well-being of the peoples of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. the Minister in full flight, but I regret to say that everything he has said underlines the fundamental difference between those on the Government benches and we on this side of the House. We see South Africa as one country, and the devise, the grand design of apartheid, which creates independence for homelands, in this instance Venda, is not going to solve any problems as far as South Africa is concerned, because we are one country. We have seen the Government beginning to change its viewpoint, beginning to accept that we are one country and we have had talk about interdependent independence and phrases like that. But it is a semantic game that they are playing. We cannot accept that independence for all the homelands is anything short of disaster for South Africa. [Interjections.] This is the third step towards disaster.

The hon. the Minister has said that for the third time we are banging our heads against a brick wall. Well, we have every good reason to do so, because we are trying to save our country from disaster. We are trying to save our country from fragmentation. I listened to the words of the hon. the Minister. He said that this was going to be a living example of how divergent people could live together in peace and harmony. We do not agree with that. We believe that if one fragments people and institutions in the same area—because South Africa is one country—one puts different nationalisms together side by side, and inevitably one is putting South Africa in a conflict situation. This conflict situation is not going to be resolved by the sort of independence that is envisaged in these steps towards the grand design of apartheid.

When I, and other hon. members in these benches, talk about independence we are talking about independence where there is some measure of viability. If one knows Venda at all, one must accept that there is no way at all that the Venda people in a country such as Venda is at the moment, can be viable as an independent country. If one looks at Venda, where are the power stations and the infrastructure items that go towards creating a viable independent country? They are not there at all. The hon. member for Musgrave said that if a people wanted independence and said so by a referendum, we would not deny them that although we certainly would not encourage it. But we also know, from looking at the earlier independence legislation relating to Transkei and Bophuthatswana, that the alternatives provided by the Government to independence are so unpleasant that independence has been chosen by those Black people who do seek independence because they cannot see any future for themselves under a Nationalist Government in South Africa. [Interjections.] Both Chief Kaiser Matanzima and President Mangope have said that if things were different in South Africa, they would be very pleased to come back and become part and parcel of a South Africa which had a common loyalty, and here I want to return to the hon. the Minister’s reference to a common loyalty. We ask him: A common loyalty to what? Is it a common loyalty to South Africa? The hon. the Minister does not answer. He is too busy talking to somebody else. I again want to ask him across the floor of the House to what common loyalty he refers when he talks about common loyalty. Is it a common loyalty to South Africa?

I said “Southern Africa” and you know it.

Now he says he referred to a common loyalty to Southern Africa. This is a semantic game the hon. the Minister is playing, because he means and is talking about a common loyalty to South Africa. I want to say to him that if we as South Africans—Black, White and all other colours—do not stand together, South Africa will fall. If we fragment our country in the face of the onslaught that side of the House is talking about, will we remain standing? What is this common loyalty all about? They are destroying the fundamental basis for a common loyalty when they are destroying and fragmenting South Africa.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 55.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House at present, is simply a consolidating measure and the necessary certificate from the legal advisers that the Bill restates the existing law without amending it, has been presented.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Professional Engineers’ Amendment Bill was referred to a Select Committee after the First Reading stage primarily because of the fact that in terms of that amendment Bill the provisions of the Professional Engineers’ Act, Act No. 81 of 1968, will also be applicable to companies and other juristic persons performing work which in terms of section 7(3)(c) of the said Professional Engineers’ Act is reserved for professional engineers, and certain companies and juristic persons that do not comply with the prescriptions will consequently be prevented from performing work which is thus reserved and will consequently be deprived of their livelihood.

Since the Select Committee was unable to dispose of its business before Parliament prorogued at the end of the 1978 session a commission of inquiry was appointed to dispose of the business of the Select Committee. All the recommendations of the commission of inquiry have been included in the Professional Engineers’ Amendment Bill (W. 81-’79) which was read a first time on Thursday, 10 May 1979.

As far as the engineering profession is concerned, I want to point out that a number of highly trained and competent persons with extensive experience in the various branches of the engineering profession have, under the direction of the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers, been trying for a number of years since the Professional Engineers’ Act, Act No. 81 of 1968, was promulgated to compile a comprehensive minimum tariff of fees for the calculation of professional fees for the engineering profession. Owing to the diversity of the various branches and of the activities within each separate branch the committee in question was unable to succeed in devising a minimum tariff of fees which was infallible in all respects. It was found that owing to the enormous diversity of activities it was not possible to formulate a tariff which would not result in either an overpayment for one activity or an underpayment for another. As far as the engineering profession is concerned practical experience has consequently shown that realistic terms can only be determined if it is done with reference to a basic tariff of fees and with due regard for the requirements unique to each individual commission. For these reasons it was consequently decided merely to prescribe a tariff of fees in the case of the engineering profession in terms of which a client and engineer could negotiate for an appropriate remuneration for a specific commission.

The principal amendments contained in the Professional Engineers’ Amendment Bill consist of the following—

1. (i) To make provision for the abolition of the Professional Advisory Committees that have to be constituted in accordance with the provisions contained in section 12(l)(b) of the Act. Experience has shown that owing to the wide field covered by each engineering profession, the Professional Advisory Committees which, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, each consist of five members, cannot be constituted in such a way that the committee is an authority on every facet of the engineering field which it represents. The Professional Advisory Committees, as they are constituted at present, are frequently faced with situations which they cannot cope with. However, the business of the aforesaid committees can be dealt with equally effectively by committees appointed by the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers in terms of section 10 of the Act. This will also enable the council to define the terms of reference and the constitution of each committee according to the particular requirements of the branch of engineering which it represents.
2. (ii) To provide that companies or other juristic persons, in the same way as natural persons, will be liable to penalties under the Act if they perform work for remuneration which is reserved for professional engineers in terms of section 7(3)(c) without their having obtained exemption from the provisions of the Act
   The primary object of the Act is the regulation of the engineering profession in the interests of the public. At present the provisions of the Act are only applicable to natural persons, and according to legal opinion obtained the provisions are not applicable to companies or other juristic persons. Companies and other juristic persons that perform work for remuneration which is reserved for professional engineers are therefore able to contravene the Act, without any danger of a prosecution being instituted against them, by—
   1. (a) allowing natural persons in their employment to do engineering work for which such persons are not qualified;
   2. (b) doing work at a lower tariff than the minimum tariff of fees prescribed for professional engineers and in that way supplementing the latter;
   3. (c) canvassing for work in conflict with the professional code of conduct or performing any other act which is in conflict with the prescribed code of conduct;
   4. (d) practicing as companies with limited liability as a result of which their clients find themselves in an unfavourable bargaining position if the company should fail to meet its obligations.

1. (a) amplifying the definition of a “person” to include juristic persons as well; and
2. (b) adjusting the Act in such a way that it will be possible to exempt juristic persons who for practical reasons cannot register as professional engineers in terms of the Act from the provisions of the Act, subject to compliance with certain conditions.

In order to afford companies and other juristic persons an adequate opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Act, these provisions will be put into operation as from a date announced by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

Mr. Speaker, in his presentation of the Bill to the House, the hon. the Minister has given a fairly detailed exposition of the various clauses in the Bill. As one of the members of the Select Committee and the commission, it is not my desire to waste the time of the House by going into further detail, except to comment very briefly on two clauses. As a member of that Select Committee and that commission, I agree with the provisions of the Bill. There is no doubt at all that the most important provision is clause 24, which is responsible for the proposed new section 30A in the Bill. It enables highly trained people, carrying out professional occupations, to band together under the umbrella of the South African Council for Professional Engineers and form boards of control. One must stress the word “profession”, because there was considerable discussion in the commission and in the Select Committee about what kind of people should be allowed to participate in these boards of control. It was a unanimous decision that boards of control should only be considered if these people have some sort of professional status. They must be highly trained people of professional status rather than people with an occupation which might not necessarily require skilled training.

I think it is probably right to mention— although I do not agree with them—that there are engineers who would quarrel with the last part of clause 24, subsection (8). It states, and I quote—

I am aware that certain members of the engineering profession believe that these boards of control should be, to a greater degree, subservient to the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers. I do not agree with that I believe that these boards of control should have a large measure of independence and should be in control of their own destiny. So I shall go along with that clause.

The other clause which I believe deserves comment is clause 6(g). This has to do with the tariff of fees which professional engineers can demand for the work they carry out I want to quote that provision which states that the council shall have the right—

I stress the word “may” to emphasize that the provision is not mandatory. I again think that it is quite impossible in the engineering profession, with its vast divergence of disciplines, to specify a hard and fast rule when it comes to the tariff of fees. By the use of the word “may” in the clause, one makes this an advisory tariff rather than a mandatory tariff. This also has the approval of this side of the House.

All in all, it is a Bill that undoubtedly improves the original Act. We in these benches shall therefore support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is in reality a sad privilege which has fallen to my lot here this afternoon, viz. that of acting on behalf of the chairman of the commission of inquiry into the present Bill; sad because the hon. member for Edenvale is not here today owing to an indisposition. Consequently it is my privilege to act on his behalf here today. On behalf of all the hon. members, as well as those who were members of the commission, I wish to express the hope that the hon. member for Edenvale will soon have recovered completely and will be able to resume his place here in this House.

In the first place, it is also my privilege on behalf of the hon. member for Edenvale, to convey my sincere thanks to all hon. members who served on the commission. Here I include all hon. members, and those of the Opposition parties as well. I thank them for the pleasant co-operation and for the pleasant spirit in which the discussion of the separate clauses of the Bill took place. Of course the commission not only reviewed the Bill in question, but also the Architects’ Amendment Bill and the Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill.

I think I am speaking on behalf of all members of the commission when I say that it was an exceptional privilege to serve on a commission chaired by the hon. member for Edenvale. In his absence we consequently wish to place on record that we co-operated with him in a pleasant way. Hence the fact that we were able to arrive at a unanimous decision on the proposed legislation which is now being discussed. Although the three Bills which were investigated by the commission have much in common, there are also very subtle differences.

It would not have been possible for the commission to have coped with those subtle differences if it had had to do this without the assistance and co-operation of the Secretary for Public Works, Mr. Du Preez, and the staff of his department. Staff members of the department who were involved in the legislation under discussion, rendered valuable and highly appreciated services to the commission. I believe that we should thank them very sincerely for that great task which they performed for us.

I think I will be pardoned for mentioning a few names. In the first place I want to refer to the law advisers, Messrs. Bosch and Verschuur, people who assisted us very loyally in word and deed, and who, in particular, explained quite a number of the subtle legal aspects to us. The commission wishes to convey its sincere thanks to these two gentlemen. To the secretariat of the commission, Messrs. Hoffman and Snyman, I also wish to say that we have very great appreciation for the great task which they performed in a very short time. The commission sat on only a few occasions, and on each occasion these two gentlemen, with great zeal and conscientiousness, prepared the minutes for us and submitted the necessary amendments to us, so that we could make our final comment on them. On behalf of the commission we also convey our sincere thanks to those whose names I have mentioned, as well as to those whose names I have not mentioned. Our thanks to them for their support and assistance in regard to these three Bills.

I am delighted that the hon. member for Orange Grove said that he supports this legislation. Of course I think this goes without saying, because the decision of the commission in this regard, particularly on the Bill dealing with engineers, the one which is being discussed at present, was a unanimous one. Consequently I thank the hon. member for Orange Grove sincerely for his support to this Bill.

I do not wish to make a long speech. I simply wish to refer briefly to a few matters. In the first place I think the Bill we are now discussing is really a unique piece of legislation, unique in this respect that it is legislation in which a body of professional men in South Africa decided to declare themselves completely independent of statutory regulations as far as their own administrative arrangements are concerned. With this proposed legislation the professional engineers outgrew their years of professional puberty and weaned themselves from the concept that the State should arrange their administrative matters for them by way of statute.

Consequently I want to relate a principle in the legislation to the White Paper on part 1 of the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Labour Legislation, in which the principle is accepted that the State is not responsible for regulating the details of the administrative matters of each individual in South Africa. I should like to quote from the White Paper—

I shall, in addition, refer to a few of the amendments in this Bill. In many respects they comply precisely with the concept which is summarized in the White Paper on labour arrangements.

To my mind these are cardinal principles that are being laid down in the Bill. I shall refer to a few of them in a moment in order to motivate them clearly. In this draft legislation there are a great many minor amendments which have been effected in respect of the aspects “professional”, “profession” and “professional engineer”. If one were to glance at the proposed section 30A of the principal Act, one would see that the concept of “beroep” in the Afrikaans text in respect of boards of control has been entirely eliminated. In this way it is being confirmed that the professional men in South Africa want legislation of their own and that such legislation should also include all related levels of the profession. Since we wanted to eliminate the word “beroep” from the legislation completely, it was difficult for us to decide whether we should not define the concept of “profession”. The commission deliberated on this at length and eventually decided that it should not be done because in reality the essence of the Bill, in its entirety, reflects the definition of “professional” status.

To endorse this I just want to take a quick look at what the Webster and Oxford Dictionaries have to say about the concept of “profession”. I am quoting what the Oxford Dictionary has to say about a “profession”—

That is the definition. If we test this Bill against this definition, we see that the Bill in fact complies in its entirety with every requirement. The best definition which we can find of the word “occupation” however, is—

For those reasons it was then decided that we should remove the concept of “beroep” from the legislation completely, and refer only to “profession”.

I return now to the basic standpoint which I stated when I said that the profession has, by means of a few clauses which I shall elucidate in a moment, disengaged itself completely from the statutory regulation of its administrative affairs. The profession has freed itself from the statutory apron strings of the Government. The first clause we could look at, is clause 6 which deals with tariffs. In the Bill provision is now being made for the tariff to be a recommended one, which entails that the tariff which is recommended may be used as a criterion to calculate what the remuneration of the professional engineer will be for the services which he has rendered.

It is important that we observe how the professional engineers’ association approaches this principle. It is an important principle and I find it a pity that not all the professional bodies wish to accept the principle that their tariff determination should be freed from the statutory apron strings of the Government. In this connection I should like to quote from the report of the S.A. Council of Professional Engineers, as far as it is applicable to the tariff determination—

I think this is an important principle which is implicit in the Bill, viz. that the tariff is only a recommended tariff while the bodies concerned will be able to negotiate on the actual tariff according to which a project will be paid for.

At first glance clause 6(1) appears merely to result in a simple amendment, but as far as I am concerned, that amendment is of a far-reaching nature. The clause in question deals with section 7(4) of the principal Act. The effect of this amendment is that when regulations are promulgated in the Gazette, certain factors have to be taken into account. Previously the position was that a certain tariff of fees was recommended, after which the Minister gave it his approval. The new provision requires the proposed tariff to be published in the Gazette for comment by the bodies which will be affected by the tariff before it is approved. I think this is an extremely important amendment, because it demonstrates that the engineering profession has now acquired autonomy.

Another important provision to which I wish to refer briefly, we find in the proposed paragraph (fA) of section 7(1). Previously it was the position that in order to pay a certain consideration to members of the council or of a committee, the Minister had to approve the tariffs in question in terms of the existing section 7(1)(c). This provision is now being eliminated from the legislation. It is now being separated from the Act, and once again we have a demonstration of autonomy because in future the S.A. Council for Professional Engineers will itself be able to decide what that remuneration shall be.

The last aspect I wish to dwell on concerns the question of the Education Advisory Committee. The original legislation set out in great detail how this advisory committee was to be constituted. The original Act provided that there should be a committee for every type of engineering industry. When the syllabus for a specific engineering industry, for example the civil or the electrical engineering industry, had to be decided, the Act provided that a professional advisory committee had to be appointed for each separate industry. The amendment Bill at present before this House merely provides that the council only has the authority to appoint education committees, while the question of what education committees it should be and what their functions should be, is left to be dealt with administratively by the council. Once again, this is a splendid example of how this amendment Bill has freed the engineering profession from the statutory apron-strings of the State. They are being granted their autonomy, they have reached adulthood, and are now able to regulate their own administrative affairs.

The final aspect to which I should like to refer relates to work reservation. The commission was placed under very heavy pressure by way of representations stating that the work reservation in accordance with section 7(3)(c) meant that any person who, in accordance with section 21(l)(b), professes to be an engineer or who does work for an engineer which was reserved in terms of section 7(3)(c), is committing an offence and is liable to punishment. We listened to the representations in this connection. They were very well prepared representations. We had to give our attention to them. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, I want to point out that this matter has been left unchanged in the amendment Bill for the simple reason that the S.A. Council of Professional Engineers is prepared—in fact, they have already submitted proposals to the commission indicating how they will do this—to amend the work reservation regulations in such a way that the problems which the Chemical Institute and the physicists have with the provision in question, i.e. that people may unwittingly commit an offence, has been eliminated entirely. This will be done with the next revision of the regulations.

Consequently I should like to support the commission and this Bill very strongly on behalf of this side of the House, especially because it really sets an example to all the professional bodies in South Africa, an example which they may emulate to good effect in order to cope with their own administrative arrangements and domestic affairs themselves and to have the laws pertaining to them amended in such a way that they can free themselves completely from the statutory authority of the State. Consequently we should very much like to support this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to indicate my party’s attitude to the Bill before the House. The Professional Engineers’ Amendment Bill is a Bill we gladly support. The same applies to the two Bills which are to follow this one, viz. the Architects’ Amendment Bill and the Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill. I mention that now, because I will not rise again to speak on those Bills when they come before us.

Like the hon. member for Wonderboom, I should like to convey my appreciation and thanks to the chairman of the commission as well as the staff members who served the commission so well. I must say that the chairman and, for that matter, all the members who served on the commission created a pleasant atmosphere in which to work. I do not intend going into the subject matter of this Bill in depth, because I believe it has been thoroughly dealt with already. We shall be supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I should like to pledge my wholehearted support to this Bill, as well as to the two Bills which are to follow this one. Furthermore, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the chairman and the members of the commission on the task which they have completed. If hon. members had listened to the hon. member for Wonderboom they would have realized what a valuable contribution he made. We are dealing here with three Bills which are of a rather technical nature and few of us who were members of the commission had any knowledge of these matters, but fortunately we had the hon. member for Wonderboom on the commission and he was of great value to us and was able to furnish us with guidance. I also want to thank the chairman, and at the same time thank the hon. member for Wonderboom, for the part which he played. I want to thank the officials who guided us through the sittings of the commission. I want to agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that it was a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee and the subsequent commission. I also want to mention that all the bodies involved in these three Bills availed themselves well of the golden opportunity to make submissions and give evidence. We also wish to express our thanks to those people who took the trouble to be helpful to us, for the assistance and guidance which they gave us.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members of the official Opposition and the NRP for their support of this Bill.

*I also want to thank hon. members on this side of the House, and in particular the hon. member for Wonderboom, whose contribution consisted of furnishing us with further details. During the Third Reading of the Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill I shall have a little more to say about the activities of the Select Committee and the Commission of Inquiry. I also want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for the contribution which he made.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks to the South African Council of Professional Engineers and particularly to Dr. M. Gericke, the president of the council. He is a person who, together with the members of his council, has endeavoured for many years with great enthusiasm to effect amendments to the legislation and the regulations applicable to engineers. The amendment Bill for this House is a joint effort of the council to which I have referred, in conjunction with hon. members of this House. On this occasion I should like to convey my special thanks to the council; particularly to Dr. M. Gericke for the trouble which he took and the enthusiasm which he displayed.

I do not think it is necessary for me to refer again to the various matters which hon. members raised because these are matters on which all of us agree.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Architects’ Amendment Bill was referred to the Select Committee at the First Reading stage mainly because of the fact that in terms of the relative amendment Bill the provisions of the Architects’ Act (Act 35 of 1970) would become applicable to companies and juristic persons that perform work which is reserved for architects in terms of section 7(3)(c) of the Act, and certain companies and juristic persons that do not comply with the provisions of the Act would thus be prevented from carrying out the work which is reserved for architects and would accordingly be deprived of their livelihood.

Because the Select Committee could not complete its work before Parliament was prorogued at the end of the 1978 session, a commission of inquiry was appointed to complete the work of the Select Committee. Apart from one exception, namely the recommendation that the Minister should prescribe a “tariff of fees” instead of a “minimum fee” according to which architects should calculate their fees for their professional services, all the other recommendations of the commission of inquiry have been incorporated in the Architects’ Amendment Bill which was read for the First Time on 10 May 1979.

The reason why the commission of inquiry proposed that the Act be amended so that a “tariff of fees” instead of a “minimum fee”, as at present stipulated by the Act, should apply, stems from the fact that according to legal opinion presented to the commission the client was contractually obliged to pay an architect the full prescribed minimum fee, irrespective of whether the architect rendered a full professional service or not However, legal opinion which became available after the commission completed its work indicated without doubt that a client and an architect may agree to reduce the minimum fees proportionally in accordance with the service the architect renders.

The view is held that remuneration calculated according to “minimum fees” encourages competition amongst architects on the basis of expertise and quality of service, a fact which is in the interests of the client in particular and of the profession in general, but that remuneration calculated according to a tariff of fees can lead to unhealthy competition between architects in regard to the tariff at which such remuneration for professional fees is calculated. This will inevitably lead to a lowering of the standard of the service rendered. In view of the foregoing, the latest legal opinions referred to and the serious objections to the commission’s recommendations made by the S.A. Council for Architects, the Cabinet decided to retain the present principle of having a “minimum fee” as provided for in the Architects’ Act (Act 35 of 1970).

The most important changes which have been incorporated in the Architects’ Amendment Bill are—

1. (a) allowing natural persons in their employ to perform architectural work for which they are not qualified;
2. (b) carrying out work at a lower fee than the minimum fees prescribed for architects and, in so doing, competing unfairly with architects;
3. (c) touting for work and performing other acts in contravention of the code of professional conduct which applies to architects;
4. (d) practising as companies with limited liability. When such companies fail to meet their commitments, the clients find themselves in a weak position with no recourse.

It is accordingly proposed to put a stop to such malpractices by—

1. (a) extending the definition of a person to include juristic persons;
2. (b) amending the Act so that juristic persons who, for practical purposes, cannot register as architects in terms of the Act can, subject to compliance with certain conditions, be exempted from some of the provisions of the Act.

(ii) The amendment of Section 31A of the Act which at present applies to natural persons only, is proposed in order to make the provisions applicable to juristic persons as well. As companies cannot, in all respects, comply with the provisions laid down for natural persons, such as academic qualifications, etc., the provisions of the relevant section have been extended to enable juristic persons to obtain exemption from the provisions of the Act subject to such conditions as will be published in the Government Gazette in terms of subsection (2) of section 31 A.

In order to give companies and other juristic persons ample opportunity to comply with the Act, the relevant provisions will only come into operation on a date which will be determined by the State President by proclamation in the Government Gazette.

(iii) To provide for the establishment of boards of control in order to give persons who perform professional work which is related or allied to the work reserved for architects, and for which academic training is required, representation at meetings of the council.

This provision will also authorize the members of any profession who establish a board of control to get their house in order by means of organizing the members as an institute or organization before the establishment of a board of control. A board of control will be autonomous as far as regulating the affairs of its members is concerned. To ensure that there will be cooperation between the S.A. Council for Architects and a board of control regarding matters of common interest, provision is made for reciprocal representation on the relative council and boards.

(iv) In order to put the architects’ profession on a sound basis in States which were formerly part of the Republic, a new section 31C has been introduced so that the Act can also be made applicable to that State if it so wishes.

This then covers the most important amendments as proposed in the Bill. However, it has come to my notice that there is a further shortcoming in the Act which I am of the opinion should also be rectified by an appropriate amendment of which full details will be given in the Committee Stage. At this juncture it is sufficient to say that the shortcoming stems from the proviso in section 19(10) of the Architects’ Act (Act 35 of 1970) which, inter alia, stipulates that the registration of an architect shall lapse if he is no longer ordinarily resident in the Republic. Although this stipulation is, for obvious reasons, very essential it is nevertheless most unfair in respect of those architects who for bona fide reasons have to work for an indefinite period in a foreign country and can, as a result, no longer be regarded as being ordinarily resident in the Republic. I therefore intend to propose, during the Committee Stage, an amendment to this section with a view to eliminating the disadvantage that this provision entails for those architects who, in their professions, still give preference to practising in the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is, as the hon. the Minister has said, one of the trio of Bills considered by the Select Committee and then commission of inquiry, and in most respects it is in accordance with the report of that commission of inquiry. I must say that the deviation from this—this is in clause 6 which has to do with the fee structure—is one that I actually approve of. As those who served on the commission will know, I expressed my reservations at the time when a decision was made by the commission to do away with legal backing for a compulsory fee structure. I felt at the time that we had not had sufficient evidence on the matter and I wanted the S.A. Council for Architects to give a little further evidence. Unfortunately, the shortness of time did not allow for that, and the commission consequently reported. I did not exercise my right to issue a minority report because I had no hard and fast opinion on it, but I am glad that the hon. the Minister has in the meantime had the opportunity of talking to the S.A. Council for Architects and has acceded to their request to keep a mandatory fee structure.

The hon. the Minister has, as he said, gone through most of the important clauses dealt with in the Bill, specifically clause 18 which introduces a new section 31B which allows for boards of control falling under the S.A. Council for Architects. This proposal has our support. The provisions that ensure that certain work will be reserved for architects have our support and we too believe that it is necessary to uphold professional standards and that the general public in South Africa have to get a measure of protection. If they deal with a body such as the S.A. Council for Architects or with a board of control consisting of professionals doing certain work which falls into the ambit of architectural work, the public can be well aware of the fact that they are dealing with people of status, training and ability, people who had to meet certain standards. We would therefore see these amendments as contributing towards a protection for members of the public who do deal with the architectural profession. All in all, this Bill has our support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with the Bill of which the Second Reading was moved by the hon. the Minister this afternoon. I believe that this measure will be accepted by all in this House and that those people in the profession who will be affected by it will be very satisfied with it. One is grateful for the fact that this profession and its various branches are already so well established in South Africa that the hon. the Minister has been forced to amend the existing legislation in order to provide for these various boards of control which will also operate in the various branches of the profession from now on.

When one enters Pretoria from the Fountains, one sees the beautiful building of the University of South Africa. It is striking to see how that building merges with its environment and the ridge on which it is situated. When one sees that, one realizes that the planner had many great things in mind, and then one feels a renewed appreciation for the architects’ profession. When one goes through the road safety record of the Free State town of Welkom, one sees that the fine cities and buildings of our country have not been planned by architects only, but that town planners have also been incorporated into this profession and that they have all helped to build this beautiful South Africa of ours.

That is why I am grateful for this measure which is before the House today. It provides not only for that one part which we suppose the profession to consist of, but also for the landscape architects, the town planners and then of course for the architects themselves. Also, it underlines the fact that South Africa is a leading State in Africa. I think the farsightedness of the hon. the Minister and of the commission is emphasized by the proposed addition of the new section 31C. This will enable South Africa to render assistance to its former homelands in this field as well. Since the hon. the Minister wants to make a small amendment in this connection, I want to ask him whether he would not consider amending this provision somewhat in the Committee Stage. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister could not consider extending the provisions of this clause to include our neighbouring States as well as the former homelands.

In the light of the latest developments in Southern Africa and of the appeal made by the hon. the Prime Minister for closer cooperation between these States, I believe it would be advisable to word the legislation in such a way as to provide for the other Governments of Southern Africa to be involved in this even at this early stage, so that it will not be necessary for the hon. the Minister to come back to this House to ask for further amendments at a later stage. Since the hon. the Minister’s other Vote, Tourism, requires him to co-operate with other countries in Southern Africa, I wish to ask him whether he would not consider this small amendment to that clause. The proposed section 31C now reads: “… of any territory which was formerly part of the Republic …” and I ask whether we cannot substitute for this the words “of any other State”. I feel that this would enable the Government to offer any other State its co-operation in this professional sphere, without having to come back to this House for the authority to do so.

Furthermore, I am pleased about the fact that the legislation will henceforth prevent a company from practising without the physical services of a registered architect I believe that the legislation now affords better protection to the members of the profession, and we are also satisfied with the fact that the fine has been increased to R1 000.

The legislation also provides for the Minister to grant exemption from certain provisions to bodies such as smaller city councils and health boards which cannot afford creating posts for these highly specialized people. Exemption in this connection will enable such city councils to put up the buildings to be erected in their area of jurisdiction from time to time. It can be done by their present officials, subject to the approval of the Council for Architects.

Another aspect which has now been better defined is the allowance and remuneration of members of the council and of the education advisory committees. It is a good thing that the Bill also authorizes the council to grant its approval for the Minister to give his permission, in special cases, for deviations from the minimum fees which architects may charge. This has been done, it seems, to enable architects to render services to churches at lower tariffs than are required by the regulations. I think we all welcome this step.

Furthermore, this legislation also provides for architects to remain registered with the council, in spite of the fact that they may be resident outside the country’s borders for long periods. These people often work on contracts abroad for several years, supervising construction. It is gratifying that the services of South Africa’s professional people are becoming popular abroad, and I am grateful for the fact that in this way we can prevent a brain drain on this country. I also think we should help the profession as far as possible. Therefore I also welcome this amendment to the Act.

Finally, the Act is also being amended to provide for the examinations that are prescribed to be better controlled by the various boards of control. I believe that this will ensure a high standard in all branches of the profession.

This amending Bill is well-timed and is welcomed by this side of the House. I was not a member of that commission, but I want to associate myself wholeheartedly with what was said by the hon. member for Wonderboom. I want to express our thanks and appreciation for what the commission, the hon. the Minister and the officials have achieved for the profession through this Bill. On behalf of this side of the House, I express our wholehearted support for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for his support of this Bill on behalf of the official Opposition.

*The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South intimated on a previous occasion that he supported this Bill. I also want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg for the contribution he made. I just want to confirm that at a later stage—during the Third Reading of the Quantity Surveyors’ Bill—I shall thank the hon. members who served first on the Select Committee and then on the commission of inquiry.

As regards the idea of the hon. member for Boksburg, that the proposed section 31C should be amended to provide for any other State instead of a territory which was formerly a part of the Republic, I regret that I cannot consider it at this stage. It would be a drastic measure requiring negotiation between the various States and Governments. If it had been possible to spend a little more time on it, one could have considered the amendment. At this stage, unfortunately, I cannot do so. Perhaps one could look at it again after further consideration, in the Other Place. In any event, I want to thank him for his contribution. I think this is all I have to say.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The relevant words here are “in the opinion of the council”. Those are the words I intend to add. I have made copies of my amendment available to the Opposition parties.

Mr. Chairman, during his Second Reading speech we listened to the hon. the Minister’s motivation for his moving this amendment. There is certainly an anomaly. By adding to the clause the words “in the opinion of the council”, I still do not regard the position as totally satisfactory because it does not give any protection to someone who might actually be in South Africa. If one reads the clause together with the amendment it would mean that the council could deem someone living in South Africa not to be in South Africa and therefore have his name removed from the roll. Although the wording is not entirely satisfactory, I cannot really quarrel with it. Therefore I will go along with it at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me to put the minds of hon. members at ease. I received the request for the change of wording from the Council for Architects themselves. I went into the matter very carefully. I referred it to the legal advisers, who considered different wordings. Ultimately they decided upon the wording contained in my amendment. It is a wording with which the Council for Architects fully agrees. Under these circumstances I believe we should proceed with the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill (Act 30 of 1978) was referred to a Select Committee at the First Reading stage, chiefly due to the fact that in terms of the amending Bill in question, the provisions of the Quantity Surveyors Act, 1970 (Act 36 of 1970) would also apply to companies and other corporate bodies performing work which was reserved in terms of section 7(3)(c) of the mentioned Quantity Surveyors Act, and certain companies and corporate bodies which did not comply with the requirements would therefore be prohibited from performing work reserved for quantity surveyors and would consequently be deprived of their livelihood.

Since the Select Committee was unable to conclude its business before Parliament prorogued at the end of the 1978 session, a commission of inquiry was appointed to round off the business of the Select Committee. Apart from one exception, namely the recommendation that a “tariff of fees” instead of a “minimum tariff of fees” be prescribed by the Minister, in accordance with which quantity surveyors may calculate their remuneration for professional services, all the other recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Quantity Surveyors Amendment Bill (Act 83 of 1979) that was read a first time on Thursday, 10 May 1979, have been embodied in the Bill. The reason why the commission of inquiry proposed that the Act be amended so that a “tariff of fees” should be prescribed instead of a “minimum tariff of fees”, as is at present laid down in the Act, is that a legal opinion submitted to the commission at that stage indicated that the client was contractually obliged to pay the full prescribed minimum fees for professional services delivered, even though the quantity surveyor had not rendered a full service. However, legal opinions subsequently available confirmed beyond all doubt that the client could in fact enter into an agreement with the quantity surveyor to reduce the remuneration proportionally in accordance with the service rendered by the quantity surveyor.

The view is held that compensation calculated in accordance with the “minimum tariff of fees” will promote competition among quantity surveyors on the basis of expert knowledge and quality of service, and that this would be in the interests of the client in particular and the profession in general, but that remuneration calculated in accordance with a “tariff of fees” would give rise to unhealthy rivalry among quantity surveyors with regard to the tariff at which the compensation for professional services is calculated, which would necessarily lead to a drop in the standard of service. In the light of the afore-going and in accordance with the latest legal opinions referred to and the serious objections to the recommendation of the commission received from the S.A. Council for Quantity Surveyors, the Cabinet decided to retain the existing principle of a “minimum tariff of fees” as provided by the Quantity Surveyors Act, 1970 (Act 36 of 1970).

The most important amendments of principle embodied in the Quantity Surveyors Amendment Bill include the following—

1. (i) To provide that companies or other corporate bodies, just like natural persons, will be liable to punishment under the Act if they perform work for remuneration reserved for quantity surveyors in terms of section 7(3)(c) without having obtained exemption from the provisions of the Act. The primary purpose of the Act is to regulate the quantity surveying profession in the interests of the public. At present the provisions of the Act only apply to natural persons, and according to legal opinion taken, the provisions do not apply to companies or other corporate bodies. Companies and other corporate bodies performing for remuneration work reserved for quantity surveyors can therefore infringe the Act without risking prosecution by—
   1. (a) permitting natural persons in their service to perform quantity surveying work for which the persons are not qualified;
   2. (b) performing work at a lower tariff than the minimum tariff of fees prescribed for quantity surveyors, and by so doing, supplanting the latter;
   3. (c) in conflict with the professional code of conduct, canvassing for work or performing any other action in conflict with the code of conduct as laid down; and
   4. (d) practicing as limited liability companies, thereby placing their clients in a poor negotiating position if the company omits to meet its obligations.

It is therefore envisaged to close these loopholes in the Act by—

1. (a) extending the definition of a “person” to include corporate bodies; and
2. (b) adjusting the Act so that corporate bodies unable to register as quantity surveyors in terms of the Act for practical reasons may be exempted, subject to compliance with certain conditions from the provisions of the Act

1. (ii) The insertion of the proposed section 31A is aimed at extending the exemption in terms of the Act to apply to corporate persons as well. However, since the companies cannot comply with all the requirements, such as academic qualifications, etc., a company may, if it complies with the conditions to be published in the Gazette in terms of subsection (2) of section 31 A, apply to be exempted from the provisions of the Act in order to practice legitimately as a quantity surveyor.
   In order to afford companies and other corporate bodies sufficient opportunity to comply with the provisions of the Act, the provisions in question will be put into effect from a date announced by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.
2. (iii) To provide for the establishment of boards of control to give a say in the council to persons performing professional work closely related or allied to the work reserved for quantity surveyors and for which an academic training is required. This provision will also be an empowering one in the sense that the members of any profession who want to establish a board of control must put their own house in order by organizing their members into an institute or association before being able to establish a board of control. A board of control will be autonomous as regards the arrangement of matters affecting its members. To ensure mutual co-operation between the S.A. Council for Quantity Surveyors and a board of control concerning matters of common interest, provision is made for reciprocal representation in the councils in question.
3. (iv) In order to place the quantity surveying profession on a sound basis from the outset in states which, before independence, formed part of the Republic a new section 31C is being inserted in the Act with the aim of applying the Act to such states as well if such a State should require it

That then, Mr. Speaker, covers all the most important essential changes in the amending Bill. However, it has come to my attention that there is a further deficiency in the Act which in my opinion should also be rectified by means of an amendment in regard to which full details will be given in the Committee Stage. At this stage, suffice it to say that the deficiency arises out of the proviso in section 19(10) of the Quantity Surveyors Act, 1970 (Act 36 of 1970) which provides, inter alia, that the registration of a quantity surveyor will lapse if he ceases to be ordinarily resident in the Republic. Although the provision is essential for obvious reasons it is nevertheless very unreasonable towards those quantity surveyors who for bona fide reasons have to work abroad for an indeterminate period and as a result can no longer be deemed ordinarily resident in the Republic. Consequently I shall move at the Committee Stage that the section be amended in order to eliminate the disadvantage the provision entails for quantity surveyors who, in practicing their profession, give preference to the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, rising to give our support to this third Bill, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the department and the officials concerned who gave assistance to the commission and the Select Committee and who gave the administrative backing which allowed the commission’s work to proceed on well-oiled wheels. We were dealing with a highly technical subject and the assistance given by the departmental officials was absolutely invaluable.

Again, we find ourselves in the situation that we can support the Bill as it stands. I am grateful that the Cabinet decided that one recommendation of the commission should not be accepted, viz. the recommendation which had to do with mandatory fees. I am grateful that there has been a change in this respect I believe it is in the public interest that professional standards should be maintained and I am in full agreement with the relevant clause, clause 16, in the Bill before us.

Clause 17 proposes to insert a new section 31A which relates to control boards. This brings this Bill into line with the other two Bills dealing with professional people. We also agree with the provisions in the clause relating to companies and other juristic persons. We actually see a danger in many of the new multi-disciplinary practices which have become much in evidence in recent years in the professions. One has multi-disciplinary practices which provide architectural services, quantity surveying services and sometimes building supervision services at the same time. We have on occasion seen fee structures hidden in a multi-disciplinary partnership or company of this nature. This has enabled people who are actually companies or juristic persons to cut fees illegally. We believe that the provisions contained in the Bill before us will substantially assist in reducing this danger.

With these words we on these benches support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was a wise step to refer this Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill to a Select Committee after the First Reading. Pursuant to what previous speakers said, I want to say that in this regard we reached new heights. Not only did we have the opportunity of carrying out a thorough study of all three Bills before this House today, but as commission and as a Select Committee we were also able to listen to the knowledge and experience of many people in many industries. As has been said before, we are very sorry that the hon. member for Edenvale, who was chairman of the commission, cannot be present today. The members of the various parties really cooperated with one another wholeheartedly to get this Bill before this House in its present form.

We are also very grateful to the hon. the Minister for the guidance we received from him through officials of his department I am referring in this regard to Messrs. Du Preez and Hoffman. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank everyone who assisted us in publishing this very complicated Bill after consideration of all the recommendations we received. All the recommendations were accepted, with the exception of a recommendation pertaining to the calculation by quantity surveyors of their remuneration for professional services rendered. This Bill is very important.

Allow me to point out that it was only after I had been appointed member of the Select Committee and at a later stage member of the commission of inquiry that I realized how little I knew of matters in this regard. Every time I went home, I filled my cases with reports and other papers. Having returned here after this weekend, I found that my suitcase, with all the papers it contained, weighed more than 23 kg. If that is the mass of the papers, little room is left for clothes. There was an enormous number of papers. The report of the Select Committee alone consists of more than 350 printed pages.

The papers submitted to us entailed a tremendous amount of study. The three different Bills were referred to us and there are also provisions applicable to South West Africa in that legislation. Reference is even made to the repeal of Ordinance No. 36 of 1959 of South West Africa. There was Act No. 36 of 1970 as well. We had to study all the Acts. What we are particularly grateful for is the efficient way in which all the memorandums were summarized for us. For example, the department submitted a paper to us on one of the Acts, which consisted of a great many pages. To tell the truth, it consists of no fewer than 128 pages. These are neatly typed, and there is a useful index on the basis of which all the provisions can be looked up and brought into context. We were able to make a careful study of all these matters.

The legislation gives expression to our recommendations in regard to tariffs. The question has been asked whether there is a contractual obligation to pay the full prescribed minimum fee for professional services. This is one of the principal matters which we had to evaluate. It was also asked what the position was if the quantity surveyor does not render a comprehensive service. Legal opinion was sought and initially there was a difference of opinion, but ultimately it was decided that an agreement could in fact be reached with the quantity surveyor.

Here we then come to an important principle which decided on, viz. that the remuneration could be proportionally reduced in accordance with the extent of the service rendered by the quantity surveyor. In my opinion this is a very reasonable basis for remuneration. Consequently we now eliminate unhealthy competition which could arise among quantity surveyors when it comes to the question of tariffs. If competition takes place on the basis of expert knowledge, it promotes the quality of services rendered.

The legislation was not accepted by the Select Committee and the subsequent commission of inquiry in an over-hasty way. We were very careful not to accept the legislation over-hastily. We received representations asking us not to adopt a hasty approach to the matter. However, there were also certain bodies which expected us to reach decisions quickly, but we paid no heed to them. We really went into everything very thoroughly. For example, we were given copies of extracts from A Dictionary of Legal Words and Phrases. On the word “may” alone there are several pages. Time and again the question was: What meaning would be conveyed if we were to use the word “may”? Allow me to quote examples of such phrases—

Never in our lives have we learnt as much as we did on that Select Committee and commission of inquiry on which we served. Consequently the legislation was not submitted with undue haste.

The question of remuneration is dealt with in the interests of the profession and of the general public. The board of control which is to be established, will be a responsible body. In that regard we also received representations from the Life Offices’ Association of South Africa. What they told us was very interesting—

The question that immediately occurred to us was what life insurance companies had to do with this Bill and the Quantity Surveyors Amendment Bill. They made it clear to us that they invested millions of rands in the construction of buildings and that they wanted the assurance that those buildings were being constructed thoroughly, through the efforts of the architects, quantity surveyors and engineers. That is why poor planning is now being eliminated completely by this Bill.

The primary purpose of the legislation is to control the interests of the profession and to protect them effectively. Certain services and projects can now be reserved for quantity surveyors. On registration the highest educational and academic qualifications now have to be complied with, but these also include the practical experience which is so necessary to us.

A strict ethic code is maintained with registration and while the vast majority of quantity surveyors were merely individual members in the past, or members who had entered into a partnership with other members, further protection is also being afforded now.

We were afraid that some of these quantity surveyors could eventually organize themselves into professional companies incorporated in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act and would then be unable to do thorough work. There were also cases where companies with limited liabilities undertook quantity surveying on behalf of subsidiary companies, associated companies and companies in the same group and which even rendered certain services to the public.

By means of this Bill the spotlight is now being focussed on these companies and persons, and the position is being rectified. The fact is that high professional standards and a code of ethics can now be maintained. How can a person who does not have a good grounding in it, undertake quantity surveying? This was one of the most important questions which we were faced with in connection with the legislation. By means of cheap tenders and the rendering of work of a poor standard. But this is being completely eliminated now by the new tariff structure.

As I have said, this legislation now applies to companies as well. Partnerships between quantity surveyors in the Republic and in the outside world can now no longer be entered into as easily. What is the use of someone coming here from abroad with an overseas qualification? He is not even established here, he has no interests here, he owns no property here and in the long run he cannot complete on the same standards as those we except from our people in South Africa. That is why we are now awaiting further recommendations from the S.A. Council of Architects and Quantity Surveyors.

I doubt whether the commission that investigated the legislation was in favour of a tariff of minimum rates being maintained, but they wanted negotiations ultimately to take place in a realistic way by way of a sliding scale. For that reason tariffs may be divided into categories. They may be divided into five categories, but if a client eventually finds that he can only find work in three categories, he eventually has to pay for it on a pro rata basis.

I understand that the quantity surveyors—I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could furnish more information in this regard—are in fact determining a scale which will be submitted for publication within a few months. In order to avert inflation, I hope that the proposed scale will be submitted as soon as possible.

By means of this legislation the engineers, the architects and the quantity surveyors again come together as a closed unit. In the first place the Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill is aimed at protecting the profession. If a quantity surveyor makes an incorrect calculation, large buildings could collapse. The quantity surveyor has to take into account the future increase in building costs. If he makes an incorrect calculation, hon. members can imagine that this could be fatal to the quantity surveyor and the undertaking. That is why the boards of control are also there now to protect the interests of the quantity surveyors. There is an Institute of Quantity Surveyors in London which has certain members in South Africa. A quantity surveyor is appointed in regard to buildings which cost R80 000 and more. This is now going to mean that these buildings can be constructed thoroughly.

Inter alia, this Bill also makes provision for university councils and training at universities and technikons. The quantity surveyor can now proceed with his negotiations with his client as a responsible person. This is what makes this Bill so important. This Bill is of great importance to us and to emphasize this, I refer to a letter received from the Secretary for Commerce in which he says that the foreign oil companies operate on a worldwide basis as far as the petro-chemical industry is concerned. I quote—

The drafting of the three amending Bills, viz. the Professional Engineers’ Amendment Bill, the Architects’ Amendment Bill and the Quantity Surveyors’ Amendment Bill is a great achievement by the department. We support these Bills.

I want to thank the hon. member for Wonderboom most sincerely for the wonderful guidance he gave on the Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for his support of this Bill and also for his words of appreciation towards the officials in the department. It was kind of him to have remembered them.

*I also thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his special support of this Bill. It is very clear to me that the hon. member, as usual, did his homework very thoroughly. The fact that he worked through that very bulky brief-case of documents which weighed 23 kg, testifies to the fact that he prepared himself well. This is what we have come to expect of the hon. member. We thank him for that.

With regard to the preparation of the tariff of fees by the quantity of surveyors, I want to inform the hon. member that good progress has already been made in this regard. Unfortunately I cannot tell him when the process of preparation will be completed and when it will come into effect.

With that I think I have replied to the speeches of the various hon. members. I do not want to go into greater detail in this respect except to reassure the hon. member for Rosettenville with regard to the minimum tariffs and the tariff of fees. In my Second Reading speech I dealt with this matter in some detail and consequently I think it is unnecessary to cover this field once again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has already given us his motivation for this amendment. We accept it and shall therefore vote for the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank all hon. members who, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Edenvale, served initially in the Select Committee and subsequently in the commission of inquiry, for the exceptional service they have rendered with regard to all three of the Bills, which have now virtually been finalized. The hon. members, as the hon. member for Rosettenville rightly said, took their time, but with very good results. They considered everything very carefully. They received many representations, and this is complicated legislation. All three of these Bills are complicated and all three of them were also given very careful consideration by the different boards of the various professions concerned. Several other bodies involved in these professions also made representations to the Select Committee and the commission of inquiry.

I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the officers of the Department of Public Works and also the officers of any other department that assisted in preparing the legislation through all the various stages since its original preparation for very thorough and neat work which made it very easy for me to introduce the legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of the Bill is to amend various statutory provisions applicable to the Railways. Since the implications of the various amendments are outlined in the explanatory memorandum which has already been tabled, I shall merely refer briefly to the more important aspects.

The Bill provides, inter alia, for the amendment of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957 (Act 70 of 1957), to enable the Administration to exercise its powers to recover from parties and deceased estates liable costs incurred in the recovery of, for instance, vehicles and bodies from harbour waters.

As in the case of the White, Coloured and Indian staff, it is the intention also to introduce a house ownership scheme for the Administration’s Black workers. The Bill provides for the establishment of such a scheme.

Provision is made, furthermore, for the acceptance of total liability by the Administration for damage caused by burning objects emanating from trains or by servants in the course of their duties whereas the responsibility for making and maintaining firebreaks on private property is placed exclusively on the owner or occupier of land adjoining or in the vicinity of railway lines.

Other amendments relate to the disposal of profit or loss arising from the sale or reallocation of dwelling houses repossessed by the department, the extension of the option to contribute to the New Railways and Harbours Superannuation Fund in respect of periods of previous non-contributory service and the vesting of land and real rights in land acquired or used by Iscor in connection with the Sishen-Saldanha railway line and harbour, in the Republic of South Africa in its Railways and Harbours Administration.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with a number of Railway Acts and has a number of amendments which deal largely with technical details. I think there are only two clauses that are worthy of comment. The first is clause 2, which has to do with the introduction of a house ownership scheme for Black servants of the Administration. We welcome this clause and we welcome the introduction of such a scheme for Blacks. We believe that it is the duty of a State corporation such as the Railways to set a good example in this respect, and we are therefore very pleased indeed that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to introduce it. We therefore welcome this clause.

Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the burning of fire-breaks, and in this regard I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether he has had any approval from organized agriculture for these provisions. In the past there has been a responsibility for the Railways to enter into some sort of contractual agreement in regard to fire-breaks with people who owned land through which railway lines went. The position is now certainly simplified in that it becomes the responsibility of the land owner to bum the fire-breaks while the Railways Administration accepts total responsibility for anything that might happen as a result of burning objects that fall off trains.

As we all know, the burning of fire-breaks can be an expensive business and can involve quite a large labour charge because there is always a risk attached to burning a fire-break. In a way one can therefore say that the Railways Administration has got rid of a piece of responsibility which it could not have enjoyed in the past. From a Railway point of view, I would say that this is probably highly desirable. The whole question of fire-breaks and fires emanating from Railway engines has been a very sensitive subject in the past, and I would therefore like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he has had agreement from organized agriculture to these clauses and to this amendment.

As the hon. the Minister has said, the clauses are of a technical nature and we shall therefore support the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House should also like to support this amendment Bill. We want to affirm that the measures effected here will, in our opinion, streamline the sphere of operations of the Railway Administration.

I believe that the provisions which will evoke the most reaction, and probably also the most appreciation, outside this House as well as outside the Railway Administration are clauses 8 and 9, as the hon. member for Orange Grove in fact pointed out. Clause 8 replaces sections 69 and clause 9 repeals certain other sections. The proposed new section 69 concerns to the decision of the Administration to accept absolute responsibility in future for damage resulting from fires caused by burning objects falling out of locomotives or resulting from the execution of their duties by servants of the Administration. I think that this same section 69 has, unfortunately, led to much dissatisfaction among our farming community in the past. I think it is also one of the fields in which the Administration unfortunately incurred unnecessary expense in the past by way of court cases, and in some cases they lasted for longer than a year. I think the Administration is being entirely realistic in adopting the approach that they expect a quid pro quo from the owners and occupants of adjoining areas and will in future make them responsible for the necessary preventive measures by way of fire-breaks, etc. I want to express the hope and trust that the agricultural and farming community will take note of this amendment being effected by the Administration. I think that I can also speak on behalf of the farming community when I convey my appreciation to the department for this amendment.

Other provisions which will give the Railway Administration more elbow room are clauses 15(b), 16, 17 and 18. They arise out of a recommendation in the second report of the Select Committee in 1977, viz. that the Administration can make freer use of its available funds for the acquisition, replacement and improvement of assets. It is a fact that the Administration has to invest money on a large scale for the creation of a transport infrastructure for the country. It is also true that in the present eight capital market, the Administration must have more liquid assets at its disposal for the financing of these capital projects. The aim of this is to eliminate delay.

One has to accept that the responsibility of the Railway Administration may become wider as a result of the restrictive measures relating to our available fuel supplies. We want to express the hope and trust that this freer elbow room will enable the Administration to create the necessary services— which might increase in the future.

The last clause which we really appreciate contains the amendments to section 1 and the insertion of section 24A into Act 48 of 1977. This deals with the definition of the expression ex gratia payment. I do not think there is any other term that has caused us so many problems in the Select Committee in the past as the term ex gratia payment. We are therefore grateful that the Administration has decided to bring these arrangements in line with the Treasury and Audit Act, Act 66 of 1975. We venture to hope and trust that the streamlining of the Administration that is now being effected in this field will only lead to more effective and prompt finalizing of the administrative responsibilities of the Administration.

Hon. members on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Bill and we express the hope and trust that the Railway Administration will make skilful use of these provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I should like to say that we shall be supporting this Bill. As has already been said, it consists of a lot of technical amendments to the Act. However, there are a number of clauses to which I should like to refer.

The first is clause 2. The hon. member for Orange Grove has already referred to it. I should like to deal with the provisions which will allow the Administration to allow Black servants to make use of the home-ownership scheme. I think this is a very good step forward and I am sure that it is going to be appreciated by many Black employees of the S.A. Railways as this will open new opportunities for them. It also brings their position in the service in line with that of other groups in the service which is a good thing.

I cannot help but say a word or two about clause 5, which really is a very insignificant little clause. In the explanatory memorandum it says—

I think this indicates the rate of inflation which South Africa has experienced during the last 23 years—23 years of NP government. [Interjections.] I believe we all accept inflation is a result of Government policy. Here we have an insignificant little clause which clearly indicates the extent to which inflation has eroded the value of things, even such things as luggage. [Interjections.]

About 1 000%.

Yes, about 1 000%, as the hon. member says. The other clause to which I want to refer is clause 8, a clause already referred to by previous speakers. That is the clause which deals with fire-breaks adjacent to railway lines. I agree with the hon. member for Bethlehem and with the hon. member for Orange Grove that this is something which has bothered farmers over the years. Clause 8, which is to substitute section 69 of the Act, provides that farmers be relieved of the time-consuming and costly processes of establishing responsibilities and liabilities in this respect. However, the hon. the Minister may be able to elaborate further in his reply on the question of the provision which says that a firebreak must extend over a distance of 50 metres from the centre of a railway line when such a railway line runs through an area comprising agricultural vegetation or trees to be used as timber. If this means the distance to be 50 metres on both sides of a railway line, it means that there will be a swath some 100 metres wide extending through an agricultural area. I am thinking particularly of areas planted with timber and sugar cane. In the first instance this does require vast areas of land to be used as firebreaks. I am not quite sure how wide the Railway reserves are at present. However, it does mean that the local farmers will have to clear a very broad swath for the Railways. I wonder if the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading debate, could give us more information on his discussions with the various agricultural unions in this regard.

However, I notice that there is a proviso in the clause, which reads—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister could explain exactly what he has in mind. Under what conditions does he foresee that these provisions could be amended?

Where does the onus lie?

Yes, where does the onus lie? Does it lie with the farmer or with the Railways Administration? However, it does appear to me that this will require that a very wide swath be cleared through our agricultural areas, which will have to be cleared of all inflammable material. In certain areas this might contribute to the problems of wind erosion and soil erosion. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could comment on this.

The other clause to which I should like to refer is clause 12. It seeks to amend section 17 of the principal Act. It deals with the option which a member of the new fund has to contribute for a period of non-contributory service immediately prior to his admission as member of the new fund. This option must at present be exercised within a stipulated period. However, this clause allows a new member to exercise his option should he not have the immediate finances available to pay his contributions. It actually means that he may then in later years extend his service by contributing to the New Fund. I believe this is an admirable improvement to the principal Act. Even present employees will now be allowed—unlike the position in the past—to contribute, and in so doing improve their pensions when they actually retire.

With these few comments we take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my appreciation to hon. members for the degree of support they gave this measure. I should like to reply to the various aspects raised here which I was requested to comment on.

First of all, I shall refer to clause 5. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has just said that the amount of compensation that may be paid for luggage is being increased from R20 to R200. In my opinion the hon. member wrongly assumed that this was done purely as the result of inflationary circumstances. However other factors are involved here. During the 31 years of NP government South Africa became so prosperous that people are today buying much better and more expensive suitcases. They also buy more expensive clothes.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has read page 3 of the explanatory memorandum on this clause where it is stated—

I grant the hon. member that that is indeed a factor, but I merely want to indicate that it is not the only factor. People have become far more prosperous.

The rich are becoming richer.

They can therefore afford to wear better clothes and buy more expensive suitcases.

The only other clause to which I must reply …

They tell me there are some good suitcases in Information.

The only other clause to which I have to reply, is clause 8. I think clause 8 is not only a simplification of the procedure to be followed with regard to fire damage, but is, in fact, a great improvement. Prior to this we had sections 69 and 70. Section 70 is now being deleted in its entirety and in the proposed new section 69 we define the procedure which will obtain in future.

As I said in my introductory speech, the position is very much simplified. In my opinion this entails many benefits for the farmer, in the first place with regard to the onus of proof. With the new provision the position is such that all the owner of the land has to prove is that the fire emanated from the locomotive or the train. That is all he has to prove. Thereafter he has no onus of proof with regard to negligence on the part of the Railways. Formerly negligence was an onus of proof that rested on him. Now this is no longer so. In other words, if he can prove that the fire emanated from the train or the locomotive, that is as far as he has to go as far as the onus of proof is concerned. The new provision also provides that where there are firebreaks, as defined in the provisions, the farmer will be paid out in full. He can, of course, still be negligent if he wants to. What that amounts to is that if he fails to make a fire-break he is nevertheless paid out but is only paid for 50% of the damage.

We shall have to wait and see how this measure works in future. I think there is a possibility that it will work well, in the sense that a responsibility rests on the Railways as well as on the owner of land. The Railways still has to try to avoid fires as far as possible, because the Railways is still obliged to pay, whether there are fire-breaks or not. On the other hand there is now an obligation on the farmer to see to it that fire-breaks are made, in which case he will be paid out 100% of his damages.

In reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove, I just want to say that this very morning I made inquiries with the management of the S.A. Railways. Of course I did not conduct the negotiations myself, but I was given the assurance that negotiations were conducted with organized agriculture throughout with regard to the preparation of the new provisions relating to fire damage in clause 8 of the Bill. The South African Agricultural Union was duly approached by the Railways with regard to the provisions of the Bill relating to liability for fire damage.

What about Sampi?

I doubt whether Sampi was consulted; in any case that is a different field.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti put a question to me about the width. The hon. member will realize that there will be various provisions relating to the width, because the width will, of course, depend on the circumstances of each particular case. Where the damage that could be done is greater—i.e. the risk is greater—it is surely justified that the fire-break that has to prevent this, must be broader. Maybe the hon. member is correct in saying that a distance of 50 m in both directions from the centre of the railway line is wide. This is only the case in instances where certain circumstances are present, for example where agricultural crops are being grown which by their nature will increase the risk. I think one could justify this. Further more, the hon. member also pointed out that there is a proviso at the end of the subsection that an agreement may be entered into. Where the owner of the land has reservations about the width and wants to enter into an agreement to make it narrower, the owner and the Administration may enter into such an agreement.

In the light of this I believe that we must give the new provision an opportunity to prove itself in practice. It has been fairly considerably simplified and I think there is a possibility that it will enable us to deal very successfully in future with the problem that has given us so much trouble in the past.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of the Carriage by Air Act which came into operation on 22 March 1955 was to give effect to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention of 12 October 1929. The then Union of South Africa was a signatory to this convention which has as its object the achievement of uniformity in the field of the international carriage by air.

Uniformity with regard to international carriage by air relates, inter alia, to the uniform determination of the amount of damages or reparation for which an air carrier is liable as the result of the carrying out of his carriage agreement. In this connection article 22 of the convention lays down certain maximum amounts. The amounts in respect of which an air carrier as such may be held liable are expressed in gold francs, as was then the practice during the dispensation of the gold standard. The amounts may be converted at the prevailing rate of exchange into the national currency of the member state in which the court order in question was given. The provision in question is embodied almost verbatim in section 3(7) of the Act. In fact, the provisions of the convention in its entirety were appended to the Act as a schedule.

It is, in fact, this matter of the conversion of gold francs into our national currency which is at present creating problems and has to be rectified urgently. In particular the problem was caused as a result of the revaluation of our gold reserves on 11 April last year in terms of which, to mention an example, an award of damages in a South African court may at present amount to R67,27 per kilogram in the case of luggage or freight as compared to R14,10 prior to the revaluation of the gold reserves.

If the extent of the share of the Republic, and especially that of the S.A. Airways, in international carriage by air is taken into consideration, the urgency of the matter becomes clear. On the other hand the Republic also has specific responsibilities in bringing about uniformity as far as this matter is concerned in relation to other member states of the convention that find themselves in a similar situation to that of the Republic and that have already rectified the matter by way of legislation.

Although several methods may be employed as a solution the most acceptable of the methods available in terms of the present dispensation appears to be that of the regulations of the International Monetary Fund by which the previous operation of the gold standard has now been lifted.

The arrangements of the IMF take place on the basis of the so-called special drawing rights (SDRs) in respect of the IMF and accordingly the value of gold francs may be converted into SDRs on the fixed basis of 35 SDRs per fine ounce of gold, with a subsequent conversion at the exchange rate between the SDR and the rand as determined by the IMF. On this basis 250 gold francs, for example, could be converted on 5 December 1978 into R19,28 and on 22 March 1979 into R17,99.

It is clear that the steps taken here are in a sphere in which the Department of Finance is very closely involved and therefore the cooperation of the Minister of Finance is indispensable. Provision is also being made for this in the Bill.

It will be noted that the Bill leaves the wording of section 3(7) virtually unchanged and of necessity only regulates the conversion of the prescribed amounts of gold francs into our currency. In this way the spirit in which this provision of the convention was drawn up is being fully respected, as behoves the Republic as signatory to the convention.

In order to effect the necessary adjustments from time to time the Bill provides that the matter may be regulated by way of Government notice and this will take place by way of a conversion of gold francs into our currency in the way I explained earlier or, if necessary, in a way which might be the most expedient in future.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the record I have furnished a complicated elucidation of the position which comprises only a minor amendment to the Act. Let me summarize it. In 1929 the Warsaw Convention stipulated that payments were to be made in gold francs. Because of the change over the years in the value of gold, along with other decisions which were taken from time to time, inter alia, the very important decision taken last year to re-evaluate our gold reserves from R29 per ounce to R141 per ounce, which of course makes a substantial difference in the payment which may be effected in the case of an air disaster, legislation of this nature became necessary. I merely want to emphasize once again that the International Civil Aviation Organization has already decided to rectify the position. Only a small number of members of that organization—I think there are 130 of them—only 15 have so far signed the rectification. First of all it must be signed by the prescribed number of members and for that reason the various countries that are members of the International Civil Aviation Organization have in the meantime effected rectifications of their own accord, until such time as the agreed stipulation of the International Civil Aviation Organization is put into operation through the signing of all the various countries. We also found it necessary; hence this measure.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very short Bill and we have had a very long explanation of it from the hon. the Minister. I must say that, having listened to that very long explanation, I am not quite sure that I understand fully the entire story, but I cannot say that I have any strong objection to it either. It does appear to me that the Government must not use this to run away from any responsibilities it may have in respect of any claim. It lies in the hands of the hon. the Minister, in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Finance, to come to some sort of equitable solution, and on that basis I think we can accept it. Perhaps I can just ask the hon. the Minister when he expects that the International Civil Aviation authorities might come to an international agreement on this. I can, however, understand the necessity for having an interim arrangement as far as South Africa is concerned.

In the circumstances, we in these benches will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when I looked at this Bill, I looked upon it as being a rather insignificant and innocent little Bill and just wrote “OK” alongside it. However, after listening to the hon. the Minister and his lengthy explanation of the background to it, I would suggest that possibly he should have put out an explanatory memorandum on this Bill.

Send it to a Select Committee!

I shall not move that we send it to a Select Committee, but I want to say that after the hon. the Minister’s explanation we will support the Bill, as we had originally intended.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing for which provision is being made in this Bill is to determine the exchange rate position and to substitute for the words—

the words—

In other words, it is made known by way of notice in the Gazette from time to time. Naturally the Minister of Transport does this in consultation with the Minister of Finance. It is in this regard that I shall move during the Committee Stage that an amendment be effected in the Afrikaans as well as the English text of the Bill. I shall move that the Minister of Transport does this “in consultation with” the Minister of Finance and not “in co-operation with” the Minister of Finance, as the Bill provides at the moment.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me about the decision of the International Civil Aviation Organization. In the information before me it is referred to as the “protocol”. This protocol, however, is not in effect yet since it has only been ratified by 15 signatories to the convention out of a total of more than 130. Unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member any indication of when all 130 members of this international organization will ratify it. In the meantime we want a measure of this nature for safety’s sake.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank is the oldest savings bank in South Africa and began to do business in a double-storey house in St. George’s Street, Cape Town, on 25 June 1831. Within five days, the deposits received by it amounted to R5 000. On 7 July 1831, it granted its first loan of 15 000 rixdollars, which is equal to approximately R1 800, to one Mr. I. W. Morrison against the security of a first mortgage on his house in St. George’s Street, Cape Town.

From the very beginning, the bank consistently conducted its business in a careful and conservative way and looked after the small man in particular. It is the implementation of this sound policy which has entrenched the bank as one of the most important and safest institutions of its kind in the Republic of South Africa over a period of 148 years.

The bank was established before the emancipation of the slaves and the beginning of the Great Trek and a mere 21 years after the establishment of the world’s pioneering bank in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, in 1810. The then governor of the Cape Colony, His Excellency Sir George Lowry Cole, was opposed to the establishment of a private bank, because the old Lombard Bank had served the community fairly well since 1795. The garrison which His Majesty King George IV maintained at the Cape at that time boasted red jackets, plumes, stiff collars, swords, polished helmets and other embellishments, most of which were unsuitable in the climatic conditions. Slaves still went about the city carrying messages for their masters and mistresses. Novelties were rare. The enabling legislation in terms of which the bank was established under these circumstances is therefore rightly regarded as one of the most important measures ever introduced in the old Cape Colony.

This pioneering bank is unique in not having any shareholders and in allocating the greater part of its profits to reserves. Since 1938, approximately 10% of its net profit has been distributed among about 150 charitable, providential and educational institutions every year. The total amount paid out to these benevolent institutions over the past 39 years amounts to R300 475. To date, special donations have been made to the following universities: The University of Cape Town, the University of Stellenbosch, the University of the Western Cape and the University of South Africa. During the years between 1832 and 1890, the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank had 27 branch offices throughout the Cape Colony, while the commercial banks also operating in the Cape Colony at that time were small and local ones. The reason for the closure of the last of these branches, the one in Port Elizabeth, on 30 June 1880, after it had been doing business for 41 years, was that the bank found it difficult to attract profitable investments and that the State was providing similar facilities by means of the Post Office Savings Bank. This is part of the very interesting history of the oldest institution of its kind in South Africa. At the moment, the bank has eight offices situated all over the Cape Peninsula. They all have computerized programmes for depositors’ accounts and offer excellent inter-bank facilities.

Finally, the bank has always adhered and still adheres to the basic idea of offering a savings and banking service which is able to keep pace with the times in order to meet the changing needs of the individual saver. In developing the image of the bank as the champion of the individual depositor, the bank asks the question, by means of pamphlets and advertisements: “Why did I decide on this savings bank to provide for my old age?” The savings books, as against statements, are a family tradition which goes back a long way, and this is honoured. At this savings bank, one can open a savings account as soon as one can sign one’s name, and children can accept the responsibilities of adults before they come of age. So there is always a link between the client and the bank, and the savings bank is regarded as a friend.

†The emblem of the bank symbolizes “good hope” and “trust” between the bank and thousands of clients and tries to leave a permanent image on the minds of the public of a cautious and conservative bank which caters especially for the small man. It is currently operating under Act No. 33 of 1968, and since then it has become necessary, in view of practices and methods employed in carrying on the business of a bank, to revise and amend the bank’s constitution once more. The reasons for the proposed amendments are briefly: changes in customer behaviour and attitude, changes in competition for funds and changes in legislation and monetary policy. The bank is not only operating within a fluid and highly competitive market, but will shortly be changing its role from a savings bank to a full service general banking service when it is reclassified by the Registrar of Banks in the near future. The bank recognizes the need to encourage customer changes and wishes positively to demonstrate that it is changing with the times. For example, improved counter services were recently introduced and an on-line computerized accounting system was successfully applied.

As all banks throughout the Republic over the last 10 years have been very active in introducing new and improved services, so too this bank, wishes to do the same, especially in response to the need of the more sophisticated customer. The bank is therefore bound to seek new and improved services to entice and keep a client and his business, and in order to provide for their requirements, the bank is obliged to expand its services and to be able to adapt itself quickly to change.

The proposed amendments are aimed at streamlining and updating the bank’s constitution within the ambit not only of the new Banks and Companies Act, but also of sound, modem business principles. The Registrar of Banks and members of this bank have already approved the amendments and it is hoped that Parliament will do the same in order that they should soon appear on the Statute Book.

Section 5(1)(a) has been extended to enable the bank to carry on the business of banking in all its ramifications with the full range of banking facilities as the need arises from time to time and thus to be able to adjust to changing conditions or monetary requirements. Section 5(1)(b) and 5(l)(c)(iii) now empower the bank to establish or acquire a company, a society or statutory corporation which it can effectively control provided the Registrar agrees in writing. This is necessary because of modem business development. The new subsection 5(l)(c)(iv) will allow the bank to “participate in financial and commercial transactions of every description”. The proposed new provision 5(l)(d)(ii) will enable the bank to issue guarantees not only for the registration of mortgage loans, but also to guarantee on behalf of third parties the repayment of loans made to such parties against suitable securities. Naturally that will be done subject to the requirements of the Banks Act. The proposed new 5(l)(h)(ii) and (iii) replace the existing subsection (ii) to (x) and (j) which have become outdated. The proposed new subsection 5(l)(j)(i) and (ii) have been updated to comply with modem trends. The proposed new 5(1)(k) replaces subsections (m)(i) and (ii) and (n) which are repetitive. Section 16 of the principal Act has been abbreviated because the pre-requisites for the election of members are already covered in the articles of the bank. Section 19 of the principal Act has been amended to comply with the provisions of the new Companies Act.

In conclusion, I would like to say that the proposed amendments to the constitution deal with business which is ancillary to that which the bank is presently entitled to conduct and are not undesirable in any way, particularly if one bears in mind that the bank will shortly be reclassified from a savings bank to a general bank. As a matter of courtesy, I have also submitted these proposed amendments to the hon. the Minister of Finance, and they have his blessing.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to support this legislation, not so much as chief Government Whip or as MP for Tygervallei, but—if I may be allowed to boast a little—as a Van Breda. The Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank forms part of the rich culture of early Cape history, and it appears from the preamble to the legislation that this institution originated at a public meeting as far back as 22 November 1830. The names of the people who were elected members of the society at this meeting appear in Schedule II to the Act. The names include that of Mr. A. J. van Breda, one of my ancestors. From the minutes of the meeting it appears that it was also attended by two judges and by “some other respectable inhabitants of Cape Town”. I am mentioning this especially for the information of hon. members on this side of the House! [Interjections.] Although this is South Africa’s oldest savings bank, as the hon. member indicated, it has also had to adapt to the times. The proposed amendment, as explained by the hon. member for Simonstown, is primarily intended to rationalize and update the bank’s constitution within the ambit, not only of the new Banks Act and the new Companies Act, but also of sound and modem business principles.

Since the Registrar of Banks and members of the bank have already given their approval for these amendments, it is now my privilege to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it gives one pleasure to support the Second Reading of this measure … [Interjections.] No. I am not a Van Breda. The reason why I support it is somewhat different. I believe it is actually quite significant that a small financial institution in South Africa can survive for a period of almost 150 years and render a service to the community without in any way running into financial difficulties, but remaining a solid institution. Perhaps this is an example of the fact that the small institution has a place in the banking sector where the tendency is generally towards big banks because people regard them as being safe. I think that to a considerable extent the existence of this particular institution does not mean that being big is necessarily being good, but that one can also be good when one is small. I think that this whole tendency in our community to regard only the large institutions as being the safe ones, is to some extent disproved by the history of this particular institution.

I support the measure with a considerable amount of sentiment, particularly because I believe in the right of the small institution to exist in a free enterprise society, and to my mind this is an example of that. I obviously do not want to follow in the footsteps of my colleagues who have spoken and deal with the history of the institution, a subject which they obviously know very well. I am pleased that they have put it before the House in this particular form. However, I should like to say a few things about the Bill itself.

Firstly, it is important that all institutions, whether they are banks created by statute directly, as this one is, or whether they are subject to the Banks Act, are under the strict control of the Registrar of Banks. What is significant here is that with all the problems that have existed in the world in regard to banking, our banking legislation is such, I think, that it can compare with any that exists in the world when it comes to controls and to ensuring that the public’s money is safe. Examples to the contrary have only manifested themselves in isolated cases. The control that is exercised by the office of the Registrar of Banks, in respect of all financial institutions, is something about which the public can be very glad. It can compare with that of any other similar organization anywhere else in the world. Because this institution is subject to the Registrar of Banks one can have greater confidence in giving it the powers which are being given to it in this legislation.

There are two specific matters that I should like to refer to. The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the fact that the institution had given donations to universities, for example, and he listed them. However, one of the amendments to which he did not refer was that in terms of which they are now also able to give money, in the way of donations, to ecclesiastical institutions for ecclesiastical purposes. If that is to be done— and I do not object to it—the institution should, in the exercising of that particular function and in the exercising of its discretion, bear in mind that it draws its deposits from all sections of the community. Therefore, if it is going to make donations which have ecclesiastical purposes, it should bear in mind that the depositors, their customers, their clients, come from all sections of the community and from all religions. If the example in regard to donations to universities, where one covers the whole broad spectrum of the community, were followed in regard to donations for ecclesiastical purposes, this would be a sound approach. I hope that the hon. member for Simonstown will communicate that thought to the board of this institution.

The second point relates to the amendment of section 20 of the principal Act. It is contained in clause 5 of the Bill. It is a rather novel provision in regard to banking. It provides that—

This gives a very interesting power to this board. It is a unique situation because of the constitution of the savings bank and the question of how its profits are dealt with. Here again a great opportunity exists for this bank to be a pioneer in a new field which has not yet been explored in South Africa. The suggestion I should like to make to the savings bank is that it should look at the aged saver, because I am aware of the fact that many people who deposit their money with this institution at present are elderly people. I think it is clear that they are people who have saved for their old age and who have had confidence in this institution, but who now find themselves in the era of not only very real and serious inflation, but also of dropping interest rates. Their standard of living is dropping as a result of this.

I should like to commend to this institution that it uses this power in order to create a special savings bond for the aged on similar lines to a scheme that exists in the United Kingdom, a scheme in terms of which, for a limited maximum amount of money, they are entitled to make deposits, the returns on which are, in some way, related to the increases in the consumer price index. As the power is to give a bonus, it means that in this case there could be a minimum rate of interest. It could also be supplemented by a bonus in terms of the power which is given to the board in terms of this particular provision, something which means that they would actually receive a rate of interest commensurate with the consumer price index. If that were done it would be a completely unique pioneer step to be taken by one of the oldest institutions in South Africa in serving the elderly people in South Africa.

I commend that to the board of this company, and in commending it to them I wish them well.

Allow me to add one last word, a word relating to the hon. member for Simonstown. It must have been a most unique experience to him, and he must have exercised the most tremendous restraint in order to make so responsible and interesting a speech without referring to the Press, without referring to a conspiracy … [Interjections.] It really showed us the hon. member for Simonstown in quite a unique and quite a human light for a change. That is something we really appreciate. We are very happy to see him in that unique situation, and we wish him well with the piloting of this measure through this House.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill moved by the hon. member for Simonstown. It is quite apparent that the bank is going to move into a totally new era with totally new experiences. The hon. member has indicated that it will change from being a savings bank to being a general bank, that it will assume new responsibilities and will enter into new relationships with the governing authorities and the controlling authorities of banking in South Africa.

We wish it well. This bank has done extremely well during all its years of existence. We will follow the progress it makes with very great interest indeed, especially as it moves out of its old state into a new future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who have taken part in the debate on this Bill. I thank them for their contributions, contributions which have generally been constructive and pleasant to listen to. In so far as donations are concerned, I can give the hon. members for Yeoville the assurance that there has never been any form of discrimination in the types of donations made by the bank to deserving causes. As he so rightly says, in terms of a new clause, powers are being given in terms of which donations can now also be made to ecclesiastical bodies.

I have no doubt that the traditional policy of the bank will be followed in future and that donations will be made, irrespective of the denominations concerned.

The hon. member for Yeoville has referred to the possibility of special savings bonds for elderly people being created under the auspices of the bank. I think that is a constructive suggestion. I shall certainly carry it forward and mention it to those who run the affairs of this very old South African institution, which has conducted itself in such an admirable way over such a very long period of time.

It has always been a conservative institution. That is why it is well run! [Interjections.] At the same time it has also always been far-seeing. I should prefer to ignore the final remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville. The best part of his speech was the first part. The worst came at the end!

With these few remarks I once again thank hon. members who have taken part in this debate and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to introduce this Bill at Second Reading. May I just say that I recall that the hon. member for Rosettenville devoted his maiden speech last year to the scenic and human assets of his constituency. In so doing, he half persuaded me that Rosettenville was the fairest constituency in the Republic. I should like to say that I am, however, in a much better position than he is because, in fact, in my constituency we have the best hospital in the southern hemisphere and also the best university in the southern hemisphere. [Interjections.]

This Bill seeks to remedy certain administrative problems which have arisen in the past few years. I think hon. members would be interested to know that, for example, the University of Cape Town bought 40 ha of land at Tygerberg in 1971 with the possibility in mind, albeit on a very long-term basis, of building a satellite campus there. However, because the principal Act restricts the university to the properties provided for in Cecil Rhodes’ will, i.e. the properties known as the Groote Schuur Estates, we now have to introduce a measure giving the university the power to establish a satellite campus elsewhere. That is an example of the administrative problems that have arisen in the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all in a historical frame of mind this afternoon. I have the precedent of the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side being so loquacious, so perhaps you will allow me to elaborate a little on this Bill and, in particular, on the past, present and future of the university. The hon. member for Simonstown indicated that it was a unique occasion when in 1831 the particular bank society he referred to was formed. Well, Sir, two years before that, 150 years ago this year, the University of Cape Town was born. A certain committee met in 1829 in the Groote Kerk and that committee established a school, to be known as the South African College School, at the then Orphan House (Weeshuis) at the top of Long Street. In 1878 a university council was formed and in 1916, along with the University of Stellenbosch, the university as we know it first received its formal university status.

What does the present show? It shows an enormous enterprise on the Groote Schuur Estates. The current budget of the University of Cape Town is now of the order of R28 million per annum. Recent capital works show a fairly imaginative and extensive building programme: The Leslie Social Sciences Building costing R7 million; the Baxter Theatre R5 million; the new sports complex on De Waal Drive R3,5 million; the Students’ Union extension R1,5 million; and library extensions R750 000. The present enrolment at UCT is just under 10 000, including more than 1 000 post-graduates. There are now 11 residences with 2 000 students.

There is an academic staff of 600, including 112 full professors. Each year nearly 2 000 undergraduate degrees and something over 1 600 post-graduate degrees are conferred.

When one drives along De Waal Drive, or in fact when one views Table Mountain from a distance, the University is an extraordinarily impressive sight. I have it from a person who is well-known in university circles, and who has been around the world on university and other conferences, that there is, to his knowledge, nothing like the University of Cape Town, with the possible exception of McGill University in Montreal, Canada, a university which also has a very impressive mountain as a back-drop.

What of the future? I have spoken about the long-term possibility of a satellite campus at Tygerberg, but in the middle-term the University of Cape Town is seeking a proper and rational consolidation of its lower and upper campuses, i.e. the middle ground between the Main Road of Rosebank and Rondebosch and the campus proper above De Waal Drive. Secondly, the medical school requires extensions costing R5 million, and these are being planned. Thirdly, I think hon. members will be interested to know that the university has set its sights on rectifying certain academic omissions. It desperately wants, and I think deserves, a faculty of veterinary science, because the only one in Africa south of Uganda is the one at Onderstepoort. It has set its sights also on a Department of Metallurgy, because I understand that here South Africa also has a very great shortage. It also seeks to advance the interests of the Romance languages in South Africa, because although it offers French and Italian, it certainly would, particularly with regard to South America and our contacts there, want to establish courses in Spanish and Portuguese. These are some of the hopes and aspirations of the University of Cape Town.

I do not intend dealing with the details of the Bill. They have been processed in the normal meticulous way, both by the university and the authorities, and I also understand that this Bill has the full blessing of the Minister concerned. The matters are dealt with in the Bill. I have mentioned the question of the seat of the university and the possibility of a satellite campus. The Bill also provides for the appointment of one of the Deputy Principals as Deputy Vice-Chancellor. There is, too, the interesting introduction of a new thought. Whereas the University of Cape Town was restricted to awarding honorary doctorates to people who had rendered distinguished service in South Africa, it now wants much wider power to confer such doctorates on persons who have rendered distinguished service anywhere in the world. It has been a great honour for me to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Groote Schuur and I, when we were in the Other Place together, had many a political dog-fight. It was always, I think, a matter of interest to the Whips to see who could be brought into the debate after the other one. I do not think that anybody could say that we have much in common politically. Yet we do have something in common in our respect for the University of Cape Town. We do have something in common in believing that this happens to be a very fine university, being as it is the oldest established university in the country. The hon. member has quite rightly said that this Bill has been thoroughly processed. The provisions of this Bill fundamentally reflect the expansion of the university and the increased sophistication required in the administration of the university. None of the amendments are of a controversial nature. They reflect, as I have said, the increasing growth of this particular university.

It is always a pleasure to be able to say something, particularly in a forum like this, about one’s first university. I think all of us who have done more than one degree, and been to more than one university, know from experience that somehow or other the first university at which one studies is the university which makes the greatest impact upon one. Whether one goes on to a famous European university, a British university or an American university afterwards, the fact is that one’s first university, one’s alma mater, is the university for which one has the fondest feelings and to which one feels the closest. That is definitely true in my case. It is a great pleasure to be able to speak in favour of this Bill. It is also a great pleasure to be able to do this on the 150th anniversary of the establishment of that university. The hon. member for Groote Schuur mentioned this fact. He also referred to the establishment of the university on 1 October 1829. It was then known as the S.A. College. What is quite interesting is the legal notice which appeared in Cape Town. I quote—

At the conclusion of this service on 1 October 1829 three professors and the 115 founder students walked in procession to the disused Orphan House, at the upper end of Long Street, which was to be the first home of the South African College. On 1 October 1979 a service will be held in the Groote Kerk. It reflects the diversity and the character of the university that that service will be held at 20h30 on that day, which happens to be an important holiday in the Jewish calendar. To enable Jewish students and Jewish faculty members to attend that function, it will be held in the evening.

That university has gone from strength to strength, as the hon. member for Groote Schuur has indicated. It grew enormously in the ’sixties and the ’seventies. There was a tremendous expansion, particularly in the building programme of that university, under the present Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Luyt, who, as everybody knows, will be retiring shortly. On this occasion one wishes to pay tribute to the work Sir Richard Luyt has done in the years he has occupied that high and difficult position of Vice-Chancellor.

This university has been true to the highest ideals of scholarship. In this respect I might mention the Medical School, in particular, and the famous scholars the university has produced. In medicine there are people like Prof. Skaife and Dr. Chris Barnard. The university has made a major contribution to law and one thinks of Sir John Wessels, Mr. Justice Milne and Mr. Justice O. D. Schreiner. One thinks also of the university’s contribution to the development of Afrikaans. N. P. van Wyk Louw and Boerneef were both products of this university. Then there was J. H. Hofmeyr, a very brilliant son of the University of Cape Town. It has made a major contribution in all fields of academic research and scholarly learning, but the university has also made a very major contribution, and continues to do so, to the cultural life of Cape Town. A very notable extension in this respect of the influence of the university in Cape Town is the establishment of the Baxter Theatre, a complex for the performing arts which is really quite exceptional, which is comparable to anything one finds elsewhere in the world and which has tremendously boosted theatre in particular, but the performing arts in general, in Cape Town.

Apart from the cultural contribution of the university, there is also the role which its students have played, in particular in the promotion of, and assistance to, various welfare organizations and charities in Cape Town. There is also the fact that without the stimulus and competition of the University of Cape Town, the University of Stellenbosch would probably not be the fine university which it is, because there is a very close relationship between the two universities.

It is therefore with great pleasure that I give the support of this side of the House to the Bill during the 150th anniversary of the university. I believe that I bring the best wishes of all members on this side of the House to the university. We hope that the university will raise the funds which it has set its sights on during this year, and one hopes that the amendments which are being made to its constitution will have the desired effect and will, in fact, help the university to grow as it has over the last 150 years.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to associate the NRP with this legislation. I do not want to enter into a debate about where the best university in South Africa is to be found. I believe all of us know where the best university is situated, but the last university which my own personal government, my wife, attended was the University of Cape Town, so I think I must go on record by saying that the University of Cape Town is indeed one of the best universities in South Africa.

As has already been said quite correctly, this legislation deals with a number of administrative measures. Basically it brings the University of Cape Town into line with other universities and also gives it greater flexibility. The NRP respects the autonomy of universities, and as this is largely enabling legislation, we have every confidence in the council of the university that it will exercise its newly-acquired power responsibly.

I should now briefly like to draw attention to the provisions contained in clause 9 which are very important for future development. If one looks at the proposed new sections one finds that attention is being paid to the training of students and to the recognition of training given at certain institutions. In the proposed new section 18B technikons are also included. This has been a great bone of contention in the past, as has been the whole matter of affiliation with other colleges. One day I should like to see, in South Africa, the development of a comprehensive type of university which would have a link with all branches of tertiary education. I think a wonderful opportunity is being created by the incorporation of these new amendments which can bring about either a horizontal or vertical arrangement.

With those few words I wish to indicate that we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful indeed that this measure has the unanimous support of members of this House. I thank the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and also the hon. member for Durban Central for their contributions. In regard to the last point made by the hon. member for Durban Central, may I just mention that he will know that the new scheme for technikons is to provide for degrees or diplomas which will be of a very high academic standard indeed. In fact, in some ways and in certain fields the technikons will have outstripped our universities in the near future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In proposing this motion I wish to avail myself of the opportunity, on behalf of the Council of the University of Port Elizabeth of which it has been my privilege to have been a member since its inception, to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to you, Sir, for granting leave for this Bill to be dealt with as a public measure. I also wish to express my sincere thanks to the hon. members of the Opposition parties who have pledged their support for this private Bill.

One feels particularly grateful on this occasion that our young university has been able to reach a further milestone in its short history. On this occasion we duly wish to pay tribute to the Government, in particular, that has established these excellent facilities for Port Elizabeth and its hinterland. This was done in terms of the provisions of Act No. 1 of 1964, and since its inception in January 1965, the university has been able to render a service to the Eastern Cape in general.

This university actually came into being with a character indicative of a dual-medium university. On this occasion one can now testify with great pleasure to the rapport between the two White language groups at this university and to the excellent spirit which prevails between the two language groups on our campus. The university commenced its activities in 1965 with a mere 320 students. This year, the number is almost 3 000. At the last graduation ceremony for the 1978 academic year, degrees and diplomas were awarded to no fewer than 693 students. One would like to state with great pride on this occasion that as far as the academic side, as well as sport and culture are concerned, and also the occupations which the private sector make available, our students, former students and staff are constantly pulling their weight and occupying their rightful place. The people of the Eastern Cape are consequently very proud of this university with its beautiful campus by the sea. One cannot be grateful enough to the Government for having created these outstanding facilities for our harbour town and its hinterland.

For a proper evaluation of the provisions and principles of this private amendment Bill, it is necessary for us to take brief cognizance of the provisions of the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967. In this regard, I refer to section 1(A), which envisaged a closer co-operation between the teachers’ training colleges and our universities. It duly came about that our university entered into agreements with the teachers’ training colleges of Graaff-Reinet and Port Elizabeth. In terms of these agreements, closer liaison was established and agreements were entered into, not only for the training of primary school teachers, but also of secondary school teachers and for teachers in certain fields of study.

It is also important for one to mention briefly what these agreements entail, since they are concerned with the proposed amendments in this private amendment Bill. I wish to make it very clear that these agreements contain four principles, since effective cooperation and compliance with the provisions in this regard are essential. I shall therefore proceed to refer to the four principles contained in these specific agreements.

In the first place, these agreements provide for the creation of a College Council consisting of 15 members, on which the Provincial Administration of the Cape of Good Hope and the university have representation. The functions and powers of this council amount in broad outline to the management of the college in accordance with a budget approved by the administration.

In the second place, these agreements provide for a College Senate on which the administration and the university have representation. The functions and powers of this Senate amount in broad outline to attending to matters pertaining to instruction, curricula, syllabuses, research, examinations and promotions.

In the third place, these agreements provide that the staff of the college remain on the establishment of the administration. By mutual arrangement, the college and the university may, however, make reciprocal use of this staff. The university is empowered to accredit college lecturers for this purpose.

In the fourth place—and this is a very important provision, since it also affects the amendment Bill proposals—these agreements provide that there should be mutual consultations between the two institutions. The college obtains representation on the academic bodies of the university in the following manner: The principal of the college is appointed by the university as a special professor and serves on the senate of the university. The vice-principals serve on the Faculty Council of Education and the departmental heads of the college serve on the relevant study councils of the university.

In view of the above agreements, it is essential that certain amendments should be effected to the existing statutes of the university. Consequently, it is actually proposed with this Bill to effect five amendments or additions to the existing statutes of the university. I should just like to refer to these briefly.

In the first place, in terms of the proposals before the House, section I of the foundation Act of 1964 is being deleted. This section is concerned with the definition of “professor”, and since the definition of “lecturer” has already been deleted by previous amendments, it goes without saying that now, with the new dispensation, the concept and the definition of “professor” should be deleted.

In the second place, the proposed section 10(l)(c) provides that in terms of the agreement between the university and the administration the council, after consultation with the senate, has decided to reserve the title of special professor and only to use this for principals of colleges which have concluded an agreement with the university. This amendment ensures that automatic membership of the senate of the university will be given to principals of teachers’ training colleges who are appointed as special professors.

In the third place, section 12 is also being amended, and this amendment now provides that the principals of teachers’ training colleges that have concluded an agreement with this university will be exempted from the academic norms applicable to the appointment of professors. This amendment, together with section 10(l)(c) gives effect to the decision of the council that such principals of teachers’ training colleges with which agreements have been concluded, automatically obtain membership of the senate.

In the fourth place it is also being proposed to amend section 9(8), since the existing section provides that provision shall be made for the establishment of a committee consisting of an equal number of members of the council and other persons. However, powers of the council cannot be delegated to such a committee. The proposed new section is intended to rectify this anomaly.

In the fifth place, I refer to section 10(7). In terms of section 10(7) of the principal Act, the functions of the senate include, inter alia, the organization of and control over the curricula and examinations of the university. As is generally known, these are the normal functions of the senate at every university. In practice, certain matters in connection with curricula and examinations are delegated to the Dean concerned. Here, too, the problem exists that powers of the Senate may, in terms of the existing Act, only be delegated to a committee and not to a person. This deficiency is now being rectified.

Taking into account all these factors, it is obvious that in terms of the proposed amendments contained in the Bill at present under discussion, new statutory expression is being given to a proposed new dispensation in terms of which there will be closer cooperation between the university and the colleges of the Eastern Cape.

There is no doubt in my mind that education will benefit immensely from this proposed new dispensation.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official Opposition, it gives me pleasure to express our support of this Bill introduced by the hon. member for Newton Park. Obviously Port Elizabeth is one of our most important cities in South Africa. It is a rapidly growing city, particularly industrially and commercially. The University of Port Elizabeth, which is the most important educational institution in that city, is one that should obviously be given top priority.

It is with gratitude that we take note of the advancement and progress made by the university since its establishment 14 years ago. It is one of the youngest universities for Whites in South Africa, and its growth so far is indicative of the need for higher education in that part of the country. It goes without saying that we are all in agreement with regard to the need for higher education, and particularly for the need to provide for students wishing to prepare themselves for a career of teaching. The hon. member for Newton Park has made reference to this particular aspect. The agreement reached between the University of Port Elizabeth and the colleges of education can only lead to more properly qualified teachers being provided to the teaching profession, particularly in Port Elizabeth and the surrounding areas.

The details of the Bill were clearly outlined by the hon. member for Newton Park. He dealt at length with the council of the university, the establishment of a senate, the powers and the functions of the senate and the agreement reached between the university and the teachers’ training colleges.

With these few words I express my party’s support of this Bill and wish the University of Port Elizabeth well for the future.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I wish to assure the hon. member for Newton Park of our sincere support for the Bill he has just introduced. It is a great and particular honour and privilege for me to support this legislation, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. member for Newton Park has for years already been a friend of mine. I know him very well and I know that he is a man who does a great deal in the interests of the education of our youth. He has also been a member of the council of the University of Port Elizabeth since its inception.

Here in Parliament he makes a valuable contribution in the study group on national education. I therefore wish to thank him again for what he is doing and to assure him of our support.

The very young university of Port Elizabeth is situated on an excellent piece of land bordering on the sea; a piece of land 1 000 morgen in extent. On that piece of land there are very great possibilities for the future development of the University of Port Elizabeth. All the possibilities are there. It therefore delights me to be able to say that the University of Port Elizabeth has not yet burst at its seams. There is one thing we have to guard against. In this regard I agree with the words of Prof. Mouton, principal of the University of the Orange Free State, when he said that a university should develop in such a way that it does not ultimately get out of hand. A university should always still be able to function properly and to devote the attention to the students which they indeed deserve.

This measure is directed at promoting the co-operation and the interaction between the university and the two teachers’ training colleges, that is to say those of Graaff-Reinet and Port Elizabeth. We trust that the liaison between university and college that will be effected by the legislation, will be of such a nature that the university and also the two teachers’ training colleges involved, will achieve the success they are supposed to achieve. The liaison between the university and the two colleges is now being facilitated and once there is closer liaison, it would also help a great deal with the training of people to prepare them to face the demands of our time. That is something that is very essential.

With these few words I wish to tell the hon. member for Newton Park and the council of that university: May the university look back with satisfaction on the good work it has successfully accomplished, on what its students have achieved, and what the university is doing for the literacy of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I know that the hon. member in whose constituency this university is situated, is anxious to say a few nice things about that university. I believe that he also still wants to go and see how Kallie Knoetze lost. I shall therefore not take up much of the time of the House.

Over the past few years we have had a whole series of pieces of legislation relating to universities before us and virtually all of them were aimed at simplifying certain administrative matters.

We therefore support this Bill and on behalf of the NRP I should just like to make use of the opportunity to wish our second youngest university in South Africa success for the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park presented the case of the university very well and we want to associate ourselves with his words. I want to tell my bench mate, the hon. member for Durban Central, that it is as impossible for him as it is for me to go and watch Kallie Knoetze on television this evening, as we have work to do and have to stay here tonight. [Interjections.]

†The University of Port Elizabeth started in 1965 in very humble circumstances with 320 students in Port Elizabeth Central. Today the university has expanded and is situated in the Walmer constituency. It has well-planned well-situated premises and as at June 1978 had 2 917 students while as at the beginning of 1979 it had nearly 3 000 students. This is a dual-medium university and it is probably the fastest growing university in the Republic. I want to pay tribute to the rector, the university council, the senate, the staff and the students who have built up the university to the extent where it plays an invaluable part in many important fields of endeavour in Port Elizabeth and also far beyond the boundaries of Port Elizabeth. The university has made a substantial contribution to the welfare of the eastern Cape. I hope the Government will help the university to expand to its maximum capacity not only in the interests of Port Elizabeth but also in the interests of all the people of the Republic.

*Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to elaborate further on the achievements of the university. Therefore I shall confine myself to the proposal which is before us at the moment. Because of the close co-operation between the university and the training colleges, it is desirable to effect the amendments in terms of which, for example, the principal of a teachers’ training college may be appointed as a special professor.

†In regard to the principles of delegation contained in the Bill, it is obvious that this delegation is vital in the interests of efficiency and in keeping with modem methods.

*We support the Bill with pleasure as it was introduced at the request of the university and because all the proposals are just and reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make use of this opportunity to extend my heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to the hon. members for Hillbrow, Walmer, Durban Central and Hercules at the end of the Second Reading debate for their support of this Bill and for their kind words about our young university.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate on this measure was adjourned I was indicating that the official Opposition had no objection to this Bill. I did, however, say that there were various matters which would require some questioning. I am not qualified to pursue those inquiries myself; so I think that the sooner I allow other hon. members to do so, the better. We in these benches shall, however, support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. member for Groote Schuur we, as the official Opposition, have no objection to the Bill which the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions introduced. This is a Bill which affects several Acts concerning pensions, for example the Associated Institutions Provident Fund Act of 1971, the Government Service Pensions Act, the Military Pensions Act of 1976 and the General Pensions Act of 1979, which was recently dealt with in this House.

The question of pensions is obviously a principle which is strongly supported by, I think, all members of this House. We are here to do our best to see that the lot of the pensioners are made easier and that they receive the financial assistance commensurate with the services they have rendered. This Bill does not in any way deal with civil pensions, so we are dealing with personnel who are assisting or working for the State either in the public service, in the statutory bodies connected with the State or in institutions such as universities and technikons.

I often wonder who laid down an age limit for people to retire and receive pensions. It seems ironical to me that a man or a woman—hon. members will note that I do not discriminate [Interjections]—might control a vast Government department, a vast institution, statutory body or university at the age of 64 years and 11 months and be perfectly able and competent to run such an organization, but when he turns 65 he is no longer considered to be capable of doing so and has to retire. As persons retire they lose any control which they had, having had to surrender such control. Gradually they become more and more dependent upon other people to do things for them until eventually they become completely dependent. I think this is a problem which faces Western society, and of course this country as well. True enough, there is also the other side of the coin. One must look to the younger generation of men who possibly have more energy and more ideas, and who are up-and-coming, to take over and steer the ship on new courses and through difficult waters. Be that as it may, on the question of pensions we are faced with a fait accompli in that persons are, in terms of Public Service regulations and other regulations, obliged to retire at a certain age. We can therefore only look at the problem in that light. In doing so we have to bear in mind that people retire from the Public Service on pension or with a gratuity, whatever the case may be, which is fixed at the particular point in time when they leave the service. In many cases people live for many years after they have retired. For example, people who retired in 1960 or 1965 were paid pensions which were possibly commensurate with the value of the rand at that time and received what they perhaps thought was a liveable wage. Now they find, however, that as a result of the erosion of the rand, the high cost of living and other conditions, particularly in regard to rentals which are increased from time to time—and landlords are given the freedom to do so— their task of making ends meet is becoming more and more difficult.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions can think of some scheme in terms of which a type of cost of living allowance could be built into a pension scheme, an allowance that could, from time to time, be adjusted in accordance with the cost of living so that the money paid to a pensioner can be commensurate with the high cost of living, inflation and the erosion of the value of the rand and can enable him to survive in these circumstances.

We support this Bill because it contains a number of features which are supportable. We do, however, have one or two slight difficulties which I shall point out to the hon. the Minister.

I think the widow of a person is entitled to a pension if she married him after he left the service. This is a principle which has been established in the Judges’ Pensions Act and is carried over into this Bill. I think it is a principle we can support, because it may well happen that a couple are married for 10 years, 15 years or even 20 years after the husband’s retirement, and therefore I think his widow is entitled to a pension at the rate of three-quarters of the rate of the pension payable to the person she was married to.

As far as the Members of Statutory Bodies Pension Act is concerned, the definition of “final salary” does take the matter further. Now we shall be able to take into consideration the aggregate amount of the annual salaries payable to a member who has served on more than one statutory body. A person should not lose out on benefits because of variations in his salary. This definition of “final salary”, which means the amount of the annual salary or the aggregate amount of the annual salaries payable to a member will, to my mind, assist in giving him a better deal, and we support this provision because it will do so.

I think the hon. member for Houghton and all hon. members will be a little sad, as indeed I will be, about the fact that the word “widower” is not also included in the proposed new section 4(2). This is the third opportunity the hon. the Minister has had to consider this principle. Although I shall be coming to a later clause in which a concession is made, as far as pensions are concerned I think the time has come when no distinction whatsoever should have to be made between the widow and the widower. I think the hon. the Minister will need to have a very good reply to this in the Second Reading debate because of the arguments which have been raised by all the speakers in the Opposition benches. I think hon. members on that side of the House also feel as we do, this principle having also been discussed when other Bills were debated. I therefore think it is time for us to have the necessary changes made. I cannot move an amendment to clear up the position because if I do so I shall have to move many other consequential amendments to the Act which do not pertain to the Bill before the House. It would be incongruous and out of keeping with the legislation as a whole to move only one isolated amendment. It is therefore impossible to move an amendment to meet this particular situation. However, I hope the Minister will, once and for all, seriously take this into consideration when he next introduces amending legislation and will have this problem finally ironed out.

Clause 4, which deals with the person who has simultaneously served on two or more statutory bodies in a paid capacity, is a clause we can accept as well.

Clause 5, which deals with the Associated Institutions Provident Fund Act, was referred to by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, and although the hon. the Minister stated that this Bill could be better discussed in the Committee Stage, I think that when it comes to the appointment or transfer to posts in the Public Service from these institutions, a choice should indeed be given to a person with regard to the gratuity which is paid from the Provident Fund and its conversion to a pension. Here again, the principle has been conveyed by the House to the hon. the Minister, and we congratulate him on introducing the principle which allows a person to exercise an option to improve his position and not to be saddled with an old position which he cannot get out of. That is why we shall support the principle with regard to the amendment to the Provident Fund.

Clause 7 deals with the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pension Act, and we fully agree that there may have been some query about the interpretation of the provision that members who have served on provincial councils in South Africa, and have exercised their option within the stipulated 90 days, as provided for in the 1979 Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pension Amendment Act, are able to claim half of that service towards their parliamentary pension, because it was said that they could claim it if they had paid contributions at the time. I have only checked the Cape Provincial Ordinances against those of the Transvaal, but I believe that they are the same in all the provinces. I assume that in 1960 the administrators of the provinces got together, as administrators usually do, to jointly decide on this measure. In the Transvaal ordinance of 1960 the pensionable service is laid down in the ordinance as follows—

“Fixed date” is also defined in the ordinance of 1960 as “the first day of October, 1960”. Therefore, when we look at what member qualifies for pensionable service in terms of section 14(3), we find that it is any person who was a member of the Provincial Council on the fixed date, or who became or becomes such a member after that date and who has contributed or elected to contribute in respect of any period of his service as such member, whether before or after that date. The operative words are therefore “continuous service”. Quite frankly, my own feeling is that this is covered in existing legislation, because the definition of pensionable service is qualified by section 14(3) itself. The hon. the Minister said, in his Second Reading speech, that there may be a doubt, and this is merely a question of putting the matter beyond all doubt. Therefore as I see it now, and I think the hon. the Minister will agree, those members of the Provincial Council who had service before 1 October 1960, and who were in continuous service of that Provincial Council on 1 October 1960, can now claim half of those years of service should they wish to convert to a parliamentary pension scheme. A person who served on a Provincial Council before 1 October 1960, however, and who was not a member at that date, or who retired and obtained a refund of his pension, will not qualify. That being so, I think the hon. the Minister is crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s and is putting the matter clearly beyond all doubt by deleting the words “pensionable service as defined in the applicable pensions ordinance”, merely going on to state “service as a member of a provincial council” and also defining 1 October 1960 as the relevant date. On that basis the matter is very clear.

I now turn to clause 8. In this respect the hon. the Minister quoted George Bernard Shaw and related the quotation to the hon. member for Houghton—

With respect to the hon. the Minister, if he is courting the admiration and esteem of the hon. member for Houghton, I think I must remind him that faint heart never won fair lady. If he wants to be bold about his capture, I think he must satisfy the demands that have been made and include both “widower” and “widow” in the provision.

I was not on the hunt.

We welcome what has been done in this regard, however, in the sense that the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act of 1971 is now being amended so that if a member unfortunately dies before he or she can receive a gratuity, the money will go to the estate of either the male or the female member. I think that puts the situation on a par with that in other legislation and certainly removes discrimination as far as the female member is concerned.

As far as clause 9 is concerned …

How many clauses are there?

If the hon. member has read the Bill, he will know how many clauses there are. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with another type of pension which I think lies close to the hearts of all hon. members of this House. Clause 9 of the Bill deals with military pensions, and therefore necessarily also with our boys on the border who have been, who are or who may be injured and whose injuries are of such a nature as to require payment in terms of the provisions of section 4 of the Military Pensions Act. What we are doing in this regard is to make arrangements for the application, in terms of clause 6 of the Bill, for such pension, an application based on an injury which does not allow such a person to continue doing his military service.

From the provisions of the Act as it stands now, it is normal practice to only grant that pension or gratuity from the time the application is made. It might well be, however, that the injury which gave rise to the application may have occurred long before that For that reason it is necessary to back-date the application by a period of six months in terms of this Bill. I have given notice to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions that I do not believe that this provision goes far enough and that an amendment will be moved during the Committee Stage. The hon. the Minister has been notified of this amendment and can therefore still think about it before we reach the Committee Stage of this Bill which, as far as we are concerned, can be tonight if the hon. the Minister wants it. This amendment provides that the Secretary who considers the applications will have the right to decide on the extent of the backdating of the application. We are suggesting, however, that it should not and cannot go back further than the actual date of the event that gave rise to the application, in other words, the date on which the injury was actually inflicted upon the soldier, the injury which actually gave rise to his application. I think that would be a far more equitable and reasonable way of dealing with an application of this nature. One should not merely restrict this to a period of six months, because such a person may have been negligent, or he may have been too ill to have made his application within the period of six months.

Are you going to tell us the whole story during the Committee Stage again?

Yes. You chaps are paid to listen to this.

As far as the insolvency and sequestration are concerned, I think that a pension that has been earned by a person who has virtually rendered a lifetime of service should be protected and should not be made part of an asset in a sequestrated estate which could be shared out amongst various creditors, although creditors might, I suppose, thereby be prejudiced in a certain way. I think there is enough precedent in law for this. There are, for example, policies that can be issued and which do not become part of the estate. We would therefore strongly support this.

The last main provision in this Bill allows for the transfer of the pension rights of those persons employed by local authorities whose pensionable services, in terms of the Water Act, is taken over by water boards. Where persons have rendered a great deal of service to local authorities and their services are taken over by the Water Board, it is obvious that all the benefits that they had worked for should not be lost when they go to the Water Board. It should at their option be transferred to the Water Board so that the benefits could be retained. Here, again, I think there is ample precedent in law for this. There was the precedent, for example, when the West Rand Board and other boards took over the staff of the local authorities at the time when they took control of non-White affairs. Therefore, it is very important that their services of these people should be protected. They can render the best type of service to the local authorities and the people concerned. In the circumstances we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Hillbrow on what was generally a constructive speech. No doubt the points which he raised and which may have indicated criticism or which involved amendments to this Bill, will be dealt with by the hon. the Minister personally. However, this is a miscellaneous Bill dealing with a whole variety of amendments to pension laws in general. And between the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Hillbrow these provisions have been spealt out sufficiently not to warrant comment from this side of the House.

However, there are some general remarks I would make. If one considers social welfare measures in general, measures such as unemployment grants, disability grants and pension schemes, the fact is that the most universal of these measures is unquestionably the pension. The reason for this is that, while it is a small minority of people who are in fact unemployed and it is a small minority of people who are disabled in work situations, the vast majority of people grow old, that is, if they do not die prematurely. While a Bill like this is welcome and while the concept of pensions as such is an accepted one, the fact is that it is also a sad comment on human society. In effect a pension means that a man or woman has lived too long, not in a physical or psychological sense, but in the sense that they have in fact outlived their productive capacity measured in terms of retirement practices, and in terms of the modem technology or the technology of the modem work situation. They have reached the stage where they should be retired and where they should make room for younger people to enter the labour market.

Secondly, legislation of this kind reflects on the whole nature of the State’s responsibility to the individual in society. Today, as we all know, there is not an economist, not even among the conservative economists, who would argue that the role of the State is limited simply to defence or the maintenance of order. It is today accepted that the State has a social responsibility to the aged, the people who in fact find themselves, in terms of the productive processes of their society, cast aside and retired. The State has a responsibility to such people. This Bill drives these two points home: On the one hand the universality of pension schemes as such, and on the other hand the changed relationship of the State to the individual and the very increased sense of social responsibility which the State has to society as a whole and to individuals in particular.

With those words, it gives me pleasure to express the support of this side of the House for this particular measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches should like to add our comments to the draft Bill now before the House. I must say that the hon. member for Hillbrow covered it extremely well, although he obviously lacked the admiration of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. [Interjections.] I should like to assure the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Hillbrow that they need not be too concerned about the effect of this particular Bill—and of course of other similar Bills we have had before the House earlier—on the plight or the poverty of the widows. I believe it is fairly well-known that one-third of the Western world’s wealth is in fact in the hands of the widows. [Interjections.] Therefore, there cannot be too much wrong with the pension and gratuity funds.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Hillbrow would only give me a chance to go a bit further …

We chaps have the other two-thirds of the wealth.

Thank you very much, indeed. The hon. member for Groote Schuur has in fact said what I was going to say. That is that one should also look after the interests of the widower. Being the weaker sex in this House we definitely need some sort of legal protection. [Interjections.]

In general we welcome all the provisions of the Bill. As the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens has indicated, pension funds are always of very little consequence or interest to the young man or woman entering service, whether it be Public Service or private enterprise. However, it is an interesting feature of life that the older one gets and the closer one gets to retirement age the more interested one becomes in the details and provisions of a particular pension or gratuity fund. One may then reach the situation where the confidence one has placed in the policymakers may not be up to scratch, and one may then find that, after one has accepted transfer from one State or semi-State body to another, one has in fact reached a situation of no return, a situation in which one is being disadvantaged by one’s transfer. Because one then lacks the number of active years for service one cannot then regain the benefit which one would have had had one known about the implications of a change from one corporate body to the other.

Therefore, I believe that in particular the members of the various services rely very heavily upon statutory protection for their provident and pension interests. In this respect I believe that the amending Bill which we have before us this evening changes in a very large measure the regulations to suit a de facto situation in which these problems have arisen. This is no doubt the reason why the hon. the Minister has seen fit to introduce an omnibus Pension Bill such as this one.

We find, for instance, that in many cases individuals are transferred from one corporation to another, perhaps at a higher salary. They assume automatically that they are going to have the same sort of pension and gratuity funds, only to find when they actually do go on pension that the fine print was not read out to them and that they were not aware of the disadvantages. Then, as I have said previously, it is too late to cry over spilt milk. In this respect we welcome in particular the relevant clauses dealing with those transfers.

Then, I should also like to deal with the matter of the military pensions and the six-month period of grace; the retrospective aspect thereof. I believe the hon. the Minister will deal with this factor. However, one has to be realistic when one deals with the backdating of applications. One has to ask oneself what is the norm, what is the satisfactory standard for back-dating applications, rather than to say that there would be a very small percentage of people who would be disadvantaged if the period was not made longer than six months.

On behalf of the NRP I should like to say that we welcome the provisions of this Bill. We will support it through all the stages.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this debate, particularly the hon. member for Hillbrow, who has dealt at length with all the details of the Bill. However, I do not want to approach the matter in a partisan way. I believe that we all agree that these measures are necessary. We may perhaps differ on minor details, but otherwise we are in full agreement. We all agree that this is the proper way in which we have to adapt from time to time to new circumstances. Pensions as such, and attitudes towards pensions, regardless of psychological of philosophical aspects, do change from time to time. Therefore we should always be prepared to make adjustments.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens in particular for putting forward his approach in respect of the position of the State with regard to retrospective pension aspects and the idea in some quarters that receiving a pension is indicative of the fact that a person has reached the age where he is actually of no further use. I do not know whether it is his idea that men and women should be productive to the end of their lives. I feel the rule of “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy” also applies to our lives. There should be a time in which one should not be burdened with having to work all day and with all the problems that might come one’s way in the course of one’s work when one is neither physically nor psychologically in a position to meet such problems. Nevertheless, I greatly appreciate members’ views on the various aspects relating to pensions.

*The hon. member for Hillbrow raised a few interesting matters here. I can tell him that the question of retirement age remains a problem to us. Years ago we decided that the retirement age should be 65 years. Previously, many problems were encountered with the financing of Funds to compensate the number of people who qualified. There was always the problem that, actuarially, a Fund could suddenly come to an end. It was found that Funds would encounter serious problems if we did not raise the retirement age to 65 years. As a result of good medical and health services, man’s ability and expected life-span has, over the years, been increased considerably. Nevertheless, it remains a moot point whether 60 should not be the desired retirement age. I maintain that I should rather see a man retire at the age of 60 and still be able to do his work at that stage, than that he should die in harness at the age of 62. One should also take into account that there are people who, when they reach the age of 60 years, simply take it easy for the remaining five years and do hardly anything. I am not saying this in a derogatory sense, but it is a problem we have to face up to. In that case, however, we would also have to change our approach in respect of contributions to the pension funds which, in the final definition, should be funded actuarially and not from revenue, as is the case at present. As far as this is concerned I am merely stating it as an opinion as against what the hon. member raised here.

As far as adjustments of pensions are concerned, I wish to state that we constantly have this in the back of our minds. We are always having to see whether they are keeping pace with the cost of living etc. It is just not possible for the State, not even by means of the annual budget, to adjust pensions to the inflation index or the consumer index. Nevertheless I can state that as far as social and civil pensions since 1974 are concerned, the adjustments in the case of civil pensions have exceeded the increase in the consumer index. That is what it amounts to. We often draw inferences here that are not based on facts.

As regards the remarks by the hon. member for Hillbrow with specific reference to the provisions of the legislation, I can just tell him that we really took everything into account in the drafting of this Bill.

†As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I said in a speech on another piece of legislation that I was prepared to accept immediately that she and, I think, the hon. member for Berea had a point and undertook to investigate the position immediately, which I then did. We then found that the hon. member indeed had a point and without delay tried to incorporate the necessary provisions in this amending Bill. Now that we have it before us, at least there will be one member who will be grateful to me. I could not do more than this in the time available. Although the hon. member intimated that I should also have considered many other things she mentioned in the earlier debate, it was just not possible in the time available.

Why are you worried, Helen? You are only 48!

I have now dealt with all the aspects raised here. I wish to thank hon. members for their participation in the debate. If, during the Committee Stage, there are other matters to discuss—and I believe hon. members will support me on this score—we can discuss them there.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I rise not to object to this clause, but simply to express my appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister has managed to effect some improvement in the situation as far as it affects the payment of gratuities in the case of members who die and who are not survived by a widow or children. In this instance he has managed to stretch a point and to include a female member who is not survived by a widower. This suggestion was first made by the hon. member for Umbilo when we were discussing another measure, and I suggested that it would be a very good idea if it were taken over as far as the pensions of members were concerned. I think we discussed this when the judges’ pensions were under review. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has at least gone this far and that gratuities will be paid to the estate of a female member should she die and not be survived by a widower or children. I gather that, even if she is that…

It is the same as applies to judges.

Yes. I was absent when that measure was debated and I am very pleased that we have at least got that changed in the law. Now that the hon. the Minister is on the slippery slope, I hope he will go all the way and consider the whole question of pensions as well as gratuities, because after all the same contributions are paid by female judges and female members of Parliament as are paid over the years by male judges and male members of Parliament.

[Inaudible.]

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 6, in line 57, to omit “not more than six months”;
2. (2) on page 6, in line 58, after “received” to add:

The words at the end are added so as not to have the period extended indefinitely. As the hon. the Minister knows, we are dealing with section 10 of the Military Pensions Act of 1976 and, more specifically, with subsection (1) of it which reads as follows—

We are now dealing with a proviso to that. Section 6—and this is very important—deals with the application for a pension or gratuity. Subsection (1) of this section reads as follows—

If we leave this clause as it stands, it means that, if seven months or six months and a day have elapsed prior to the application being received, the Secretary is precluded from using his discretion, even in the most deserving case, to grant a gratuity or pension to a person from the time he was wounded. I do not think we should curtail his discretion to that extent, because he may be dealing with a very deserving case. A man may have been concussed or unconscious or his wounds may have been of such a serious nature that he was in fact unable to give attention to his application until well after six months. As I have indicated, in terms of section 6 of the Act, he has to furnish such details, documents and information as may be required in support of the application. Because of the nature of his injuries, he may not have been in a fit and proper state to obtain all the information or details that are required if, for example, he was wounded on the border. I want to refer to the example of motor vehicle assurance. If a person has been injured in a motor accident, in terms of the law he has two years in which to file a claim. To substantiate his claim, he must furnish a medical report which contains all the medical details required in respect of the injury. The hon. the Minister, who is himself a medical practitioner, will appreciate that different specialists may be required to furnish detailed reports and that this can take time. The application must contain these details in order to substantiate the claim. In the same way, we are here dealing with the case of a soldier who has been wounded and who must receive a gratuity or pension. I think we must lean over backwards to make sure that he will receive the full benefit of the pension or gratuity not from a date six months prior to the date of application, as is stipulated in this clause, but from the date the injury was sustained.

Mr. Chairman, naturally I should like to accept the hon. member’s amendment and satisfy him, since I have accepted the principle that there should be more flexibility in this regard, particularly when one deals with military matters. If a person dies on the battlefield, one sometimes encounters many practical problems when one wants to determine what exactly happened. However, it is for this very reason that we have inserted this provision regarding the period of six months. One is not dealing with the ordinary inept person, but with a soldier who is part of a thorough administration. Once he has applied—and he is given six months in which to apply—the Secretary may direct that payments may be made after the receipt of the application.

†We do not want to be burdened with a case in which we have to pay gratuities to a soldier who lodges his claim 30 years afterwards. This is actually what the hon. member’s amendment really entails, if one takes it to the absurd limit. That is the interpretation one can attach to his amendment. It is impossible for us to support this amendment. Although there must be flexibility, a line must be drawn somewhere. We feel that we cannot burden ourselves with claims that might run into thousands and thousands of rand unless we impose a time limit. Therefore for the time being, with the knowledge at my disposal, and knowing that we do encounter cases where there is no limit as far as the time-lag is concerned, it is impossible for me to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to point out the difficulty I have with the hon. the Minister’s argument? As the Act stands at the moment there is no limitation as to when the application for the pension or gratuity can be made, unless the hon. the Minister can point it out to me. To use the hon. the Minister’s own argument, the application, as the Act stands at the moment, can still be made in 30 years. If I am wrong, therefore, the hon. the Minister is also wrong on this point. [Interjections.] This does not limit the application to six months. The Act merely states that the granting of the gratuity or the pension is made from the date of the application. In other words, if the application is made on 30 June and is considered on 31 December, it is granted from 30 June. However, in deserving cases, for example if an injury took place in January, i.e. six months before, the pension or gratuity may be granted from 1 January. I find no limitation in terms of the Act unless the hon. the Minister can help me by pointing out where there is such a limitation on the application. Therefore the hon. the Minister’s point is not met.

A person has six months in which to make the application, six months after the event.

This is the effective period one can go back prior to the date of the application. In terms of the existing law the person may be paid from the date of application, and in terms of this legislation we are now giving the Secretary six months’ leeway. In this provision—can the hon. the Minister show me any other provision?— there is no limit as to when the application can be made.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose there is no limit to the time in which one can make an application.

*A person can apply or make a request at any time, but the result of this will simply be that he would only be paid out for the preceding six months if the hon. member insists on taking it that far. Our request is therefore that the application must be made within six months. If the application is made after six months, any benefits which the person might receive are considered for a period dating from six months before the application, as I understand it.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, the amendment as printed in clause 9 does not limit an application to six months. Section 6 of the existing Act states that application can be made to the Secretary and he considers it. This merely grants him a discretion. Instead of paying out the gratuity or benefit from the date of the application, he can go back six months. That is what it says. It does not take the matter any further. Therefore, as the hon. the Minister rightly says, the application may be made in 30 years’ time. We are not, however, even arguing about a period of 30 years. We are going back, not forward at the moment. We are only considering what should happen retrospectively, and my argument is purely and simply that if the injury took place seven months earlier, and the case is a very deserving one, the person concerned should have been paid for the seven months. The period could even be two years. A man may be unconscious for two years and only then become fit enough to sign an application form. Why should he be prejudiced? For two whole years he may not be in a fit and proper condition to sign an application form. What then?

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the type of argument advanced by the hon. member for Hillbrow. It is still inconsistent with what I said initially. In my opinion one cannot institute claims for damages after two or three years as a result of something which happened within the military milieu to which I have just referred and in which it is easy to allow this type of thing to happen. In this way an inordinate number of claims could arise for which one would be unprepared. To date one has only had one month’s grace to lay a claim, and in view of this we felt that six months was a reasonable time limit for the claimant as well as the people who are supposed to help him. This period could be extended to a year, two years, etc., until there is simply no end to it. All it will mean, if one stretches out the matter in this way, is the possibilities of increasing financial obligations being imposed on us.

It is also interesting to note that the actual determining of the facts will become more and more difficult. In my lifetime I have had to deal with this type of thing in another field and can speak from experience when I tell the hon. member that when one extends these periods and time limits—it can sometimes last for decades—claims are eventually laid which are of such a nature that no one can determine the truth. In the times in which we are living, with the means of communication, the knowledge and the military machinery and administration at our disposal, all I want to know is: What is wrong with our giving a person, or a person acting on his behalf, six months to lay a claim, whilst previously he had only a month to do so? At this stage I am not prepared to extend the period. In actual fact the hon. member did not propose any period. He did not propose a limit of two or three years or any other limit.

From the date of the injury.

Yes, calculated from the date of the injury. In other words, if someone lays a claim in 1979,1 have to repay him to 1 January 1929 if he was injured then.

He may apply for that in any case.

This is exactly what I want to emphasize. It is simply impracticable to allow a person in such a case to continue for all time to abuse the right to claim simply because the truth cannot be determined after 10 or 12 years. Consequently I am not prepared to accept this. I believe one can bring together the injury and the claim arising out of it, so that the facts can be more effectively ascertained during the period of six months. I believe that I am accommodating these people in this regard and I cannot take this further at this stage. If the hon. member is able to advance better arguments for an extension of the period, I shall listen to him, but he must not simply propose an unspecified period, because I cannot accept that.

Say a period of two years in the Other Place.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Clauses 2 and 4 concern the remuneration, the gratuity and the pension paid in the case of a member of a statutory board if he rendered his services to two statutory boards. Therefore, I should like to make a proposal. Since it is considered that clauses 2 and 4 took effect on 1 June 1979, a provision indicating this must be inserted after line 64 on page 11.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. We have had a very good discussion on a Bill which affects various categories of pensioners in the various fields other than those involving civil pensions. I am referring to pensioners of statutory bodies and the Public Service and those who receive benefits from provident funds. We support the Third Reading because it is a general improvement.

With great respect I am just unhappy about the military pensioner because I feel we are doing him an injustice. I do feel that if the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions would, after this debate, consider the situation of the military pensioner who has been unable to file a claim and were to decide to extend the period from six months to two years in the Other Place. I think it would be an improvement. He might like to think about it.

However, I looked through the Act very rapidly again while the hon. the Minister was speaking during the Second Reading. There is no time limit anywhere in the Military Pensions Act, Act No. 84 of 1976, on the time for applications by soldiers to be made. I do not think that the ordinary common law rights of prescription of three years apply. If they did, the period would be three years. However, we have not, at any stage in the Bill, ever discussed when the application must be made. That question is not even before the House. It is not part of the discussion, it is not part of the Bill and it is not part of the amendment before us.

You are quite right.

The only matter before us is how far back in time the secretary’s discretion can extend. I think the wider the discretion the secretary has, the more deserving the case can be considered. So perhaps when the hon. the Minister has thought about it more carefully, he may consider an amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, as I consider this more and more, I am less and less inclined to accept it at the moment. However, I know that the hon. member did his best. I shall certainly discuss this to see whether there is any merit in what he has just proposed. I shall discuss it, but I am not promising anything.

*I should also just like to express my appreciation for the pleasant spirit in which the debate was conducted.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Co-operative Societies Act, 1939 (Act 29 of 1939) consolidated the previous legislation with regard to co-operative societies, but has itself been amended on seven occasions since its acceptance 40 years ago.

Developments which have taken place over the years in co-operatives, as well as the implementation of those recommendations of the Steenkamp Commission accepted by the Government, now necessitate the revision of the Act in its entirety. Consequently the Act is being rewritten at present and will be published as soon as possible for general information and comment.

Unfortunately the provision contained in the Bill before this House today, cannot be held over until the Bill is rewritten. These provisions concern the assistance the Government is at present giving farmers in the drought-stricken areas of this country and seek to effect some improvement in the security of co-operatives with regard to amounts owing by members.

As a result of the serious conditions of drought in the Western Cape and in certain parts of the summer maize areas, the Government has decided to grant the Land Bank a guarantee that production loans granted by co-operatives in these areas to their members in respect of the past 1978-’79 production season and the new 1979-’80 season from Land Bank funds, will be repaid over a period of four years. This arrangement enables the co-operatives to grant their members, too, postponement of repayment of debts.

When a co-operative provides production requisites to its members on credit, it automatically obtains security in terms of section 96 of the Act, viz. the right of pledge on the products produced by those production requisites.

However, if there have been no or poor yields owing to drought, for example, there is naturally nothing or very little on which the co-operative can obtain a right of pledge. Obviously this can happen in successive years.

Although the co-operative is, therefore, finally accountable to the Land Bank for outstanding production credit after four years, the co-operative may in the circumstances outlined in the previous paragraph, have no or insufficient security in respect of amounts owing by members.

In these circumstances co-operatives have made representations to me that section 96 of the Act be amended to provide in addition that when a State guaranteed credit scheme for co-operatives and their members is in effect and a member’s production for a specific year is insufficient, the produce of that member in the subsequent years should be regarded as being pledged to the co-operative, and this should include the member’s debt of the previous years as well. I regard this request from the co-operatives as being a reasonable one, and consequently this Bill is being worded in such a way as to achieve this aim. As is customary, consultations with organized agriculture took place before the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, one should of course like to see the existing Act being revised in its entirety, rather than having it being amended piecemeal. However, as the hon. the Minister rightly remarked, the poor crops and the poor yields, owing to drought conditions, have compelled him to effect these amendments now.

Loans granted to their members by cooperatives in the form of production requisites can only be recovered on the crops for which those specific production requisites were used. Poor crops put the co-operatives in a very difficult position because it is possible that no crop can be recovered. I understand that poor crops, for example in the Swartland vicinity, have made it impossible this year for a large number of farmers to repay their loans in the form of products. In terms of the proposed new legislation the cooperatives are now acquiring a right of pledge on all products with regard to the assistance they have received. As I see it, this is for an unlimited period. If I am interpreting this incorrectly, the hon. the Minister must please correct me.

Therefore, we support this proposed legislation. However, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister to furnish a reply to the question whether the right of pledge will be applicable for an unspecified period.

Mr. Speaker, being a representative of this region in which conditions in agriculture have been very difficult over the past few years, it is a great pleasure for me to thank the hon. the Minister for this timely amendment of the Act. It is true that the co-operatives are a buffer against recession for the agricultural industry today. The co-operative is an important provider of credit to agriculture for production purposes. However, where do the funds with which the co-operative has to fulfil this function, come from? Allow me to explain briefly the financing system as it works at present. At its annual general meeting the co-operative is normally empowered by its members to borrow an amount up to a certain maximum from the Land Bank in the form of cash credit loans in order to provide production requisites to its members on credit, using as security the crop which they hope to produce with these production requisites. In terms of section 96 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the cooperative then obtains a right of pledge in respect of the production requisites provided to the member, as well as a right of pledge on all products produced with these production requisites and on cash advances on products not yet delivered.

In the Western Cape we have had the situation that the co-operatives have really been in a dilemma with regard to the financing scheme as announced in the budget. Provision has been made for co-operatives to be able to transfer amounts owing by members, as the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out. However, the situation arose that the cooperative had no cover for the transfer debts. It had to accept the responsibility for these transfer debts, without having any cover for them because it did not have a right of pledge on the subsequent crop. The right of pledge was restricted to the crop for which the production requisites were provided. That is why we are very pleased that the co-operative can now continue to provide credit to its members in the knowledge that the transfer debts will also be covered by the crops which are still to be produced.

I do not believe it is necessary to elaborate on this matter much further, except to say that this entails a very important advantage for the co-operatives in the Western Cape, and also for other co-operatives which could find themselves in the same position. On behalf of the co-operatives we want to thank the hon. the Minister for this Bill. We on this side of the House support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we will support the Second Reading of the Bill. It is really a sad comment on the state of agriculture that in a time of drought a situation like this can arise in which the entire financial position of co-operatives can be very seriously jeopardized indeed. The hon. the Minister will remember that during the debate on his Vote I mentioned this situation. When one has a succession of bad harvests, the cooperative increasingly finds itself in the situation that its own resources are placed under very considerable strain. Every year the co-operative has to approach the Land Bank to obtain funds to finance a crop and, should that crop fail, it has to approach the Land Bank again, this time already bearing a load of debt. The farming community in the area, having borrowed from the co-operative, are responsible for the debt. So one can have the situation building up where there is debt loaded upon debt and interest loaded upon interest. Through the budget the hon. the Minister took the step of subsidizing interest payments on debts to co-operatives in the Western Cape in view of the situation in which this area finds itself. I think that the precaution taken in this particular Bill is a wise one, because it safeguards the position of the co-operative societies, who could very well find themselves in very serious financial difficulties, owing money to the Land Bank with no way whatever of recovering those debts from their farming members. As always this merely constitutes a projection into the future for covering one’s debts. One can only hope that the weather conditions are going to take a turn for the better and that farming members of those co-operatives are going to be able to recover their losses and pay back the debts that they owe. A continual period of drought can place a considerable strain indeed upon the relationship between the farming community, the co-operative movement and the Land Bank.

We support the Second Reading of the Bill because it does give additional security to the co-operatives when they have to go to the Land Bank for loans to make a continuing commitment to their farming members, in the hope that those farming members will be able to recover from the crops which they are going to plant the debts which they have to pay off. It is obviously going to be a long-term project because if the co-operatives now had to call up the debts there would be no way in which they would recover their money because there is nothing from which they can recover it. So, it is really a case of casting one’s bread on the water and hoping that in time to come, with good crops and good rain, both the farming community and the cooperatives will come right.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River is quite correct in stating that one of the chief objectives of this amending Bill is to protect the credit worthiness of the agricultural co-operatives, because where one has a State supported scheme of which the Land Bank and the cooperatives make use, one has the position that funds which the Land Bank lends to cooperatives, are guaranteed by the State, while the co-operatives in turn have no guarantee and even carry the risk against the individual member. As an example I could mention that if a member cannot repay his loan from one particular crop, the co-operative has to repay the loan. Since the co-operative is one of the parties in this whole undertaking, it is necessarily the case that the State should also afford the co-operative the opportunity of protecting its credit worthiness in the process.

I am troubled by the question the hon. member for Wynberg asked. The hon. member for Wynberg put a very important question to the hon. the Minister. It concerns the extension of the right of pledge granted the co-operatives in terms of the amendment. He wanted to know whether this could be over an unlimited period. The hon. member will recall that the hon. the Minister of Finance made a statement in his budget speech with reference to the findings of the Jacobs Committee. The Jacobs Committee found that in view of the financial situation in which farmers find themselves, the cooperative movement was the ideal instrument to use to get a State supported scheme off the ground. In addition, the Jacobs Committee found that the agricultural co-operatives were the ideal organizations through which this scheme could be launched. The Jacobs Committee made a recommendation which entails financial implications for the Government, viz. that the Land Bank should be subsidized by 3½% interest in respect of the loans it grants to the co-operatives under a special cash credit account. In the course of negotiations the Land Bank has said that it would provide these loans over a four-year period. In other words, the period depends on the agreement between the co-operative and the Land Bank and also on how long the State can guarantee the loans. Therefore, this matter cannot carry on for an unlimited period. It depends on the agreement reached by the Land Bank and the co-operatives.

However, there is another important consideration for this amendment. Experience over the past few years has shown that the cooperatives are ideal for the launching of this type of scheme. In this regard I refer to the recent report of the Land Bank. In it, mention is made of similar emergency schemes launched by co-operatives and the Land Bank. On the occasion of the 1974 flood disaster, an amount of R819 000 was made available. There is no outstanding balance. This amount was paid. In 1976 another emergency scheme amounting to R53 million was undertaken. The present balance amounts to a mere R17 million. Drought assistance amounting to R30 million was provided in 1978. All that is happening now, is that this scheme is being refined so that the cooperatives can repay their debts over a term and not necessarily out of the yield of one crop.

I want to point out another very important aspect in this regard. Other financing institutions are also concerned with the Land Bank. Here I have in mind the banking world, for example. They are particularly sensitive to the right of pledge co-operatives obtain on farmers’ crops. When a farmer’s position is risky, banks are of course not prepared to provide credit to him either. For that reason one can never ignore banks in such a process, because a farmer does not obtain all his financing from a co-operative by means of these schemes. I am thinking of cash loans, for example. It occurs in practice that the cooperative takes the total crop in order to strengthen its position, with the result that the farmer is unable to pay his debt at the bank and at the shop. Under this four-year scheme the co-operative collects only a portion of the crop so that the farmer can pay his debt to the bank and the shop in the town. In other words, this scheme is in the interests of the whole rural economy, and this is extremely important. We do not want other financing institutions to regard the co-operatives as business-undertakings that want to take the farmer’s whole crop, because I think that if it were not for the co-operatives, we should not have had this stimulating effect on our rural economy.

In the same way other institutions must also regard these schemes as in the interest of the whole rural economy. I consider this an important amendment. We must not regard it as something which provides assistance to the co-operatives but as something which provides assistance to the farmers too, because the farmers are, after all, the co-operatives.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethal replied quite correctly to the speech of the hon. member for Wynberg. As chairman of one of our largest co-operatives, the hon. member for Bethal knows his facts very well. The hon. member for Wynberg asked whether the loan would affect the right of pledge for an indefinite period. It seems so when one reads the Bill, but we cannot lay down a period of four years, because it may happen that a disaster strikes the farmers or that they have four droughts or four crop failures one after the other. I want to explain how it is going to work in practice. Even if the farmer receives an interest subsidy of 3,5% in terms of the Jacobs proposal, he does still want to pay that debt off as soon as possible. The hon. member for Bethal spoke about cases where millions of rands were lent to cooperatives in disaster situations and that the farmers paid it back. We therefore cannot provide for an unlimited period. Until such time as the drought is over or the economic conditions in agriculture have changed, the board of directors of the co-operative can decide when a farmer should start paying back his debt.

†The hon. member for Mooi River has expressed the hope that the farmers will recover. This is a long-term matter. I believe the farmers will recover if they experience one or two good rainy seasons and if I can get my way with regard to the prices the farmers receive for their products. If I increase the price of butter or cheese, I get all hell and no support from anybody. Hon. members saw what happened in the past two weeks. [Interjections.] Well, in one’s heart one might say it is all right and that it is a good price, but according to the housewife it is not so.

Yesterday’s Sunday Times explained the matter well.

Well, that is all right. I do not want to fight about it I shall take it. However, the main thing is that the hon. member for Mooi River should in addition have mentioned good weather conditions and economic prices for farmers in order to keep them on the land. But one can never win in this game.

*I thank all hon. members for their contributions. The conditions in the area of the hon. member for Malmesbury led to the investigations done. The hon. member forgot to say that these areas where things are so bad, the Swartland and Rûensveld areas, received good rains during the past 10 days. I believe that this year will be a good year and that we will not need to introduce this type of legislation again to help the farmers out of their trouble. I thank all the parties for their support in this regard.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On earlier occasions I have made mention of steps envisaged with regard to agriculture to promote the optimum density of population considered necessary in the national interest in outlying areas. The White depopulation of certain rural areas has given rise to concern for a number of years now, and it has reached the stage where measures to fight this can no longer be delayed. For reasons known to hon. members it is necessary for a strong farming community to remain in the outlying rural areas. Uncertain rainfall, unsatisfactory farming income and other problems—chiefly of an economic nature—are considered to be the main reasons why farms are abandoned.

In November last year a committee consisting of representatives of interested State departments, the Landbank and organized agriculture was established with terms of reference to investigate this matter and to come forward with proposals concerning what should be done by the authorities to ensure an optimum density of population in the outlying areas, which should enjoy a high priority at this stage in the national interest. Subcommittees to deal with the various aspects of the problem were appointed, and the subcommittee in charge of agricultural aspects has already presented its first recommendations to the Government. The areas investigated to date are the areas extending 50 km into the interior of the northern and north-western borders of the Transvaal and 30 km towards the interior of the eastern border of the Transvaal south of the Kruger National Park and north of Swaziland.

The steps already approved by the Cabinet comprise the introduction of special measures providing financial support, to encourage farmers at present farming in the areas mentioned to stay there, and to attract new farmers to the area. An obligation will, however, be placed on the receiver of the financial benefits to occupy and controlling his own property or have it occupied and controlled by a person approved by the Minister of Agriculture. It is realized that these measures alone will not have the desired results and therefore it is necessary and important to compel all agricultural landowners in the areas concerned to make arrangements, within a given time, for the satisfactory occupation and control of their land.

The proposals in this regard already approved by the Government also mean that legislation has to be passed through Parliament to give effect to them. The Bill at present before the House was drafted for this purpose and I trust that it will enjoy the full support of everyone.

†The Bill provides for the designation by proclamation in the Gazette of areas in which the proposed special measures will be in force. Financial assistance in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, will be available to farmers in a designated area on more favourable terms than those which apply to the rest of the country. The rate of interest applicable to loans granted by the Agricultural Credit Board in a designated area is being reduced from 5% to 4%. Loans to approved persons who are not owners of agricultural land to purchase farms in a designated area, will carry no interest for the first two years. During the 3rd, 4th and 5th years interest at the rate of only 2% per annum will accrue and become payable, and as from the 6th year the interest will be 4% per annum. The capital amount will become repayable as from the 9th year in 25 annual instalments.

Farmers on uneconomic units who obtained loans in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, to increase their farms to economic farming units, will pay interest at the rate of only 2% per annum for the first two years and during the third, fourth and fifth years only 4% per annum. The capital and interest at 4% per annum will be repayable in 25 annual instalments as from the sixth year.

In order to assist farmers with existing loans in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, the rate of interest payable in respect of such loans is being reduced from 5% to 4% per annum. This reduction will however be subject to recommendation in each case by the Agricultural Credit Board.

In order to achieve the desired results in regard to the occupation of all farms in a designated area, provision has been made for special measures in this respect. It will be obligatory for owners of agricultural land in such areas to have their properties occupied and managed in the manner prescribed by the Minister by regulation and from a date to be fixed by notice in the Gazette. Present owners of land will, however, be given ample time to comply with this obligation. Provision has therefore been made for the promulgation of regulations which will be applicable to each and every farm in a designated areas. These regulations will empower the Minister to have proper control over the occupation and control of agricultural land within designated areas and will carry stiff fines in the event of contravention or failure to comply therewith.

*The Governments considering the payment of some form of financial assistance to farmers in designated areas, but the final decision on this has not yet been reached. A statement in this regard will therefore be made in due course.

Mr. Speaker, on many previous occasions we on this side of the House have expressed our concern at the depopulation of large areas of the South African platteland. It is not only the depopulation which is cause for concern, but also the fact that the average age of active farmers is rapidly increasing. This legislation will certainly, in the first place, contribute towards counteracting depopulation and, in the second place, making the farmers more economically viable. However, I believe that the other advantages of the legislation will cover a wider field than merely the advantages which will accrue to certain White farmers. The hon. the Minister has not yet dealt with them.

By ensuring that border agricultural areas, as well as other areas that run the risk of being depopulated, remain economically active, we create employment opportunities for Black and Brown South Africans as well. I believe that most hon. members will agree with me that unemployment in the rural areas creates tremendous problems for unskilled workers with the result that they stream into the cities, where neither work nor accommodation is available for them. Consequently this legislation will also assist in slowing down this influx to the cities.

The most important clause in this legislation is, in my opinion, clause 3. This clause provides that the State President must determine whether it is in the national interest to designate an area as a suitable area. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what criteria he is going to use before taking this decision. I think it is important for us to know a little more about the background and the motivations for the establishment of designated areas.

There is one aspect of this legislation which bothers me, and I should like to mention it now. Clause 3 provides which areas must of necessity be excluded. Those areas include townships, land owned by the S.A. Development Trust or by a Black or which is registered in the name of any other person in trust for a Black tribe or community. However, it includes land situated in an area in which the provisions of the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963 (Act No. 24 of 1963), apply.

I have a problem here. The hon. the Minister pointed out that areas investigated up to now are at this stage the areas which will be designated. However, nowhere in the Bill is it stipulated that it is only those border areas which are going to derive benefits from this legislation, the financial benefits for the farmers that are already farming there, or are going to acquire land there or are going to acquire additional land.

I am concerned that at this stage we are specifically excluding Coloured farmers from the possibility of participation and the fruits of the financial arrangements we are making here. I should like the hon. the Minister to react to that. I feel that I must say that we in this party feel strongly about the fact that those Coloured farmers also farm in areas subject to droughts after all. They are having a hard time of it and most probably have agricultural units which are too small. They would like to extend them so that at a later stage they too could derive benefits from this new legislation and the financial assistance being provided.

Then there are one or two other points which I must mention. The hon. the Minister said that only persons approved by him could live on those farms. I should like to know which persons are going to be approved, on what basis and how he will reach a decision.

In addition, certain arrangements are being made for persons who possess land but do not live on their farms and do not intend to live there. In cases such as these arrangements will have to be made that foremen, farm managers or others will have to live on those farms. I do not think it is asking too much of the hon. the Minister to elaborate on this matter somewhat.

I now come to a point which concerns the question of “stiff fines” which may be imposed on persons who do not meet the necessary requirements. A “stiff fine” can mean many things. R50 is a vast sum of money to one person, while R500 is perhaps just as vast a sum to another. The hon. the Minister can give us a little more information on this matter.

For the first time this year we have a number of Coloured South African students at Elsenburg College. One of the objectives of this legislation is to encourage young men to enter agriculture, particularly young men who have the technical ability to succeed. These, then, are men who have agricultural degrees or agricultural diplomas, or who have been trained in some way to be able to hold their own in agriculture.

I believe that those to whom I have just referred would also like the opportunity of entering agriculture. This brings me back to the aspect of the exclusion of certain areas, which actually amounts to the fact that Coloured farmers cannot enjoy all the advantages of the new arrangements at this stage. I should like to have the hon. the Minister’s reply in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are particularly grateful tonight for the support we are receiving from the Opposition parties with regard to a measure which we regard as exceptionally important for the areas in the Northern Transvaal border regions in particular.

When one looks at those areas, and notes the emergency conditions that have prevailed there over the past few years, one realizes what the real background to this legislation is. To me personally it is also a great moment tonight to know that the initiative for the introduction of the Bill under discussion comes from the region of Thabazimbi, Zeerust, Ellisras and vicinity. These are areas in which a pressing need for the steps now being made in this House has indeed developed. As I have already said, the area to which I have referred is indeed an emergency area. Actually, the emergency there developed as a result of two causes. In the first place it developed as a result of the continual droughts which have prevailed there for many years. Owing to the oppressive drought conditions many farmers in those areas are no longer able to farm there. As we know, fanners in those regions concentrate mainly on cattle fanning.

But it is also an emergency area owing to the onslaught being launched on our country from the bordering areas, from which, as we all know, terrorists are infiltrating our country. That is why it is essential that those areas should also be populated more densely. There is a very important reason for this. The moment those areas are populated more densely we shall also enjoy the advantage that the farming community will be assured of the maintenance of public services, for example schools, posts and telecommunication services, magistrate’s offices that are not down-graded, and many other advantages.

That is why it is a great pleasure for us to know that the legislation under discussion is going to be placed on the Statute Book and that it will contain the measures whereby farmers who do not own land, will be assisted and will receive support in order to buy land, and whereby farmers that are already established, but whose farms are not complete economic units, will be placed in a position to acquire economic farming units in terms of these measures. This measure can be regarded as a long-term solution for the future. Therefore, since we are discussing long-term solutions, I should also like to use this Bill tonight as a peg on which I want to hang my appeal for short-term assistance to our farmers in those areas.

The fact of the matter is that a considerable number of those farmers have a heavy burden of debt. The assistance they receive via normal channels, from the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and from the Land Bank, does not afford them the relief which is really essential to them at the moment Consequently, on behalf of the farming communities in those areas, I appeal to the hon. the Minister tonight to lend a helping hand there. In fact the hon. the Minister has already indicated that he intends to provide further assistance with a view to assist in relieving the burden of debt of the farmers in those areas.

Then, too, I should like to mention that in terms of the legislation under discussion there will also be certain provisions, provisions which are important and which are going to impose certain restrictions on farmers who are at the same time professional people—for example attorneys, medical doctors and persons in other professions—and who have invested money in agriculture in those areas over the years. I think it is fitting that we should place on record tonight the fact that we regard it as being of major importance that such farmers should also display understanding for the reasons why this legislation is important. It is as well that they should take cognizance of the fact that we are grateful for the investments they have made in those areas over the years. However, as I have said, they must also understand why measures are in fact being taken by which they will also perhaps be restricted to an extent However, it will be to their own advantage. In addition it is, of course, also in the national interest that the legislation under discussion should in fact be passed.

I want the hon. the Minister to take cognizance of the gratitude of farmers in those areas for the fact that the introduction of this legislation is, in fact, envisaged. We are also grateful to our officials under the leadership of Mr. Piet Steyn, a group of officials known as the Steyn Committee, who visited those areas with great sacrifice to hear the representations made by the farming communities there. It is really a privilege for us to be able to tell the hon. the Minister this evening that he will be more than welcome to visit those areas again. Indeed, we know that he has responded to the representations addressed to him by the farming communities of that part of the world.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted because the hon. member for Marico is so pleased with this Bill. The area where he comes from certainly deserves all the help and assistance it can get. We in the NRP have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

The purpose of this legislation is obviously to attempt to increase the farmer population in our strategic border areas, as the hon. member for Marico has just stated. We hope that this Bill will achieve just that. We also hope that those farms will once again sustain farm life and become economically viable, enough so that a vast number of farmers will again be able to make a living on those out of the way farms in the bushveld areas.

We agree that the special financial assistance, as offered in this Bill, is completely justified. We also agree that the regulations should be so framed as to ensure that the requirement that a farm be occupied—and I stress the word “occupied”—should be strictly adhered to. I think the word “occupied” should in this instance be circumscribed to a fuller extent. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us exactly how he interprets the word “occupied”.

We believe there is no point at all in offering these special assistances if a citydweller buys a farm and places some youngster or some old man in charge there, someone who cannot really farm but who merely occupies the farm, almost in a holidaymaking capacity. It should be made very clear that these low interest loans which are offered in this way are expressly meant for farms that are properly occupied and decently managed. The hon. the Minister is also, and rightly so, in the unique position in which he can insist on a fair stocking rate, on proper management, on proper veld management, as well as on a proper bookkeeping system in respect of those farms. He can insist on being shown exactly what farmers on such farms are achieving. Here he is in the unique situation in which he can in fact practise what the department has tried for so long to teach those people. They will now be receiving exceedingly high benefits in the form of low interest rates. I believe this could not only help the farming community, but could also achieve the aim of repopulating our strategic border areas.

There are other points which I believe the hon. the Minister should consider in framing these regulations. I believe the hon. the Minister should have an in-depth discussion with the hon. the Minister of Defence, because it stands to reason that these men— hopefully they will be young men, young farmers—will in fact become our first line of defence. It is therefore clear that the men occupying these farms will, obviously, already have completed their military training. They will also naturally have to be exempt from further military call-ups. It will surely not help us to have men out there being called up for three months at a time when the whole point behind the Bill is to get people in those areas. In those circumstances they must not be called up to serve outside these areas. I should also like to suggest that it be discussed with the hon. the Minister of Defence that the people occupying these farms, be they managers or owners, be required to enlist in the commandos. I think it is important that they should be part of the commando system. They should not just occupy and reside on those farms, but I believe they should form a special commando force in those areas, a commando force which will operate solely in the designated areas. In other words, it should be a special commando force to protect the people there and assist them in the event of any form of unrest in the area.

I turn to a further thought I should like to raise. I should like to suggest that, hopefully, we will be able to draw young men to these areas. The young married men will obviously have young children and special consideration should be given once again to reopening the farm schools in these areas. The old farm schools, which raised so many great men, could certainly be opened again if file Department of Education could be got to take a renewed interest in the farming areas. I believe that one of the reasons why so many farmers left those areas was that the children could no longer go to school there. The young people had to leave because they could not find schools for their young children in proximity to their farms. I therefore suggest that the hon. the Minister should go and have a long chat with the hon. the Minister of National Education to see what he can do about this matter.

There is a final point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. I think he should look very closely indeed at the recipients of these low interest rates. I believe the hon. the Minister has a golden opportunity to assist many young farmers, young men who have been crying out to go farming. Let us assist them first I should like to plead that the hon. the Minister put them right at the top of the list. The young man who wants to go farming and who only requires assistance, is prepared to go, as the English term it, bundu bashing. He is prepared to go out there to fight and do pioneering work in those areas. A young man with great spirit can thus still get involved in farming. I think we must put such men right at the head of the queue. I do not think it was the intention with this Bill to benefit politicians, businessmen, doctors, dentists or other professional men in the cities. I think that, if we are looking for people to occupy these farms, we should look to the younger people and not the people who are in fact looking for tax havens. I think the hon. member for Marico mentioned that that is not the type of investment the hon. the Minister is looking for, but that he is looking for an investment in young people, people who are prepared to stay there to work and fight for those areas. I should like to plead that the benefits contained in the Bill be offered to bona fide farmers and the people who want to become farmers.

I should also like the hon. the Minister to consider not only the interest rates, but also the other economic factors involved. He should look very carefully at the whole overall structure of farming which affects these particular farmers. Let us face it: These are bushveld farmers; these are farmers who are involved in extensive cattle farming. They might even need assistance from the hon. the Minister of Transport. These people need any form of assistance they can get. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look not only at the interest rates, but also at the general farming pattern in these areas. If one can offer a viable attractive proposition to these people, one will get them flocking there. I know that very many hon. members here have sons who would like to go farming and would jump at a chance to take up an offer like this. We in this party gladly welcome the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say right at the outset, in reply to the questions of the hon. member for Wynberg and other speakers, that all the parties here realize that although the Bill does not deal directly with terrorism, that phenomenon of necessity becomes involved in this case. That is why all the parties are supporting the Bill. The hon. member for Wynberg himself said that a terrorist could walk unhindered from the Limpopo River into Pietersburg without having to cross one farm over which there is proper supervision. He can walk straight to Pietersburg. Therefore I am pleased that the Opposition are showing their patriotism by supporting this Bill.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the exclusion of certain areas, an exclusion which affects Coloured farmers in particular. However, the Black areas and the Coloured areas do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture, but are under the control of the Ministers of Coloured Relations and of Plural Relations respectively. We have always excluded those areas in our legislation, although we realize that there are very good Coloured farmers. I am referring, for instance, to the Coloured farmers who are being trained at Elsenburg. There are many Coloured farmers who could be excellent farmers. We are already being swamped by applications of people who have heard about our conditions. It is true that if a Coloured can fight side by side with a White man on the border, there is no reason why he cannot also farm on one of the farms there. They fall under the Minister of Coloured Relations, however, and besides, there are certain areas which have been allocated to Coloureds and which are not yet fully occupied.

The hon. member for Wynberg argued that only approved people should be considered for these allocations. This has always been our standpoint. When we allocate land to someone, we look at the factors which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South set out. We look at the “jockey”. That entails many things. He referred to the fact that this so-called “jockey” must be a good bookkeeper and must have all the necessary qualifications. The ideal one is a bookkeeper, a practical man, who has a love for the soil, who is prepared to face hardships and who is usually a young man. We do not look at a person’s politics or at his religious denomination. Even if he is a Prog, it does not matter. At any rate he will only have been engaged in the practice of agriculture for a short time before he joins the NP—because we have such a sound agricultural policy of course. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to the heavy penalties. I should just like to point out that this is a new kind of legislation. We shall have to extend it further in future. But we have to start somewhere. We expect this project to cost us R21 million in the first year, and it may cost R200 million over a period of time to make it feasible and extend it further. We have learnt from other countries how these things are done. That is why we drew up the legislation in this form.

The hon. member for Marico discusses this matter with me virtually every week. He and I have held conferences, inter alia, one in Thabazimbi. Since he became a member of this House, he has constantly been bringing this problem to my attention, so persistently in fact that I sometimes wished he would stop doing so. But he exerted such pressure on us that we have at least come this far. I believe that he will assist us in applying it. I want to extend my sincere thanks to him for what he has done.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South suggested that those farmers be included in the commando system.

†Serving on this committee, we had, amongst others, the Chief of the Defence Force and representatives of the Post Office. It is not necessary to refer only to schools. One has to get the Post Office involved as well as the provincial administration. By all means have the schools, but roads are also needed. The infrastructure must be there.

*The hon. member said that a young farmer was an investment I am in full agreement with him. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is a practising farmer and he knows what the problems are.

I want to thank the Opposition for supporting this Bill. It is an experiment, but I believe that it is going to succeed in the future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The basic purpose of the Bill is to consolidate and supersede the Black Education Act, 1953, and the Black Special Education Act, 1964, and at the same time to bring the legislation into line with corresponding legislation of other departments of education. Consequently the basic objects of the superseding legislation amount to an attempt to establish the framework within which the department may meaningfully plan and extend the overall development of education for Blacks in order to meet the overall training requirements. While the express intention of the previous Act was to take over education from the provinces and mass education was set up as the immediate object, a new foundation is being laid with the superseding legislation, on which it will be possible to continue building in an efficient way, in line with what is being offered by other departments of education. A further consequence is that all existing regulations will have to be revised to conform with this legislation.

An aspect which also deserves mention is that there is and will be continuous liaison with other departments of education to ensure that the standards, particularly on the lower levels, are identical. On the Senior Certificate level this is already being achieved through the Joint Matriculation Board which keeps a watchful eye on standards, and through the fact that candidates enter for the examinations of the JMC or the Department of National Education.

I should like to make a few observations on the Black Education Act and advance the principal reasons why it became necessary for it to be superseded—

1. (a) In the first place, the Act to which I have referred, was basically intended to make provision for the transfer of Black education from the provinces to the Central Government. Consequently it contains a considerable number of provisions which were essential for this transfer and also for the take-over of certain church or mission schools as Government Schools and others, again, as community schools. But the position has been consolidated for a long time now, and the provisions have in fact become redundant.
2. (b) In the second place the education which was taken over from the provinces at the time, i.e. circa 1954, was for the most part subsidized or State-aided education. Only the teachers’ training schools, the trade and technical schools and certain senior secondary schools were taken over as Government schools. However, the majority of the schools were State-aided community schools and farm schools. Although education has in general grown phenomenally since 1953, when the Act was passed, it has up to the present basically remained State-aided education. In reality the department did have control over the standard of education and professional control over the tuition, but was dependent on other bodies when it came to the establishment of facilities, the appointment and discharge of teachers and even the admission of pupils. If this Bill is passed the department acquires a greater direct say in the proper planning and development of education. However, it must be clearly stated that it is in no way the intention to prejudice parental involvement in this way. On the contrary. We hope that the envisaged amendments will bring about greater direct parental involvement in that the school committees, as direct representatives of the parent communities, will be given a greater say in the running and control of schools.
3. (c) In the third place the activation of the Black States and the resultant transfer of control over education—primarily community school education—to the Governments of the States also brought about a gradual shift in emphasis in the education system which remained, viz. that in the White area. Discussions are constantly being held with the Secretaries for Education of the areas to which I have referred in an attempt to co-ordinate the development of education without encroaching on the autonomy of the respective Governments and their departments of education. Discussions have been held by my department and myself with the Chief Ministers and Ministers of Education and at their request it is being envisaged to hold these discussions annually and even at more frequent intervals. In addition it is important to point out that these departments have direct representation on the Examination Board and that the majority of the members of the technical committees consist of Blacks. Every effort is consequently being made to give Blacks a direct say in the development of and control over their education.

I just want to add in passing that although the Black Education Act contained deficiencies, it did not contain any discriminatory measures. The standpoint of the Government has always been that all the inhabitants of our country are entitled to the best possible education which is feasible at any given stage. Consequently our Black South Africans are also entitled to this, and we know that it will not only be to their benefit but to the benefit of the entire country. Consequently I want to make it very clear here that the aim and endeavour of the Government is that every child who would like to learn should be afforded an opportunity to do so. Adequate facilities have not yet been made available everywhere, but we shall do our best to create these gradually.

The Bill is an honest attempt to place the legislation on a sound basis. In compiling the draft legislation the object was that it should in all respects be comparable with any other education law.

Consequently an attempt was made to obtain the views of Blacks and other interested parties on the various provisions and as far as possible to incorporate their proposals in the legislation. Draft legislation was drawn up after comparison with the various education laws and ordinances and it was then discussed clause by clause with the Advisory Council for Black Education. Incidentally, the Advisory Council consists of recognized Black educationalists and leaders in the field of education. After certain amendments had been effected at the request of this council, the draft Bill was published in the Gazette of 10 November 1978 for comment and general information. The purpose was to afford interested parties, and of course the Black public and Black educational bodies in particular, an opportunity to furnish their views on the legislation. Subsequent discussions took place, inter alia, with the African Teachers’ Association of South Africa, and the draft legislation was adjusted in the light of the comment received and the opinions expressed during these discussions. I am grateful that in addition to this, and in spite of the limited time at our disposal, it was decided to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the First Reading so that any additional problems could be ironed out as far as possible. Consequently I wish to convey my sincere thanks to the committee for its contribution, particularly to the chairman of the committee, hon. members on this side of the House and to hon. members of the Opposition who were very willing to give their attention to the Bill in a very short time. It is unlikely that anyone will wish to suggest, and I least of all, that we have a faultless piece of legislation before us. The deficiencies will emerge in due course as it is tested in practice, but I think that we have at least done our best. And if the very positive measures are borne in mind, and if everyone involved is prepared to further the education for the child, then good results will be forthcoming and education will make an important contribution towards creating and maintaining satisfied and happy Black communities.

Since the Bill for the most part contains stereotyped provisions of existing education legislation, I do not deem it necessary to elucidate each clause more fully. However it is important that we take cognizance of the most important principles, primarily those which effect changes to the present dispensation.