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

Schedule

Amendments to Vote No. 8.—“Plural Relations and Development”:

Mr. Chairman, the item under this Vote involves an additional expenditure of some R56 million, of which approximately R20 million would seem to be aid to self-governing States and another R20 million for the purchase of land for consolidation purposes. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some details of the specific objects for which these amounts are required as well as his reasons for these amounts to be voted at this stage in addition to the amounts already allocated.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Musgrave will understand that because there has been some delay in the arrival of the hon. the Ministers aircraft, it is impossible for him to be here. Consequently I request the hon. member to put his question again later on.

In the meantime I want to assure the hon. member that the increase in the amount to which he referred flows from the Government’s policy of actively proceeding with the consolidation programme. This money is to be used specifically in those areas in which it is necessary that land be purchased immediately and transferred to the Black Governments. I request the hon. member to leave it at that for the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the explanation he has attempted to give. I appreciate the difficulty in which he finds himself owing to the hon. the Minister being unavoidably delayed. The hon. the Deputy Minister has asked that the matter should be allowed to stand over, but this places me in some difficulty. How can this matter be held over in order to allow the hon. the Minister to reply in person?

Mr. Chairman, I assure the hon. member that he will be put in possession of all the necessary information in writing as soon as possible, possibly in the course of today. I hope that is acceptable to him.

Mr. Chairman, possibly I may give certain details. The amount with regard to the consolidation of Black areas comes to R20 million. Assistance to the Governments of self-governing Black States—that is with regard to pensions—amounts to R7,696 million. The amount in respect of compensation for loss of income—i.e. income tax concessions to Blacks—totals R33 million. Under the item concerned the figure amounts to a total of R22,110 million. These are the separate figures under those three headings: R20 million, R7,696 million and R22,110 million.

Amendments agreed to.

Amendment to Vote No. 10.— “Agricultural Economics and Marketing”:

Mr. Chairman, the amount asked for in this instance is largely devoted to wheat and wheaten products, in other words, the bread subsidy. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would take this opportunity of telling us what his policy is at the moment concerning bread subsidization. Is he going to continue with it? How does he feel about bread prices at the moment? Does he see any prospects of further increases? As hon. members know, we have recently seen a tremendous escalation of all agricultural prices. One wonders whether the hon. the Minister should not consider the whole question of subsidies of other staple foodstuffs, such as some of the dairy products. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the hon. member when he says that the prices of all agricultural products have increased. Only the prices of dairy products have been increased—at the request of the Opposition! During the discussion of my Vote, hon. members of the Opposition requested an increase in the price of dairy products.

And mealie meal?

The price of maize was increased. [Interjections.] But not only the prices of agricultural products were increased … [Interjections.]

Order!

The floor price of red meat was also increased. [Interjections.]

*They are a lot of “boerehaters”. That is all they are. [Interjections.] There has been an increase in the price of diesel. This holds good for other costs to farmers as well as industries. [Interjections.] However, the prices of all agricultural products have not increased. I can mention series of products of which the prices have not increased.

Like what?

Deciduous fruit, peaches, pears, apples, rooibos tea and chicory. Do I have to mention all of them? Their prices have remained the same. [Interjections.] I have already referred to our policy with regard to subsidizing bread. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is an emotional issue. The hon. member for Orange Grove wants to know when there will be an increase in the price of bread. We have a wheat price that is effective up to the end of September. In October we shall announce a new wheat price. Do hon. members agree that the wheat farmer of South Africa must get an increase in his wheat price? The hon. member for Mooi River nods his head. He agrees.

†Does the hon. member for Orange Grove agree that the wheat farmer should get a price increase in October? [Interjections.]

He says “yes.”

Well, the price of bread depends on the farmer’s wheat price increase and the profit margins of the baker, the miller and the distributor. All these aspects contribute to the price of bread, not only the price the farmer gets for his product. The hon. the Minister of Finance said, during the budget debate, that although there is a 4% tax on bread, he is prepared to subsidize bread, over and above the amount of R50 million, with a further R20 million to enable us to keep the price of a brown loaf at 16c and the price of a white loaf at 25c, at least until the end of September.

*However, if we find at the end of September that funds are inadequate and that it is necessary to announce a considerable increase in the consumer price, a decision will have to be taken in the light of the circumstances prevailing at that time. I can assure the hon. member, however, that it would be a happy day for me if the consumer need not pay more. I think it would be a happy day for the hon. the Minister of Finance as well. However, we must be reasonable. One cannot keep on subsidizing. A subsidy of R70 million on bread …

Crocodile tears.

We are still going to settle that hon. member’s hash for blowing hot and cold. He has no love for the primary producer in this country. Yet he eats his fill every day. [Interjections.] However, the moment I come along with a little assistance for the farmers, he has something to say about the matter. For the sake of the record I just want to say that the hon. the Opposition said this year that I must ensure that the farmers would be able to make a livelihood. Do hon. members still remember it? [Interjections.] I can assure them that if it is within the means of the hon. the Minister of Finance to subsidize bread, there need be no increase in the price. But we must be realistic, because it still is the taxpayer who pays for the subsidy. Consequently we shall have to see in future whether we shall have to increase the price of bread. But when in future, I do not know.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has, in his usual rather amusing fashion, pulled a red herring right across the trail: There was no argument at all about whether or not the price increases were justified. We were not asking about that. We would agree entirely that the farmers have found themselves in an unbelievably difficult situation because of the escalation in the costs of so many of the items they have to use to produce food.

Order! I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he is only entitled to inquire about the reasons for the increases. He is not entitled to discuss policy.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I was coming to. I agree with your ruling entirely, and I was coming to that aspect in reply to the hon. the Minister’s answer. I requested the hon. the Minister to state his policy with regard to the increases relating to subsidies. We got some of the way when he said that the hon. the Minister of Finance had agreed that as long as he was getting GST on bread, he was prepared to subsidize bread with an additional R20 million. We regard that as inadequate, however, and we should like to ask about the GST the hon. the Minister of Finance is getting on all other staple foodstuffs. We do not believe that there should be GST on these foodstuffs and we should like to see the subsidies increased on other staple foodstuffs because there are people in South Africa who simply cannot afford to pay these prices at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, it is not possible to subsidize all agricultural products. It is impossible to subsidize the price of milk. A subsidy of 1 cent per litre milk, will cost the hon. the Minister of Finance R10 million per annum. We do not have control over milk all over the country; it is only in certain areas where milk is being controlled. It is therefore impracticable to subsidize the price of milk. I am completely happy with a subsidy of R50 million on maize and with a subsidy of R70 million on bread this year. The price of 16 cents per loaf of brown bread satisfies me completely under today’s difficult financial circumstances. It should be borne in mind that there are countries in the world where a loaf of brown bread costs 65 cents.

*Very well, hon. members opposite do not like it if I compare prices. I realize there are people who find it difficult to pay their accounts. All I want to say to the hon. member is that I am grateful for the additional amount of R20 million added by the hon. the Minister of Finance. This is what this is about, and because of that we shall not have to increase the price of bread in the course of the current wheat year. That is all I can say. If I say anything more, it will be said that I am talking politics.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has indicated across the floor that if the hon. the Minister of Finance would subsidize the price of milk with 1 cent per litre, it would cost him about R10 million. I should, however, like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the amount of general sales tax levied on milk would yield an income of approximately the same order to the State. The price of milk is such today that the general sales tax of 4% comes to about 1 cent per litre. All that the hon. the Minister would therefore be doing in terms of the subsidy of R10 million, would be to give back the money which he is taking away.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the hon. member would understand one thing. Is he of the opinion that there is any control over the price of milk in a place such as Thabazimbi? What, in view of the fact that there is control over milk only in the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging area, some areas in the Eastern Cape, the Cape Peninsula and Natal, would happen if we were to grant a subsidy on the price of milk? If only someone who suggests that we grant a subsidy on milk can tell me how we can ensure that the consumer will enjoy the benefit of the subsidy. In order to ensure that the consumer enjoys the benefit of such a subsidy we shall have to control milk completely, but hon. members opposite are always complaining about our control board system. They say, “You over-control”. Now, however, they ask for more control.

Mr. Chairman, can we reasonably say to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture that what we are in fact asking— it would serve the same purpose as a subsidy—is that he should persuade the hon. the Minister of Finance to stop the payment of general sales tax on basic foodstuffs, including milk.

Well, I am sure the hon. the Minister of Finance has heard that.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the answer given by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. I want to make it perfectly clear that the entire Opposition realizes—that is, if I may speak on behalf of the other Opposition parties as well—that the primary producer of agricultural products or, to put it differently, food, in South Africa, must be able to make a reasonable living. Our problem concerns the amount of money made available for subsidizing food. It is a fact that the ever-increasing consumer prices of food make it very difficult for everyone, but more particularly for the lower income groups, to maintain a decent standard of living. The question we ask—I want to repeat it—is whether the hon. the Minister cannot urge the hon. the Minister of Finance to have provision made for subsidizing consumers to a larger extent, particularly as far as bread is concerned. I maintain that it must be consumer subsidization so that people may understand clearly where such subsidization takes place. It should take place in such a way that the consumer will pay less, or not more, for the product.

As far as sales tax is concerned, surely the position is that the largest volume of fresh milk is consumed in the very areas in which there is, in fact, control, i.e. in the greater metropolitan areas. It is not impossible for an arrangement to be made not to have sales tax levied on such products. If the hon. the Minister maintains that it will cost R10 million to subsidize the price of a litre of milk with one cent, I say that it is worth while doing. A request that R10 million, R20 million or R30 million be found for subsidizing food and for subsidizing a basic foodstuff such as milk, is not an unreasonable request.

Order! The hon. member may not discuss new services now.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member for Wynberg that I will definitely always be in favour of subsidies totalling millions and millions of rand if we shall…

Will you insist on it?

… create a bigger market for the product of the farmer in that way. I am, however, a realist as well. There is a consumer subsidy of R150 million on three agricultural commodities alone. The hon. member said that a subsidy of one cent per litre of milk, totalling R10 million, would help. But if a commodity costs 38 cents, or 40 cents, and it is subsidized with one cent, will it really have the desired effect?

What we are dealing with here is the additional amount of R20 million. I think that I have given the correct reply in this regard. We can conduct this debate at another time. If I tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that I want all foodstuffs subsidized …

In South Africa it may possibly be necessary to do something of the kind, because …

It will cost hundreds of millions of rands. I admit that everything is becoming more expensive, but on the other hand we shall have to hit the taxpayer harder to get that money. The hon. member must say what amount he suggests as subsidy. I just want to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance for this additional R20 million. I think he has taken cognizance of the fact that the hon. members opposite want all foodstuffs subsidized.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 12.—“Health”, Vote No. 13.—“Social Welfare and Pensions” and Vote No. 14.—“Treasury” agreed to.

Amendment to Vote No. 20.— “Industries”:

Order! Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, I want to point out to hon. members that they are only entitled to ask for the reason for the increase. I am not going to allow a wide-ranging discussion.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to Vote 20 there is an increase of R50 million in the supplementary estimates for the Department of Industries. The explanation given is that it is for industrial services. This does not throw very much light on the subject. I hope the hon. the Minister will do so.

Mr. Chairman, I shall gladly give a further explanation. Perhaps I should just point out that the Government has decided to vote R100 million per annum for the financial years 1978-’79, 1979-’80 and 1980-’81 as the contribution of the State to the Sasol 2 project Because of our energy problems the Government has decided that the capacity of Sasol 2 is to be extended. As part of the State’s financing in respect of the extension of the Sasol plant—the cost of which has been calculated at R3 276 million—the Government has decided to make the following contributions in respect of the capital costs: In the year 1979-’80, R50 million— that is the R50 million under discussion at the moment; in the following year also R50 million; in the year following that R180 million; and in 1982-’83, R166 million. The total contribution of the State to the cost involved in the extension of Sasol 2 will be R446 at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments to Vote No. 25.—“Indian Affairs” and Vote No. 32.—“Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations” agreed to.

Amendment to Vote No. 34.—“Foreign Affairs”:

Mr. Chairman, a supplementary amount is being requested here as compensation for the loss of income suffered by the Governments of Transkei and Bophuthatswana. We shall appreciate an explanation from the hon. the Minister of the circumstances surrounding this compensation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance envisaged this increase in his budget speech on 28 March when he said that the Treasuries of the Black States were unable to absorb these losses and that the South African Government had decided to compensate them accordingly. These losses result from taxation changes in respect of Blacks. My hon. colleague also said that the position would be revised annually in the light of prevailing circumstances. At the moment an increase of R10 890 000 is involved, of which R6 930 000 is to be paid to Transkei and R3 960 000 to Bophuthatswana as compensation because of the change in the taxation of Blacks. Consequently this increases the total amount for the three programmes from R55 642 000 to R66 532 000 and also means that the appropriation for development aid is being increased from R27 871 000 to R38 761 000.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides for the establishment of a State Trust Board, a statutory body which will be a juristic person. It will be asked why such a State Trust Board is being established. In the light of several debates which have already taken place in this House, reports of commissions of inquiry and the report of the Pretorius Committee, I do not believe that hon. members require much motivation at this stage as to why the need has arisen for such a statutory body.

I can summarize it briefly by saying that the use of secret State funds has meant that the State has acquired an interest in a large number of organizations and even companies inside and outside South Africa. Up to now, the Government has done its best, in terms of the recommendations of the Pretorius Committee, to deal with the interests of the State by means of the existing State machinery. But we are encountering an increasing number of problems which crop up in practice. To mention a practical example—sometimes a share in company A, for example, which was still doing business, was transferred to an official of the State, and then again it has to be arranged for the official to cede his rights in the company to the State.

The Information Service of South Africa is not organized or intended—nor are most Government departments, I suppose—to undertake business administration and to operate companies in the private sector. Therefore it has become simply impossible to burden the officials with this kind of function, which requires a specific kind of expertise and for which the officials have not been trained. Secondly, I think that our officials can hardly be expected to perform such functions because under certain circumstances it might expose them to legal actions, legal claims and counter-claims. Furthermore, it burdens them with the responsibility of taking important decisions about questions which may be asked, such as whether the shareholding of the State in a specific company should be continued or not. Questions such as whether the shareholding of the State in a given company should be sold this week, next week or only in three months’ time are normally not the kind of questions which could or should be answered by the people in our public service. It is provided, therefore, that all rights, assets and liabilities of the State created by or arising from any agreement entered into by or on behalf of the former Department of Information, as well as rights, assets and liabilities arising from the application of secret State funds, will be transferred to this board. The object of the board is to dispose of such rights and assets as soon as possible and to meet such obligations in a way which will be least prejudicial to the interests of the State.

This is the crux of the whole Bill, and I trust that hon. members will support it. For the rest the Bill creates certain resources for the board, without which it will hardly be able to achieve its object. I trust that hon. members will be able to pledge their support to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, although this Bill has been occasioned by the Information debacle, it goes without saying that we shall not turn this debate into an Erasmus debate. We shall have enough opportunity for that on Wednesday. Therefore we shall deal with the Bill in the light of its objectives. It so seldom happens that the Department of Foreign Affairs initiates legislation in this House that I almost feel inclined to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this first Bill he has introduced in this House. The only pity is that I cannot promise him a baptism of fire, for the simple reason that we do not oppose the principle of this Bill.

The director and the officials of the new Information service cannot reasonably be expected, in addition to all the difficult work they have to do, to act as salvage agency, administrator of estates, stockbroker, buyer, seller, detective agency and public prosecutor as well. They have not been trained or appointed for this. I think, therefore, that it is no more than right that the Government should create and put into motion machinery of this nature to ensure that the public recovers as much as possible of the money which was lost in the abortive Information effort without their knowledge and without their consent.

Therefore we support the Second Reading of this Bill and the principle of the establishment of a special Trust Board to see what can be saved from the affairs of the old Department of Information, to see how this should be done and to ensure that the harm which the public has suffered and will perhaps suffer in the future is kept to a minimum. Unfortunately, the creation of a State Trust Board such as this one involves extra expenditure for the State, as does the creation of any body of this nature. We accept this, because it is inevitable. Often one has to spend something to get something back. Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister has not said what this new institution will cost. I should therefore like to know from him what calculation he has made in this connection.

I am glad it has been written into the Bill that the appointment of members of the State Trust Board will be valid for two years only, although they can be re-appointed. I hope the hon. the Minister will encourage the new board to conclude its activities as soon as possible. I should like the hon. the Minister to make it quite clear to the professional people he is going to appoint—especially the chairman, who will be a full-time person—that they will be expected to do their work as rapidly as possible. During the war years, a post was created which was almost similar to this one, the post of custodian of enemy property, and I still remember how Dr. Dönges, when he became Minister of Finance, battled years later to have the custodian’s work concluded and his post and office closed.

It is disgraceful of you to compare these two posts.

I do not know what the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke means by that. This country was at war at that time and if ever we are at war again, enemy property will have to be dealt with. It is as simple as that. However, I shall leave it at that I am just pointing out that this was a similar case and that the Minister of Finance only succeeded in removing that post from the budget many years after the end of the war. One realizes that that post is not equivalent in every respect to the one which will be created here, but I am specifically drawing the hon. the Minister’s attention to it because I believe it is absolutely essential that he should take a firm stand from the outset to the effect that the State Trust Board should not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, precisely because bodies of this nature have a habit of developing an interest in their continued existence. In all probability the Government may arrive at a point where it will find that it is better to cut its losses, i.e. to write off any irrecoverable losses, to close the books of the abortive projects of the old Department of Information, and to dissolve the State Trust Board.

The Bill itself contains no particulars about the kind of professional person the hon. the Minister wishes to appoint No mention is made of any qualifications. The hon. the Minister has full powers in this connection. Only in determining the conditions on which members of the board hold office does he need the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. I assume that the names of the members of the board will be made public and that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us what type of professional person he has in mind for this board, especially for the post of chairman. I have wondered whether it would not be desirable for the type of qualification that the hon. the Minister has in mind to be written into the legislation, although we do not insist on it I should just like to have the hon. the Minister’s opinion on the subject and to learn what type of person he intends to appoint to this board. I do not think it is necessary for me to point out that it would be unwise to appoint any people to this board who were involved in any way in the controversial activities of the former Department of Information. I assume that the hon. the Minister will not do this.

The definition of the term “secret State funds” is wide, and so it should be, but I wonder whether we should not ascertain whether it is wide and thorough enough to cover all secret funds obtained by the former Department of Information. We can examine this matter in the Committee Stage.

Clause 6(2)(a) confers upon the Minister the power to assign to the State Trust Board other functions than those laid down in the Bill. I must ask the hon. the Minister whether we may take it that this only refers to activities which are related to the object of the board and which cannot be defined, for reasons which may be known to him, and which cannot perhaps be indicated at this stage.

A further question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is: Whether it is the intention that the activities of this board should be of a secret nature. If so, what provision is being made for this? Will the board have the power to supboena people, witnesses, to appear before it, and will those people have the right to legal advice and legal representation?

Clause 10 of the Bill provides for the board to report to the hon. the Minister at least every six months. This is a reasonable requirement. In terms of clause 10(2), reports which in the opinion of the hon. the Minister “may be made known without prejudice to the public interest” must be tabled by him in the Senate and in the House of Assembly as soon as possible. I approve of this, but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not be doing himself a favour by subjecting the question of whether or not a report should be made known to a wider judgment, for example, to the judgment of a Select Committee of this House.

The hon. member for Yeoville, who as a lawyer has a keen eye, will propose certain improvements to the Bill in the Committee Stage, and then we can debate the matter further.

Finally, I just want to remark that the State Trust Board is going to have an enormous task, since it will be faced with wily rogues, with people who have bent every conceivable rule to derive personal benefit from it under the cloak of patriotism. We have witnessed here the greatest prostitution of patriotism which the country has ever experienced. One must expect that these people are not going to facilitate the task of the Trust Board so that they may carry out their investigations in an orderly manner. Judging by the latest report, the scope of the work to be done by the State Trust Board will also be vast. Furthermore, the board will be up against people who loved South Africa dearly when they found it convenient, but who now want nothing to do with the country. During the weekend I read in a newspaper that the former Secretary had said the following—

In my opinion, it is a shocking statement that this man not even wants anything to do with the problems he himself created.

The public is furious, as well it may be, and therefore we should like to ensure that the State Trust Board proceeds with the work as soon as possible and without delay—and we shall help to make this possible. It is a pity, though, that the hordes of hangers-on who made a lot of money from the transactions in an indirect and seemingly legitimate way cannot also be dealt with in terms of this legislation. We shall therefore have to think of other ways of ensuring that they will no longer profit by their particular brand of patriotism.

With these few words I gladly support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that they supported the principle of the Bill, and I am very pleased to hear that, but it would not have surprised me if they had opposed it. After all, one can expect anything from them these days. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout gave a great deal of advice to the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and in this regard I can assure the hon. member that the Government, including the hon. the Minister, introduced this measure to show that they are far in advance of any advice that hon. member might give them. At any rate, we never refuse good advice and we usually have a positive attitude towards positive criticism. This is a short concise piece of legislation and is totally self-explanatory, as the hon. the Minister pointed out.

I should like to refer to a few clauses before replying to the arguments of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I want to begin by referring to clause 4. It provides that—

The hon. member has said that the Trust Board should be introduced as soon as possible. It cannot be done any sooner than the hon. the Minister is planning. The hon. member asked what powers, rights, etc., this board would have. Clause 5 provides very clearly that the board shall be a juristic person.

Then the hon. member also wanted to know what the qualifications, powers, etc., would be of the members of the board which is to be established. The hon. the Minister will certainly not appoint people who are not qualified for the work. It is also unnecessary to define in the Bill what the qualifications of the members should be. Did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout want the Bill to provide that the chairman should be a judge or an accountant? He said that we should define the qualifications. When an hon. member asks for something like that, he should tell us what he thinks the qualifications should be and what the shortcomings of the Bill are. He said that the hon. member for Yeoville would make certain suggestions for improving this Bill during the Committee Stage. That is in order. That is what the Opposition is for. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, however, might as well tell us here and now whether he has any objection to the hon. the Minister being able to appoint members of the board without saying at this stage what their qualifications should be. If need be, people from the department will be appointed too. Let us assume that the hon. the Minister finds later on that someone employed in the department—for example, the Director of Information—should be appointed because he had the expertise, the knowledge and the contacts which would be needed to assist this trust board. Although the legislation provides that he has no vote, the hon. the Minister will have to appoint such a person. The hon. member cannot expect of us that we should bind the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs by telling him that he would be unable to appoint such a person. The hon. the Minister will not, of course, appoint someone who has previously burnt his fingers. But we certainly must draw a clear distinction when we say that someone who is in the department’s service, should be appointed. This casts a reflection upon those staff members who had nothing to do with irregularities or mistakes that occurred in the past.

The hon. member asked whether that board would keep minutes, etc. It is unthinkable that he could ask such questions across the floor of the House in a case where professional people are to be appointed, people who know their job. We cannot prescribe to these people in such detail how they should do their work, because by doing so we would be missing the whole purpose of the Bill. It is a reflection on the Government and Parliament to suggest that they are going to appoint people who will not be qualified for the work.

The hon. member said something else which I do not think one should allow to pass unnoticed. He referred to the person appointed to administer enemy properties. Surely that is something totally different and is by no means on all fours with this. [Interjections.] The hon. member said it. Why did he attempt to relate it to this?

We really should not try to drag things in here in order to cast doubt upon this Bill by wanting to suggest that some kind of stigma is attached to this Bill. I do not think it does the hon. member for Bezuidenhout any credit.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this Bill. We give our full support to it. In its present form it will serve its purpose in every way and achieve the aim for which it was introduced.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will support the Bill. Unlike the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who sees the trust board as a kind of detective and a State prosecutor, we see it more in the role of an undertaker.

†We sympathize with the hon. the Minister. We sympathize with him because of the fact that he has inherited the mess which he is trying to clear up by way of this Bill. Whilst we support the Bill, I think it is necessary to place on record that the introduction of this Bill indicates the magnitude of the task of clearing up the Information Scandal. It indicates the magnitude of the losses caused by maladministration and lack of control. To the extent that this will seek to retrieve whatever is possible to be retrieved from that wreckage, we believe it is necessary, and it will therefore enjoy our support.

There is one provision, however, with which we would, in the normal course, not have agreed. That is the presumption clause in deeming ownership at the discretion of the board. We in this party are in principle opposed to placing the onus of proof other than on the accuser, or in the case the claimant. We believe that a person should not be deemed guilty unless he has been proved guilty. However, in this particular instance and in this particular situation we realize that that principle must be by-passed. I simply want to make it clear that in accepting clause 6(2)(b) in this particular instance, we do not accept it as a principle of legislation, but only as a necessity in regard to this particular Bill and the problems with which it is going to be confronted.

I am pleased to note that the period of 10 days—which we thought was a bit too short —is going to be amended by the hon. the Minister. We will support the amendment by the hon. the Minister in which he proposes to substitute 21 days. The other amendments which have been effected since the introduction of the original Bill are also acceptable to us. I am referring, for example, to the question of jurisdiction. We realize that that must be established, and we support that as well. The question of the non-tabling of the report is a question which has given me some concern, because if one wants to clean up and bring to an end the problems of the aftermath of the Information affair it must obviously be seen to have been done.

I cannot see why, if a matter is finalized, cleared up and brought to an end, it should not be possible to tell the public that this particular aspect of the Information debacle has now been finally cleared, this is how it has been disposed of, this is the loss the taxpayers of South Africa have suffered, and this is what has been recovered or saved from being lost. Whilst any undertaking, any project, is continuing one may not want to expose or disclose what is happening in connection with it. However, once it is finalized, I believe Parliament is entitled to the full information on how that project was finalized, what the losses were to the State or what has been recovered in connection with it. I hope that during the Committee Stage we may be able to debate that a little further.

There is only one other aspect with which I want to deal. That is that, in the nature of things, some of the projects will have to continue in order to prevent excessive losses. Where projects which are to continue are projects which have a political connotation, I believe the board should be given instructions that such projects must be terminated, even if it does mean some amount of loss. I refer to a project such as To The Point, or to The Citizen project which continued long after it was known that the State was funding it. I believe that even if there should be a greater loss involved in terminating a project that is not in the interests of democratic and impartial government, that loss should be faced, rather than have us continue to administer a project which is in fact wrong, simply in order to try to save a little money. In the long term I believe that South Africa is entitled to expect that all the projects that will be dealt with in terms of the proposed legislation, by the board to be created, will be terminated as expeditiously as is humanly possible so as to bring an end to this whole sordid affair.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take cognizance of the fact that the opposition parties are supporting the Bill. I think the Opposition parties will, however, allow me to say that I take their support with a small pinch of salt. I do not think it is quite as innocent as the hon. members want to pretend.

In the first place, I want to refer to the hon. member for Durban Point. It is common cause in this House that we cannot simply disclose everything in regard to South Africa’s interests.

But that is not what we want.

Surely we have debated and settled this matter already, and hon. members know that this side of the House will never be able to go along with the idea which the hon. member just now expressed, i.e. that everything should simply be disclosed.

After the particular project has been terminated.

In terms of this proposed legislation the hon. the Minister has to retain that power. We are unable to do it any other way. The State Trust Board has to investigate and establish where there are financial interests of the former Department of Information which bind the South African Government in respect of an action or any other activity which is connected with the former Department of Information. If the State Trust Board were to establish that an action was taking place, whether with secret funds or not, an action which was being undertaken in the interests of South Africa and in connection with which there were no other problems, it would be quite nonsensical to expect that the members of the Board should simply disclose the information.

You did not listen to what I said.

I was listening, but the hon. member for Durban Point raised, inter alia, the case of To The Point. But no one has ever yet found that there was any problem or irregularity with regard to the application of the funds of To The Point.

Ah!

The hon. member for Yeoville can take great pleasure in that if he wants to. However, we are still going to discuss that matter.

Yes, we are.

The hon. member for Durban Point raised the case of To The Point. That is a matter with reference to which the hon. the Minister himself stated that in future it would openly be given financial support. Why did the hon. member quote it? Surely it is not a matter which has to be further investigated by the State Trust Board. The State Trust Board simply has to establish in what way the interests of the Government can be protected. That is all. There is no secrecy with regard to the whole matter, is there?

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of the tax payer’s money being used for a publication which is involved in party politics?

The hon. member’s question is completely irrelevant. I have dealt with To The Point and the Erasmus Commission made a finding in regard to To The Point. I stand by that finding.

But do you stand by all the findings of the Erasmus Commission?

It is not a question whether I stand by all the findings of the Erasmus Commission. [Interjections.] The hon. members should not attempt to catch kittens; I am now dealing with a lion. The hon. member for Durban Point is now trying to lead me into a trap.

No one found that To The Point was a party political publication. The hon. members may of course think that it is indeed such a publication and then criticize the Government’s decision and suggest that To The Point should not receive any further financial support from the Information Service of South Africa.

Order! If the hon. members want to advance anything of that nature they will not be able to do so during a discussion of the Bill.

Sir, I am simply using it as an example to explain that it is not the task of the State Trust Board to investigate anything of that nature any further. All they have to do, is to ensure that the interests which the Government or the former Department of Information obtained in that publication, are safeguarded or transferred to another body in a proper way. That is the only task of the State Trust Board in this regard.

We should not be under the illusion that the State Trust Board is going to have an easy task. We should have no illusion about that. We have to accept—I accept it and I am convinced of it—that the Board should consist of expert people who will have an understanding, not only of how our business principles work in South Africa, not only of how the Companies Act is being applied, but also of business principles which are being applied by business enterprises abroad. They will also have to have an understanding of the interaction in business between countries. They will have to be people who will be technically highly qualified to be able to deal with the task which will be entrusted to the Board.

I was told once—the hon. member for Yeoville is aware of it—that Dr. Eschel Rhoodie was an “amazing schemer”. It would be a major task to deal with the undertakings which were initiated by Dr. Eschel Rhoodie. We on this side of the House realize it; we make no secret of it. Consequently we must examine certain powers which are being granted in terms of the Bill.

This Bill actually is a unique Bill in the history of South Africa. The whole question of jurisdiction, the whole procedure of issuing summonses which will have to be initiated or adopted in terms of the Bill, is absolutely unique. Because it is unique, it serves as a reply to the question which has so often been asked: How complex were the matters which were dealt with by the former Department of Information? Then we have to tell one another that the hon. the Minister and his officials who have to administer the Information Service of South Africa are certainly facing the problem that many of the facts were not recorded, but are indeed in the head of one person only. They will have to try to establish what those facts are in one way or another. In addition the Board will certainly have the task of trying to establish what was going on in the head of that person when certain things were set in motion. As far as I am concerned, it is therefore a very responsible step which the Government took to establish this Board.

We could discuss the implementation of the legislation and the practical effect of the situation, but I want to conclude by saying that hon. members should not look for anything else in this legislation than this Government’s wish to have a clean administration and to do whatever cleaning up has to be done with regard to the former Department of Information, as well as possible. It is a heartfelt desire of this Government. When we say that cleaning up work has to be done, inter alia, by this Board as far as the former Department of Information is concerned, we are not suggesting that everything that the Department did, was without value for South Africa. It would be wrong to regard it in that light. We could apply the old stereotyped English saying, “Give the devil his due” because good work was done as well. This Board is simply going to deal with the deciphering of the financial interests of the Government to ensure, as far as possible, that the Government will not suffer any further losses. On my part, in my capacity as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, I want to say—and the hon. member for Durban Point referred to this to a certain extent—that there is also a good Afrikaans saying which translates into: “It is no use throwing good money after bad.” The Board will take this into consideration as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should start off by making it quite clear to the hon. the Minister, after all the confusion that has arisen, that in fact we appear to be unanimous in this House in our intention to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Why do you not sit down then?

I think that the confusion which both the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke have introduced in this debate is quite remarkable. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, in particular, seems to have been infected by some of the language used in the Erasmus Commission’s report. He used the phrase “a pinch of salt”, but in these circumstances “a pinch of salt” may well be inappropriate. With apologies to Mr. Justice Erasmus, let me say that I was reminded of someone riding a black bicycle on the wrong side of the road on a dark street looking for the black cat of opposition which does not exist.

Order! The report of the Erasmus Commission is not under discussion at the moment.

No, Sir, only the black cat is. That is all I was referring to.

I want to say that we regard this particular piece of legislation as meeting one of the three requirements we set out right at the beginning when these problems first arose. Firstly, we asked that those who had done wrong, should be punished; secondly, that legislation should be passed to ensure that what had happened could not occur again; and, thirdly, that the State should seek to recover whatever assets and money it could from this debacle on which up to the end of 1978 more than R64 million was spent. This Bill meets the third of those requirements and therefore we welcome it.

As we have indicated, there is a great measure of sympathy for the hon. the Minister who, while he has no responsibility for this situation, now has to attempt to sort out a mass of flats, farms, buildings, newspapers, films, publishing ventures, private companies, public companies and more. The first thing we should like to say to the hon. the Minister is that what is required and expected from the board is, as I am sure we all see, not only that what one might call the peanuts are recovered but also the very large sums of money involved. The public wants to see action taken in respect of those very large sums of money. Secondly, there is the issue—and the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke touched on it—of matters that are unresolved in so far as the Erasmus Commission is concerned. Those also have to be resolved. Let me mention the very example he gave, namely that of To The Point. On To The Point the only evidence quoted in the Erasmus Commission’s report is that of Mr. Jussen, evidence in which he gave only his version of what took place. I think there are many, many people in South Africa who need a lot of convincing that one can spend R4 350 000 on buying copies of To The Point in one year. That means an awful lot of copies, and on the face of it means that one is in that year more …

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I intend demonstrating in a moment that there are matters which require investigation in order that action may be taken to recover an asset. To my mind the question is still very open as to who actually owns this magazine. In other words, is the magazine State property or is it not? With respect, that aspect falls within this category.

The next matter which I think is important and relates to this Bill, is that there are innumerable matters which have never been investigated. The commission itself, in fact, made it clear that they only investigated matters where people came forward and gave information about irregularities, but there are dozens of projects which are not referred to in the report and where apparently no investigation has taken place, and the public will want to be satisfied as to whether the State owns it, whether the State has suffered any loss and what is to take place. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there is a very interesting procedure which is adopted with companies which are in liquidation and with insolvent estates, a procedure whereby before any trustee or liquidator institutes any action, the witnesses concerned can be subpoenaed in order to be interrogated so that the liquidator and the trustee can decide what the facts are, whether action should be instituted and whether it is likely to be successful.

In this case, this sort of procedure seems to my mind to be even more important than it is in the case of an insolvent estate or a company liquidation. The reason was given by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, and that is that many of the alleged agreements are alleged to be verbal agreements, many of the people concerned who contracted, or are alleged to have contracted on behalf of the State, are no longer in South Africa, and as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout pointed out, at least the most important character in the whole scene has indicated that he certainly does not want to come back to South Africa. He does not want to be helpful. How, in these circumstances, does one actually ascertain the facts, when the Erasmus Commission has finished its work? How does one find out what the facts are and what the version of the State will be in such litigation which it will institute? That is why I mentioned the case of To The Point. Jussen gave evidence, but where was the State’s evidence as to what the arrangement was? I would therefore very much like to commend to the hon. the Minister that a procedure similar to that which is adopted by a commission of inquiry should be made available to this Board so that where they do not know the facts, where they want to test the evidence and where they want to know what is going on, they will have the power to subpoena and the power to call witnesses before them. I commend that suggestion to the hon. the Minister because to my mind this is one of the important factors in the whole issue. It is no good just creating the machinery in terms of which one can sue. Those who have to sue must also be given the weapon with which to obtain the evidence on which they can go to court.

The other point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister is whether it is contemplated that this Board will also deal with the issue which is raised in the recommendation contained in the final report of the Erasmus Commission, viz. the losses which have been sustained by the State as a result of certain of these actions. In other words, where there is an allegation of negligence or an allegation of some other form of misfeasance, will the board have as its objective also the institution of claims? I raise this issue because it is important that all the assets and all the liabilities are sought to be ceded, but are the claims for misfeasance and negligence being transferred to this Board? In recommendation No. 5 on page 58 of the Erasmus Commission’s report this matter is specifically dealt with, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate whether he has in mind that the Board will also deal with this issue.

I also want to raise with the hon. the Minister a matter which causes me some concern, and that is the extra-territorial application of this measure. In other words, what is going to happen to the overseas assets in countries where this Bill may or may not be recognized? We have the situation where we are not only transferring assets and claims, but also making this Board the debtor in respect of certain transactions. What is going to happen? When the State seeks to recover these assets and a transfer of these claims takes place, is this going to be recognized on an extra-territorial basis? It is one of the things which gives one some ground for concern in relation to this matter.

The other question which arises is the question of enrichment as a result of action which is not due to the appropriation of an asset or to negligence. I refer for example to where the circulation of a publication has been built up and where there has therefore been enrichment, such as in the case of The Citizen …

Order! I do not think the Bill relates to that matter. It deals only with a cleaning-up operation.

Mr. Speaker, with great respect, I must draw your attention to the fact that I am now dealing with clause 6, which deals with the transfer of assets, rights and liabilities of the former Department of Information. The question as to whether there is a claim as a result of unjust enrichment, falls directly under clause 6. If it does not, I should like to know why it does not. It is a matter which relates to the former Department of Information, and in these circumstances the matter falls directly under clause 6. The question I pose is a very simple one, namely whether this type of claim is going to be enforced by the Trust Board or not or whether it is not contemplated that any action will be taken in regard to this matter.

I now want to come to the issue of the definition of the secret State funds. In this regard there are two issues I want to raise. Firstly, I want to ask whether these moneys were not moneys which were transferred from the Special Defence Account directly to the former Department of Information, because if one looks at the first report of the Erasmus Commission, one sees that it is by no means certain that all the money that was transferred to the department was transferred by the Bureau for State Security. The second question which arises is the question whether the moneys which were transferred after the end of the 1978-’79 financial year, should also not be covered by this Bill, because if one looks at the second report of the Erasmus Commission and at the famous letter of 26 April 1978, one sees that the transfer of those funds in respect of projects was done under the 1978 Act and not under the Special Defence Account. To my mind these appear to be factors which we certainly have to take into account in respect of this particular piece of legislation.

I now want to touch on one last question in this regard and that is the question of the report to Parliament. It is dealt with in clause 10. In terms of this clause the public interest is in issue. In this regard we accept that there may be matters which go beyond the question of State security and which may not be desirable to have published. There is for example the identity of witnesses and a variety of other things which may not threaten the security of the State, but which it may well not be in the public interest to disclose. I want to ask a question in this regard. When the Advocate-General Bill was first introduced into this House, a procedure was suggested in terms of which a Select Committee of Parliament could look at these matters. If that was a correct procedure in the case of the Advocate-General Bill, it does seem to us that if there are issues in the public interest which require a report not to be tabled in the ordinary way, it should be tabled in a confidential manner and be examined by a Select Committee of this House.

We believe these are matters which are material in respect of this Bill and we ask the hon. the Minister to deal with them.

Mr. Speaker, it has become one of the peculiarities of debate in this House that when hon. members of the Opposition agree with a measure introduced by the Government, it is discussed at great length. We have just had another example of this in the case of the hon. member for Yeoville. We have come to appreciate the approach of the Trojans during the Trojan War: “We fear the Greeks even more when they come bearing gifts.” In the same way, we have cause for doubt every time the hon. members of the Opposition express their support for a measure. Usually they voice a whole series of misgivings and they try to emasculate the measure which they support. The hon. member for Yeoville has just expressed a whole series of misgivings about the measure. The same applies, perhaps to a lesser extent, to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well as the hon. member for Durban Point. They would support the measure, but they do not want the legislation to be worded in such a way that it will serve its purpose effectively.

I shall first refer briefly to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had to say in this connection. He complained about the fact that the Bill under discussion did not contain any particulars about the qualifications of the members …

I am not complaining; I was merely asking.

Yes, the hon. member is merely asking, but it is one of the characteristic features of public life today that people are asking questions without giving a moment’s consideration to the effect of their questions.

You give the answer.

They question everything, because nothing is “sacred” any more in our society. [Interjections.] Nothing is accepted any more; everything has to be questioned and disparaged. That is the attitude which has been displayed here again this afternoon.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asks what will be the qualifications of the board. Surely the reply is obvious, especially to an hon. member of this House who claims to be a frontbencher and a senior member of this House. Surely he ought to know that since we are entering a field with the Bill where the interests are as diverse as they can possibly be, it goes without saying—in fact, the Bill provides for special members to be added to that board in respect of certain matters—that the activities of the board are going to be of such a diverse nature that it is impossible to spell out now that its members all have to be people with such and such a qualification. It is simply impossible. The hon. member should have known that and should not ask such stupid questions.

The hon. member also asked whether the other functions referred to in clause 6(2)(a) would be related to the specified activities of the board. Of course! In view of the context in which the words occur in clause 6(2)(a), surely it is clear that this is not a board which is supposed to investigate this, that and the other thing. The board has a specific task, and as far as the other functions are concerned, it is clear from the context in which the words occur that these will be activities connected with the principal aim of the Bill.

The hon. member also asked whether this board would have the power to subpoena witnesses. This is related to the question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville. I do not want to anticipate the hon. the Minister’s reply by reacting to it now. Personally, I can well imagine that the board could have such a power, but I believe that the hon. the Minister will give a very clear reply to the hon. member’s question.

The hon. member for Durban Point said, among other things, that this Bill indicated the magnitude of the mess. The hon. member supports the Bill, but at the same time he wants to play a little politics and to get in a few digs. Surely, by this time, we are all aware of the magnitude of this matter. In fact, the Pretorius Committee spelt out in its findings how many projects had been investigated and what the evaluation of the projects had been. Therefore it is not necessary for this hon. member to try to score a few points by alleging that an enormous field still remains for this board to investigate.

The hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville complained about the fact that there may be circumstances under which the report of this board will not be tabled. The hon. member for Yeoville concedes that there may be things in such a report which it may not be in the public interest to disclose. The hon. member for Durban Point does not seem to have realized this, because he complains about the fact that provision has been made for this in the Bill. In my opinion, it goes without saying that while the board is sorting out those matters in the interests of the State which will be sorted out by this board in terms of this Bill, the baby should not be thrown out with the bath water. One must not prejudice one interest in the process of sorting out another. That is why this provision is necessary.

The hon. member for Durban Point also referred to the fact that the Secretary of the former Department of Information does not want to return to South Africa. It surprises me that hon. members refer to this fact without grasping its implication. Hon. members of the Opposition have been suggesting all along that the Government does not seriously intend to clear up and resolve the consequences of the Information affairs. However, they do not realize the implications of their statement about the former Secretary. He knows that if he came back to South Africa, he would have to account for his behaviour. If ever there was proof of the Government’s seriousness and determination to clear up this matter it is the fact that Dr. Rhoodie is not prepared to return to South Africa.

Try to get hold of him.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville circumvented your ruling very cleverly—I am not reflecting on the Chair in any way—by linking his allegations to the Bill. What the hon. member really wanted to do was to attack the report of the Erasmus Commission. That is why he alleged that the Erasmus Commission had not covered the whole field.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue in that vein.

I shall leave it at that, Sir. I just want to say what the hon. member for Yeoville means by alleging that there are still matters which the board will have to investigate. If there had not been such matters for the board to investigate, it would not have been necessary, after all, to establish the board. It goes without saying, therefore, that there are matters for the board to investigate. However, it is not necessary to approach this matter in such a roundabout way as the hon. member did, and to get in a few digs at various things in passing.

I believe that under the circumstances we are faced with, it is essential that we should adopt a measure which creates the machinery for handling them effectively, a measure to which we can give our unqualified support, without all the reservations and misgivings expressed by hon. members of the Opposition in the course of supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay has convincingly replied to the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Durban Point and Yeoville. I think the hon. the Minister explained the matter in detail in his explanation of the Bill.

At this stage I think it may be desirable to emphasize a few matters. As has been said before in the debate, the trust board will have the difficult task of acquainting itself with legal procedures, not only in South Africa, but also abroad. Apart from the legal procedures they will have to study, it will also be necessary to test the economic climate in the countries concerned. For that reason I think it is important that an accountant as well as a lawyer should be appointed to this board.

Because we are faced here with a large number of front organizations established in terms of the laws of the countries concerned, I should imagine that a careful study would have to be made of various aspects of international private law, company law, business law and perhaps criminal law as well. Without the full-time assistance of a lawyer, who from the nature of his training will be quicker to grasp a problem, I think the task of the board would be very difficult indeed.

Another aspect I wish to raise is the provisions of clause 7. It provides, among other things, that when a summons cannot be served on the person himself, it may be published. Normally, a claimant then has to go to court to apply for leave to serve the summons by way of substitution. I cannot quite make out from the provisions of this clause whether, when the summons is not served on the person himself, publication will then take place automatically. I think it may be advisable in such a case for the claimant to insist that the messenger of the court serve the summons on the person himself and not or a person over the age of 16 years or by way of attaching the summons to the front door. Then it would be clear from the account of the messenger of the court whether the summons was served on the person himself or whether one has to serve the summons by way of publication in the newspaper.

Then there is another aspect I just want to mention in passing. This is the question of prescription. The State is bound by the process of prescription and it may just become apparent during the activities of this board that it is going to be stopped by the principle of prescription. Perhaps we should see in the future whether the State is not going to be prejudiced if a plea of prescription is instituted against it as far as the handling of secret funds is concerned.

The key provision of this Bill is clause 6. As far as the interpretation of this clause is concerned, it is desirable to bear in mind that it may be possible, in a specific climate or against a specific economic background, to proceed without undue haste. In this respect I disagree with the hon. member for Durban Point. In certain circumstances it may be necessary—and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke—to allow a certain period to elapse before realizing one’s interests. In certain cases it may even be prejudicial to the State to reveal that the State has an interest in a certain matter. The hon. the Minister finds himself in an invidious position. The only remedy he has had in this connection has been to take powers in terms of this legislation. We are thinking, for example, of the fact that the Director of the Institute of Information Research is naturally an Information man, someone who was trained in that field. Lately he has been expected to go into the specialized work which is done by this kind of organization for which the State Trust Board is being established.

We may think, for example—as the hon. member for Yeoville also said—of printing presses, film companies, newspapers, the realization of immovable property, and so forth. It took two State accountants and one accountant from the private sector eight months to expose only those cases in which Mr. Van Zyl Alberts was involved. One can therefore understand that special skills will be required for the matters which fall within the scope of the State Trust Board.

I believe it is essential that we should also refer with appreciation in this debate to the work done by the Pretorius Committee, which did excellent work during this unfortunate period to discover the truth about the unpleasant affairs of the former Department of Information. Apart from immovable properties which have been attached, properties which have been transferred back to the State, apart from cash which has been found, apart from the fact that companies have been identified here and abroad—companies which still have to be liquidated—there is also the important aspect that where businesses have been investigated, although they were illegitimate, they were nevertheless businesses which were operating in the interests of the State. A distinction had to be made between these and the enterprises in which people had enriched themselves.

It is therefore an unenviable task with which this board is faced. Since at the same time, as the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke also said, the board must be very careful to ensure that good money is not used to recover bad money, we can only say at this stage that hon. members on this side of the House wish the State Trust Board everything of the best.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout expressed the hope that the operating costs of the State Trust Board would be kept as low as possible and that it would complete its activities in the shortest possible time. My reply to that is that it goes without saying that this will be done. The hon. member also asked what kind of professional person we had in mind for appointment to the State Trust Board. My reply to that is that I shall as far as possible appoint people with professional knowledge, for example, experts in the field of business administration. However, I cannot confine myself to the private sector. If there are competent people in some Government institution who can be made available to us, we shall make use of them, their services as well, precisely in order to keep the costs as low as possible. But it will be essential for a member or members of the private sector to be appointed to the State Trust Board. Practical expertise is necessary.

The hon. member also said that people who have been involved in the controversial activities of the former Department of Information should not be appointed to the State Trust Board. Of course this will not be done. I must point out, however, that officials of the Information Service who are intimately involved in and acquainted with the follow-up actions we have taken so far, will have to assist the board. The hon. member also wanted to know what additional functions I may want to assign to the board in terms of the provisions of clause 6(2)(a) of the Bill. These will only be functions connected with the ordering of the interests of the State. Furthermore, the hon. member asked questions concerning the secret nature of the work, and he wanted to know whether provision would be made for witnesses to be subpoenaed.

As matters stand at present, no provision is being made for witnesses to be subpoenaed. We should prefer not to appoint a second commission of inquiry. That is not the object. I have come to Parliament to have a mechanism, machinery, established to protect the interests of the State and to order and dispose of matters.

However, one is already coming across indications, or the feeling, from the ranks of the Opposition that they want this board to be converted into a second commission of inquiry. I am not in favour of that, however. The work and object of this trust board are clearly defined, i.e. that the board should dispose of all rights and assets which arise from the application of secret funds by the former Department of Information in a way which will be least prejudicial to the interests of the State. I really hoped that we would make more progress today than now appears to be the case. We are being delayed by negative sounds from the Opposition side. They support a Bill in principle, but then they use a strange method of connecting that support to all kinds of conditions, thereby delaying matters even further.

I thank the hon. member for Durban Point for his support of the principle. However, he said he was rather worried about the lack of a provision that the final report of the board would not simply be tabled. However, we shall go into the matter again to see how we could perhaps overcome that problem. The issues raised by the hon. member for Yeoville should, I believe, be discussed during the Committee Stage. He should raise them again at that stage, and we shall then deal with them.

I should like to take this opportunity of thanking hon. members on this side—the hon. member for Sunnyside, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, the hon. member for Mossel Bay and the hon. member for Brakpan—for their positive and constructive contributions and for the suggestions they made. I also want to thank them for their clear statement of and views on the objects of this legislation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, as indicated during my Second Reading speech on this measure, this clause contains what we consider to be the principle of the Bill. It provides for the control and administration of Black education to be under this particular department. In other words, it provides for Black education not to be under the control of the authorities which will administer education in regard to other race groups. As I indicated during the Second Reading debate, we are, in principle, opposed to this form of separation. We cannot support compartmentalized education on the grounds of race, a situation which perpetuates the separate treatment and administration, by separate departments, of White education, Coloured education, Indian education and Black education. We believe that this concept is wrong in principle, and we also believe that it embodies the danger of defeating some of the very objects which the Government is trying to achieve by way of the proposed legislation before the House. We know that this Bill is intended to bring Black education more into line, in time, with White education. We know that throughout the preliminary stages, the initial discussions on the draft Bill in the Select Committee, and throughout the discussions in the Second Reading debate, speaker after speaker on the Government side gave indications that there was a genuine attempt on the part of the Government to try to bring Black education more and more into line with White education in South Africa.

During my Second Reading speech I paid tribute to the Government for their attempts in this regard. I want to make the point, however, that through this particular provision in itself one is defeating some of the very objects for which the Bill is intended. It is stipulated quite clearly that Black education must fall under the administration of a department separate from that responsible for the educational needs of other population groups. We are for that reason opposed to this clause. We believe that the principle contained in the clause is not accepted by the majority of Blacks in South Africa. There has been reference to the number of recommendations and memoranda received from a variety of organizations around South Africa specifically criticizing this draft legislation on the grounds that this again intends keeping Black education separate from White education in South Africa. We believe that for that reason it is not acceptable to a large number of Blacks. It has also been criticized specifically on this issue by educationalists, generally, around South Africa who, again, believe in the concept of education being administered by a single department. As I indicated, we on this side of the House are not opposed to decentralization in matters of administration for geographic reasons and on the grounds of provincial or regional differences. We believe, however, that it is quite wrong to enshrine a principle of decentralization or of diversity based on race in a matter concerning the education of the people of South Africa. We regard this as being a fundamental defect in the Bill and for that reason we are opposed to the clause and will vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with there being different educational departments for the various segments of South Africa’s plural society, provided each community or group has effective political control over the administration of the education of their own children. In view of that, I should like to refer back to what I said during the Second Reading, namely that as the clause stands it contains an inherent weakness which we of the NRP cannot accept I refer to the fact that the control and administration of education in this case will be placed in the hands of a Minister who is responsible to a Parliament which has no link with the people and community in respect of whom this legislation is being passed. This is, unfortunately, a situation which cannot be eliminated merely by putting forward amendments because it is a limitation in operation in South Africa as a result of a constitutional arrangement. We must bear in mind that the Black people for whom this Bill is being passed in the House are actually those who live outside the homelands. For those people, unfortunately, there is no political dispensation as such. They find themselves in a type of political vacuum. Therefore, unfortunately, one cannot come forward with an amendment to eliminate these limitations.

Let me also state clearly that we in the NRP believe that education for the different segments of our plural society should be controlled by the various components of that society. It is, in fact, wrong for the education of a particular community to be determined, controlled and administered by a body and a Minister who can never be constitutionally called upon to give an account of their actions by the very people involved.

I am saying this so that there can be absolutely no confusion or doubt as to where we stand. I also want to reiterate that even if we should decide to delete the words “Minister of the Department of Education and Training” and try to place this education under the control of the Minister of National Education, this inherent weaknzss would still remain. Whilst one can have sympathy for that argument, such transfer of responsibility would still not eliminate the problems which we are facing.

In conclusion, I must, for the sake of clarity, state that in the type of set-up we envisage, there will be decentralization of control in so far as the various departments are concerned. Such decentralization will follow the lines of the various federated components of the society, but in addition to that there will naturally be co-ordination in the field of education. Today we cannot, however, effect proper co-ordination of education because we do not have a political body which can bring such co-ordination into action.

The hon. members who have taken the trouble to read the report of the Select Committee will realize that it is because of my and my party’s unhappiness with clause 2 that we endeavoured to insert a new clause through which a bureau for the coordination and advancement of education of all races could be established. Unfortunately our amendment was ruled out of order as being not relevant to the Bill. In trying to put that case forward again, I should just like to say that the very fact that we are experiencing the difficulty of having no proper co-ordination that can be brought to perfection in a body which can be held responsible by the people on whose behalf the department functions, compounds the difficulties we have with clause 2.

Had there been proper and effective political control by the various communities themselves, we would have been in favour of separate departments. At this stage we can unfortunately not support the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments of the hon. member for Musgrave are familiar because he stated them during the Second Reading debate. On this occasion I do not want to go into details by repeating the standpoint of this side of the House as it was stated during that debate. However, it is very clear that the hon. member and the official Opposition are not taking one aspect into consideration and that is that if a separate department and to be more specific, the Department of Education and Training, is established for the Blacks, as is being envisaged in the Bill, it will contribute to the Blacks also being able to develop a pride in having their own separate department which they can adapt as far as education, the curricula etc. are concerned, to bring it into line with their own culture, traditions and views on education. In the Second Reading debate we pointed out that there is no doubt that it is a general, universally accepted principle that one cannot separate the education and culture of a people. What is now happening in terms of the revision of the Bill, is that we want to comply with this educational principle by giving the Blacks a department of education of which they may indeed be proud since it is their own. They can develop that department of education in accordance with their own point of view and convictions.

If the hon. members for Musgrave were to quote again that this was requested by various Black persons and bodies, I want to point out once again that only two, possibly three, of those persons or bodies are really involved in education as such. I make so bold as to say that the other persons and bodies that made this request—and we can go and look at the memorandums—did not arrive at that conviction on the basis of educational principles, but most probably as a result of political considerations. On behalf of this House I want to say that we are convinced that it is in the interests of Black education for us to establish a separate department of education for them, viz. the Department of Education and Training which, in my opinion, will best be able to meet their needs. Now I come to the argument by the hon. member for Durban Central. The hon. member for Durban Central moved an amendment in the Select Committee when we were considering these matters. It is true that I, as chairman of the Select Committee, was unable to accept his amendment because it did not fall within the terms of reference of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Durban Central accepted this and I thank him for doing so. The problem with the hon. member for Durban Central is that he argues on a theoretical foundation and does not himself have a practical solution to the problem as it exists within our present dispensation. The hon. member is aware that we have a political system in the Republic of South Africa that does not make provision for the representation of a part of the Black population. Because this is the case, the hon. member for Durban Central cannot implement his theoretical argument in practice by giving those Black people representation.

The hon. member should also bear in mind that clause 4 of the legislation makes provision for the deficiencies he sees, viz. that an education council is to be appointed in which close liaison with the Black population and Black opinion will be found to exist because that education council will consist only of representatives of the various Black persons and bodies. The task of this council is specifically to advise the Minister on the policy that should be adopted for Black education. Consequently, provision is already being made in the legislation for what the hon. member for Durban Central and his party want. The hon. member cannot produce a practical amendment I think that he will agree with me that he is only stating a theoretical argument to this House which does not in any case have the substance that would enable it to be implemented in practice.

We on this side of the House stand by our argument that it would be in the best interests of Black education if there were a separate education department, viz. the Department of Education and Training.

Mr. Chairman, this clause contains a number of important provisions which are certainly an improvement on the existing situation. I want to deal specifically with two of these provisions. One relates to mother-tongue education and the amendment of the Select Committee in that regard and the other is the question of free compulsory education. The amendment which comes from the Select Committee is an improvement on the draft Bill. In terms of the amendment paragraph (b) will read—

This is an improvement on the draft legislation, and I should like to emphasize the use of the words: “that the wishes of the parents shall be taken into consideration”. In the light of recent experience in South Africa and in the light of the other provisions contained in this legislation which aim at drawing the parents and the community into the administration of education to a greater extent, I hope that this is not simply going to be a matter of superficially taking into consideration the parents’ wishes, because I believe that, in many instances, on a matter of this kind the views of the parents should be paramount. I hope that when these proposals are implemented, the hon. the Minister and his department will realize the absolute need to have due regard to the wishes of the parents in a matter as important as this in regard to the education of their children. That is the first point I make and I should like a reassurance from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

I should now like to deal with paragraph (c) which states—

This is a nice paragraph and those are nice words. In the Second Reading we indicated that we regarded it as a matter of paramount importance in South Africa that there should be this aim and objective in regard to Black education in South Africa. Again, I want to emphasize that these things are worth nothing if they are simply allowed to stay as a nicely worded aim and objective in a new educational charter for Black people, without there being absolute intent on the part of the Minister and absolute intent on the part of the Government to implement this programme as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister, in replying to the Second Reading debate, indicated that it was impossible for him to fix a time schedule, that he was going to be subjected to all sorts of difficulties in this regard, that he could not anticipate what financial stringencies there may be from one year to the next, etc. One accepts all of that. I indicated in my speech that, if possible, one would have liked to have seen some sort of time schedule set, but I realize, and anticipated the hon. the Minister by saying, that this is probably not a practical thing to put into legislation.

At the same time we would like to know what the hon. the Minister’s hopes are in this regard. Clearly, when one talks about this matter, one realizes that the hon. the Minister has to consult with the hon. the Minister of Finance to ensure that the funds are made available, apart from any other difficulties which he may have, e.g. the shortfall, the backlog in the training of teachers and various other matters. I think the hon. the Minister must know that in regard to an issue of this kind, he will operate from considerable strength because there can be no division amongst thinking people in South Africa, irrespective of political differences, as to the absolute and urgent need for greater provision to be made for compulsory education for Black people. I therefore want to lend strength to the hon. the Minister’s arm so that in matters of this kind he will know that he will certainly have the support of his political Opposition in South Africa, and I further believe that he will have the support of educationists throughout South Africa if he tries to force the pace in this regard.

I now also want to refer to another matter which I already dealt with during the Second Reading stage. One recognizes that in South Africa there is a diversity of conditions throughout the country on a geographic basis. In some areas it might therefore well be possible to introduce this principle earlier than in others. I would ask the hon. the Minister to indicate whether he would be prepared, if necessary, to start introducing the principle of free compulsory education on a regional basis and on a piecemeal basis as soon as possible wherever adequate teachers, adequate buildings, etc., are present. In principle I believe that the sooner we get on with the job, the better it will be, whatever one’s political views might be.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave did not oppose the clause, but advanced a series of arguments which did not, in my opinion, mean very much, but were a repetition of concepts that have already been stated by them. The hon. the Minister has set out the objectives of the legislation clearly and said that the Government was in earnest about making the partnership between the State, organized education for Blacks and the parent community and their involvement in education very clear in this Bill, particularly in this clause.

If I may refer to the circumstances of the children of guest labourers in West Germany, it is a very clear lesson to us of what we should avoid. If one listens to what the parents and children in those communities say, I think it is a very wise principle we are embodying in this clause. Some of those parents have said on occasion—

I do not want the children of these Black communities to feel like black sheep.

Why black sheep?

We should like these people to develop their own education. Another parent expressed the following opinion—

If this clause is agreed to, it will provide for those elementary principles so that those communities can develop within their own structure. Consequently we take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I consider clause 3 to be a tremendously important clause, because it must in reality compensate for the deficiencies which occur elsewhere in this legislation. In this connection I am thinking, for example, of the question of direction and control which is raised in clause 2 of the Bill. We have already indicated that there are certain deficiencies. I should now like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to undertake at all times, where the clause provides that he shall determine certain things after consultation with or after considering proposals by the council that is to be established in terms of clause 4, to ensure that the Black communities, their council, etc., are involved as extensively as possible under the provisions of this clause so that they will in fact feel that although they do not have effective political control over the Minister, they are indeed in a position to influence policy in an active way. If the hon. the Minister will proceed from this standpoint and will undertake to make this the spirit in which he is going to apply this Bill, I think that we may see a light at the end of the tunnel in future and that we may perhaps be able to get a system in respect of which these people will feel that they share in it and have proof that this is the case.

†I just want to turn to clause 3(e) again. Here we find the all-important aspect of coordination with other departments. [Interjections.] I am glad that the hon. member for Standerton says that it is important I just want to highlight this again. In a country like South Africa with an integrated economy in which people are bound to compete on the same labour markets, it is absolutely essential that there should be proper co-ordination of educational standards. [Interjections.] This is perhaps one of the most important aspects. If that can be done effectively, all the accusations of an inferior type of education and everything that is being said against this department will disappear. The hon. the Minister will now perhaps agree with me that this is the reason why, as I was so keen to point out, we should have a permanent body for this type of co-ordination. I should like to hear a little bit more about how the hon. the Minister envisages the co-ordination will take place. It cannot just be done on an ad hoc basis. If it is done in that way, it will just not be good enough. I think the hon. the Minister and his department should take the initiative in this respect and see to it that proper system of co-ordination is established in terms of this Clause and the enabling power we are providing him with. It will have the advantage and benefit that it will act as a compensating factor for the fact that the Blacks do not have political control over it If it is done properly, one will also find that those people who like to spread stories about inferior types of education, will find that the facts will indicate that that is not the case.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in support of what the hon. member for Musgrave has said. This is a very important clause of the Bill and I, too, should like to add my plea to the hon. the Minister to proceed with all deliberate speed in implementing clause 3(c), which provides for free and compulsory education for Black children. We must advance much faster than we have been advancing in the past.

I mentioned—and the hon. the Minister got rather annoyed with me for it—during the Second Reading debate that the Eiselen Commission report, which was published way back in 1951, had stressed the necessity for four years of compulsory schooling. We have not yet reached that stage in South Africa; not even in respect of the first four essential years without which any attendance at school is useless, because the child emerges functionally illiterate at that stage. Therefore, it is extremely important to do this.

Black children and Black parents are very well aware that education is the key to advancement. They know that economic opportunities can open up for them and that, unless they have the basic education, they will be unable to be trained to take advantage of those opportunities. It is therefore really of great importance if we are in any way to offset the feeling of frustration and resentment which prevails among the younger generation in the townships at present and which evinced itself in such a devastating fashion in 1976.

The hon. the Minister rather misunderstood what I said about “mother-tongue” education being the cause of the trouble in Soweto and elsewhere. When I referred to “medium of education”, I was not referring to “mother-tongue” education, but to the use of one of the two official languages. In this instance it was opposition to the use of Afrikaans as the teaching medium which sparked off the unrest. However, as I said earlier, it was by no means the only cause of the unrest. The hon. the Minister asked me whether I had read the report of the Select Committee and he took it amiss when I said that I had not done so. However, I have to remind the hon. the Minister that it was the Government’s intention to introduce the Second Reading of this Bill before the report of the Select Committee appeared on our desks. Therefore I think I was entitled to assume that there was nothing of great importance in the Select Committee report. However, having been chastised by the hon. the Minister, I rushed off and found the Select Committee report. I have read it since, and there is nothing in it, of course, except the recommendations which were put and the amendments which were carried or rejected by the Select Committee. There is no in-depth reasoning or any historical analysis or anything which I would have found particularly helpful in arguing this Bill and in taking part in this debate.

Anyway, I do believe that clause 3 is an improvement. I, like the hon. member for Musgrave, would have preferred stronger language as far as the wishes of the parents are concerned. Taking the wishes into consideration, consulting the parents, etc. is all very well. However, there is nothing to guarantee that, having consulted, and having taken into consideration the wishes of the parents, they are not thereafter put to one side. Therefore, I add my plea to those of the hon. member for Musgrave, that the hon. the Minister should take very seriously any wishes which the parents may express. They, in turn, will be sure to be expressing the wishes of their children about the medium of education. This is a very thorny point indeed as far as the young generation in the townships is concerned. I therefore cannot too strongly commend that the hon. the Minister bears this in mind when the four years of compulsory mother-tongue education have ended, and a decision has to be taken in connection with which official language will serve as the further medium of instruction.

Furthermore, I should also like to mention that we believe it is very important that the syllabuses should be thoroughly examined in order to make sure that there can be no suggestion of inferior education as far as those syllabuses are concerned. In this respect I agree fully with what the hon. member for Durban Central has said. However, I have to point out again—as I mentioned during the Second Reading debate—that unless there is an enormous increase in the amount of money which is voted for Education and Training, so that teachers may be trained and upgraded, so that better classroom facilities can be provided, etc., there is no doubt that the stigma of inferior education is going to remain despite the very sincere intentions of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Durban Central will understand why I am not going to reply to those questions which have already been fully replied to by the chairman of the Select Committee. However, I agree with the standpoints that have now been stated by the three hon. members that have just spoken. I agree that clause 3 of the Bill does perhaps really convey the crux of the whole philosophical idea around which the Bill is woven.

In the first place I want to reply to the arguments advanced with regard to clause 2. I refer to what the hon. member for Musgrave said in addition to what the hon. member for Virginia said. Let us accept that there are certain things about which we cannot agree on the basis of our political convictions and opinions. It is true that even the Opposition parties are not 100% in agreement with one another. Now we could approach the matter by emphasizing the differences, we could make them the main points of dispute.

†As far as I am concerned, the delicate matter of the education of Black people has not yet reached the stage in which I, or anybody else for that matter, would have liked to see it at this period in time. I should much rather look for the common denominator than for points of difference. I am sincere when I try to obtain the co-operation of people, not only of hon. members of this House, but especially—and I should like to stress it, because they are not present here— of Black parents and all Black people interested in the education of their own people. They do, of course, belong to different nations. I am not so much concerned about people’s colour, as so many other people evidently are. I regard every human being as a human being, a creature of God. I regard everybody else as a person who has the same rights that I have, someone who can claim the same rights for his children that I may want to claim for my own children. Therefore I do not want to enter into arguments about what has happened in the past or about who is responsible for this or for that stage of affairs. It may perhaps be very interesting, but time is of the essence in the job we have to do. So I am not interested in dwelling at length upon what has happened in the past or on who is to be held responsible. I am not interested in holding post mortems if they serve no useful purpose.

They do. To examine the results of one post mortem could perhaps stop another death.

If the hon. member would ask me a question I would be only too pleased to reply to it. Let me, however, elaborate further on what I have in mind and on what I am asking hon. members’ cooperation for. I agree that there is a case to be made out for one education department, but what is of even greater importance is that there is—as has been reflected in the views of this side of the House—in this country, a complex problem with which we have to deal, and from time to time adaptions must therefore be made. We have to admit that there are different nations whose members speak different languages. I can only decide for myself how best I can serve the interests of the Black children whose education is not yet on a par with that provided for the other groups in this country.

*If this were a solution, if we could bring about a drastic improvement in the standard of Black education by having only one education department, I would seriously examine this possibility myself. However, can one hon. member tell me how it would be possible to build 20 extra schools for Black people if the education of all the groups was dealt with by one department? One can do this in one of two ways. We could take money from White, Indian or Coloured education, and here I ask the simple question: Which political leader or political party has the courage to stand up here and say that from next year on we must reduce the budget for White education by three-quarters and give it to the Black people?

Take some from defence.

The hon. member must please confine herself to the subject we are discussing at present, and that is education. Let us please just consider these matters soberly. We are discussing one education department and its possible advantages. The hon. member can say that we should take the money from the defence budget, but I say “No”. However, I am not going to argue about this matter. We are discussing the question whether having one education department could serve a practical purpose. If we establish one education department, the question is: where are we going to obtain the money? This is the point. We can provide these things if we have the finances for them. I am saying now expressly—and if others disagree with me, let them say so—that representations have regularly been made in this House in the past asking that we should spend more on education. I am thinking of the reasons for this advanced by the hon. member for Standerton, the hon. member for Virginia and many others involved in education, and I am thinking of the representations made to the Minister of National Education. Time and again it has been emphasized that we in South Africa should spend more money on White education too. We are aware of the needs of our White teachers. I am not prepared to assist in taking money away from White education and giving it to other groups. But I am prepared to advocate, and co-operate to achieve, a better dispensation for the Blacks so that we can get closer in the shortest possible time and can eventually equal what other groups have already achieved. We can do this if we have the correct attitude and do not try to score political points off one another in this respect. That answers the question about having one education department.

At present we need legislation that brings about in practice a tremendous improvement on what we have had up to now. As has been rightly pointed out this clause indicates the problem situations which we are now attempting to solve. Surely we cannot lay down in the legislation the abolition of the Department of National Education. Similarly, we cannot delete the other existing Acts and introduce an omnibus Bill. We must now create the best means to enable us to make the best possible provision and to establish physical and other facilities.

Having said this, I nevertheless think that the hon. member for Durban Central raised a very valid point. I agree with the chairman of the Select Committee that investigated the Bill, that the point concerning a bureau or a body that can do liaison work could not be dealt with during the proceedings of the Select Committee. However, the Government has committed itself—and this has already been put into effect in many fields—and I commit the Government afresh, to seeing to it that there are public relations bodies. There must be co-operation and a continuing exchange of ideas. In fact, I trust the hon. the Minister of National Education will not take it amiss of me when I say that he has had that idea in mind ever since he first became Minister of National Education. We are trying to establish a co-ordinating body as soon as possible. Initially it can fulfil an advisory function and subsequently it can be vested with further powers. Consequently the idea of the hon. member for Durban Central must be taken further.

The prerequisite to being able to negotiate competitively with our sister department, is that our department must first develop to its full potential and stature. By “stature” I do not mean that it must become large in the sense of empire building, but that it should be developed into becoming more important.

I do not think it can be denied that the various Black peoples have their own needs. We are sometimes too inclined to play with words. We use the expression “Black education” and unfortunately that expression is used here as well.

Allow me to point out certain aspects with regard to an ordinary matter such as mother-tongue education. Do we always take cognizance of the fact that we are dealing with 15 different languages in which textbooks have to be supplied to Black children, even though it be only up to Std. 2? This is not easily done so.

There is no overseas market for these textbooks as there is for English textbooks. One could have a person with a doctor’s degree in education, but how could it be expected of him to teach a Tswana child who does not understand a word of Afrikaans or English? How is he to teach that child that one and one are two if he cannot speak Tswana himself? The Tswana child will not even know what “one” means. How is one to explain to a Zulu child that does not understand Afrikaans or English what one means about a special subject one is trying to explain to him?

This is not a new principle that we introduced here. The OAU and various countries, including Nigeria, have insisted that to force English down their throats amounted to colonialism.

†Do we realize that all the European nations were accused of a policy of colonialization through the language medium?

*The Afrikaner experienced this during the time of Lord Charles Somerset. Hon. members can question the hon. member for Durban Central on this matter because he studied education and consequently he knows of the things that have been recorded in history. Lord Charles Somerset brought English clergymen and teachers to South Africa in an effort to make an Englishman of the Afrikaner, but he did not succeed in doing so. Everyone knows about the resistance that followed his efforts. The same applies to other countries as well; they see it in this light too.

However, that is not to say that we do not perceive the advantages of having to study the two languages at an early stage. I know that the hon. member for Houghton said in connection with the riots in Soweto that they were caused by the issue of Afrikaans medium. However, I do not want to become involved in a dispute about that today; we shall have the opportunity to debate this matter during the discussion of the Cillié Commission report. Sixty per cent of South Africa’s White population is Afrikaans speaking and 40% is English speaking. If Black people in South Africa now have to live together with the Whites in an integrated economic situation, do hon. members then expect them to know English only? I want to state very frankly, so that hon. members can understand this, that as far as the rural areas are concerned, where the people come into contact with Black employees in particular, Afrikaans is essential in the interests of the employees as well. After all, it is as plain as a pikestaff that if people cannot communicate with each other by means of some language, it will be to the detriment of both. I wish I could speak Bantu languages as I could when I was a child. I wish I could speak Zulu as the people of Natal do. This gives one something concrete with which one can speak to these people and through which one can reach them. If, then, it must be said, allow me to say it and assume the responsibility for it: I advocate that the Black people of our country, although they need not accept both official languages as their medium of tuition, should learn as much Afrikaans and English as they possibly can. Equally, I advocate that we as Whites should learn more of our Black people’s languages. It is no disqualification to know another man’s language.

I agree.

But now hon. members are asking for compulsory education in this regard. Let us take a practical example. In Soweto there are schools using Tswana and other schools using Zulu as the medium of tuition. We are now taking this up to Std. 2. Hon. members have asked that we should take the wishes of parents into consideration. We intend doing so by means of school committees.

†In the one part of Soweto there may be a Tswana school, the school committee of which may decide that education should be in the mother tongue, i.e. Tswana, to Std. 2 and thereafter in English. The school committee of another school may decide they want the education to be in the mother tongue up to Std. 4. Hon. members want me to consult with them, and I agree that we have to consult with them. The people served by the school will not, however, always remain in the same area. They may go elsewhere, and their children may consequently have to start over again from, say, Std. 3 since a uniform system is not in use and the language used may be different. There are, therefore, practical problems we are faced with. That is why in kwaZulu the parents locally were not consulted as far as I remember. It was decided by the Education Department that the children there would receive education in the mother tongue up to Std. 2. I do not want to interfere with independent people, but I am told that there were school committees who protested vehemently against it that at all schools education in the mother tongue after Std. 2 was no longer allowed. Whose views does one then take into consideration?

*What does one do if the Sothos want to receive tuition up to Std. 4 in their own language and the people of Gazankulu next door only up to Std. 2? How does one manage to get them to adapt to one another later on and to achieve uniformity of standards as advocated by the hon. member for Durban Central? I am asking the hon. members to show understanding for the practical problems with which my department is faced. In White education we have two official languages—and I know how I struggled with English. The Black people have fellow Black peoples and in addition they have to study two extra languages. Consequently there are practical problems for which we must have understanding.

I am not going to force the Afrikaans language on any other person, because by doing so I create in him a hate of my language. What I do want to try in conjunction with my department, is to get other people to show the same appreciation and love for my language as I ought to have for the language of any Black man in South Africa. Consequently we shall not force it on them, but we shall handle the matter carefully and try to obtain the co-operation of people and not introduce it into schools against their will. In this we need the co-operation of all the hon. members in this House.

†It takes a long time to build up a bit of goodwill amongst people. It takes but one careless word to break it down. It need not be a word uttered to the individual himself or to a school committee; it can be a word uttered in this House which can break down good relations between people. If suspicion is sown by whoever it may be—and if I offend, I am prepared to have the finger pointed at me— we can break down what we are trying to build.

*I have said that we should move as rapidly as possible in respect of free and compulsory education, but we must be practical. If free tuition and compulsory education are to be introduced, we should remember one thing, viz. while there is compulsory education among Whites, this imposes an obligation on the parent, who is liable to be penalized if he does not send his child to school. Can hon. members imagine what would happen if we were to introduce compulsory education for a Black community, and by so doing, made parents who neglected to send their children to school liable to be penalized, and did not do so with the greatest care and circumspection?

†They may right now be able to afford to send their children to school and to provide those necessities which the department cannot accept responsibility for. It may perhaps be an item such as clothing which may be a minor item for Whites.

*In the times in which we are living we in the department must, however, also take into consideration—and this is not sentimentality, but purely cold, hard facts—that for the most part the Black people live on mealie meal as their staple foodstuff, and the price of mealie meal has risen from R7 to R12. This is a tremendously important item in their budget Clothes may not be a major item to us Whites, but to a Black man school clothing is a very big item.

†If I force the Blacks to send their children to school or else they will have to go to court, I do not think I am doing them a favour. I will not be creating goodwill amongst these people, but something which goes even further than mere rancour towards Whites. We have to be careful before promising compulsory education and we have to consult with the parents before we start doing it.

*I think I should just re-emphasize, and I shall do so once again when we come to clause 4, what the hon. members for Durban Central, Houghton and Musgrave asked me, viz. whether I want to consult with the people continuously. The reply is emphatically “yes”. I shall not impose our will on these people from above. We should like to try to give the assurance, from the lowest level, first school committees, through school boards, if they so choose, through die Education Council and eventually, too, through the Ministers of Education in the various self-governing areas, as well as the Chief Ministers, that a happy relationship exists in the developing of these facilities that, as someone has said, are something that all of us are concerned about.

Finally, as far as the so-called “inferior education” is concerned, I want to say that there is no point in bluffing ourselves. The education of Blacks also depends on the quality of the teachers. Hon. members should not forget that these teachers are people with as much character as anyone else, but they have not had the privilege of the necessary training. I do not again want to go into the history of whom was responsible for this backlog. We should rather continue to develop. If the qualifications of the teachers are not very high, particularly since we are now going over to secondary education and the special demands being set by that, it is unrealistic and dishonest to promise that all these teaching methods will be of the same standard. It would be unrealistic and dishonest to promise that all these training methods will be of the same standard. It would be dishonest to say that where we do not, for example, have laboratory facilities, we shall be in a position to provide them immediately and on an equivalent scale. However, I have noticed a spirit of goodwill among many people, among our Black people in particular. This Bill is not a law of the Medes and Persians, but indicates the guidelines in accordance with which we want to work in adopting a positive approach to all our people in South Africa. The best and most indispensable infrastructure for any civilized country, is the development of its people. We can have the finest homelands and the best facilities there, but if the people are not there to manage those things, everything comes to nought. That is why I think I can agree with the hon. members for Musgrave, Durban Central and Houghton that all of us who have the best intentions as regards the future of South Africa and all its people, ought to seek in this regard the points on which we are in agreement and not those in regard to which we can score political points off each other.

†In their absence I want to appeal to all those who have assisted in a quiet but determined way to ensure peace and quiet after the 1976 year of turmoil, to carry on with their good work. Black people will accept the leadership of their own people rather than that of the White man. I appeal to the positive leaders of our Black communities to tell their children that if one classroom is burnt down it means that accommodation is taken away from 50 children for more than a year. It has been proved during 1976. I want to ask them not to deprive their children of the opportunity that has been given to them and to assist us by not taking away from hundreds of pupils the opportunities that can be created for them if we work together and if we trust one another.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not delay the Committee unduly. There is just one question, an important one, on which I should like the hon. the Minister’s views. We have talked about compulsory school attendance and free tuition. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what his own aims and views are in this regard. Up to what standard does he anticipate or hope to provide compulsory attendance and free tuition for Blacks?

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is in the interests of the country that all the human potential of all the peoples of South Africa should be allowed to develop to the fullest extent as soon as possible, and therefore there is no limit to what we want to achieve. The hon. member will know that a commission is at present discussing, and will probably come forward with recommendations about tertiary education. There are some who will be able to go beyond tertiary education or a matric certificate, but I think the requirements in respect of a matric certificate or a certain school-leaving age should eventually apply to all the children in the country. How soon that will be, I cannot say. I gave my reasons for that at Second Reading. However, we shall try to achieve it as soon as possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. (1) There shall be a Council for Education and Training consisting of the following members, namely—
   1. (a) a representative of the Department of Education of each Black state in the Republic, designated by the Minister of Education in each such state;
   2. (b) the various officers in the Department of Education and Training occupying the post of Director;
   3. (c)
      1. (i) the principals or rectors of the Medical University of Southern Africa, the University of the North, the University of Zululand and the University of Fort Hare;
      2. (ii) the heads of the faculties of education at the University of the North, the University of Zululand and the University of Fort Hare;
   4. (d) five members of the Teachers’ Council nominated by such Council, if and when such Council is established;
   5. (e) an officer of the Human Sciences Research Council referred to in section 2 of the Human Sciences Research Act, 1968 (Act No. 23 of 1968), appointed by the Minister;
   6. (f) so many other persons not exceeding five in number as may be appointed by the Minister.

The Bill as it stands provides in clause 4 that—

It sets out the functions of the council—and these are admirable. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister indicated that there would be such a council of at least 20 members, and I believe I am correct in saying that he indicated that they would all be Black people. That, also, is commendable, but I think there is still a weakness in this matter in that it is going to be a nominated council. Again, if one looks at the situation which obtains in regard to education for other race groups in South Africa, one wonders why there should be a difference. The amendment which I have moved takes into consideration the example set in the National Education Policy Act, which makes provision for the establishment of a council, the members of which are drawn from various institutions, institutions similar to those which I set out in the amendment standing in my name. If one looks at the National Education Policy Act, section 4 deals with the establishment and functions of the National Education Council. Subsection (1) states—

1. (a) all the heads of education except the Secretary; and
2. (b) at least thirteen and not more than sixteen other persons appointed by the Minister and of whom—
   1. (i) the Minister shall designate one as chairman of the council and of the executive committee;
   2. (ii) two shall be principals or rectors of universities and four shall be lecturers in the faculties or departments of education of four different universities not being the universities to which the said principals or rectors are attached;
   3. (iii) one shall be an officer of the Human Sciences Research Council …;
   4. (iv) one shall be a member of an association of English-speaking teachers, one shall be a member of an association of Afrikaans-speaking teachers, etc.

If the hon. the Minister has studied the amendment which stands in my name, he will see that there is a similarity between the proposals contained in my amendment and the situation which obtains in regard to White education. In formulating the amendment, we have also taken into account the existing structure in the hon. the Minister’s own department in order to bring this into line with the aim which we seek to achieve, which is, broadly, to get away from the idea that this has to be a council which is nominated by the Minister and to allow the institutions, in this case the Black institutions which are directly and primarily concerned with Black education, to nominate representatives to the council while, at the same time, as set out in the last part of my amendment, also allowing the Minister to nominate a number not exceeding five. We believe it would be a much broader-based council and that in this instance it would be a council which would more easily command the respect of the Black people, because they would know its members were being drawn from their own institutions and from their own experts. I believe it would be far more acceptable to the Black people in this regard. Therefore, I ask the hon. the Minister to consider accepting the amendment I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the argument of the hon. member for Musgrave that there should be a broad representation on the part of the Blacks themselves. In fact, I am convinced that that is the hon. the Minister’s ideal. What the hon. member for Musgrave is advocating, will in fact happen in practice. Surely it is unthinkable that the Minister will appoint a council consisting of not fewer than 20 members without consulting the various institutions to which the hon. member for Musgrave referred. In fact, the constitution of the present advisory council is already based on co-operation and consultation with the Black organizations concerned. Why then, is it being stated in this way? In the present legislation it is stated that a minimum of 20 members shall be appointed so that the hon. the Minister, should the circumstances change in future, need not come back to this House to amend the legislation again.

I should like to give a practical example in this regard. The amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave provides for representation by representatives of various Black universities. It might happen in future that an additional Black university or teachers’ training college for Blacks is established and then, to give those people representation as well, the hon. the Minister will have to return to this House to amend the legislation. If the legislation is accepted in its present form in terms of which there has to be a minimum of 20 members, it gives the hon. the Minister the opportunity to extend that council without amending legislation.

I should also like to point out another weakness in the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave. His amendment does not provide for representation of teachers’ associations in this council. In the legislation on education and training there is a provision which provides for the establishment of teachers’ associations. As soon as these Black teachers’ associations are established, it gives the hon. the Minister an opportunity to get representation for these teachers’ associations in the council. I am not referring now to the teachers’ council, but to the teachers’ associations. The hon. the Minister will therefore be able to get representation for them on the council should he request it.

Finally I want to observe that the constitution of this council is prescribed by way of regulation. I am convinced that these regulations—the hon. the Minister mentioned them in his Second Reading speech already— will be revised and that it will be prescribed in the regulations that there shall be liaison with these various institutions when the council is constituted. I believe that this will have to take place on a regional basis so that one can have the widest possible representation on that council, which will be advisory to the Minister. We on this side of the House are convinced that the provision as it appears in the legislation will best promote the circumstances and object we are seeking to attain.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the legislation in its present form it is provided that not fewer than 20 members to be appointed by the Minister. I believe it would be a good thing if the legislation itself could give a better idea of the constitution of this council. Hon. members will probably want to know why I feel like this. There might be arguments about the motion of the hon. member for Musgrave, but the advantage which his amendment constitutes for the constitution of the council is that he clearly incorporates the element of elected members, ex officio members. That is why I am now indicating—as I did on the Select Committee as well—that as far as the NRP is concerned, we are prepared to support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave. I realize that it can create problems when there are new developments, but White education has similar problems. If new developments take place, the hon. the Minister will have to make adjustments from time to time in any case, because he only provides for a minimum number of members in the legislation. The hon. member for Virginia implied that it would not be practical to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave, but I do not think that the practical problems are insurmountable.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. member for Virginia made it clear that it would be stupid of anyone to appoint certain people without consultation and merely because he liked their faces. Appointment will, of course, take place in consultation with the controlling educational institution as well as with due regard to the opinions of the Blacks themselves. I want to emphasize that while we have here a Department of Education and Training that has to be controlled, there are two inherent elements which, in my opinion, we should regard in a practical way. We are often blamed—to my mind not always without reason—that things are decided for people from the top. I realize that it may happen. Now, in this Bill, we are to a great extent making provision for the interception of that accusation, and not only in this Bill either. The concept that there should only be Black members on a council already exists with regard to the old advisory board. This worked admirably and I invite the hon. members for Durban Central and Musgrave to take a look at the minutes of this advisory council. I went through them and I am amazed that the people had the courage to maintain an absolutely independent view and level deliberate, but positive criticism. This is so because they as Blacks can express their own opinions in such a body. Without beating about the bush I want to say that the department is forced to take cognizance of those opinions which are expressed in a responsible way. I just want to tell the hon. members for Durban Central and Musgrave that although, a while ago, great value was placed on the fact that many people had allegedly asked for one department of education, I am not aware —perhaps the chairman or any member of the Select Committee could help me—of one Black body that asked for such a mixed body. I see the hon. member for Virginia is nodding his head in agreement. That means that he did not see it either. I wonder whether the two hon. members saw it. The only moment they say that we should consult our Black educational leaders on these matters and the next we are making decisions for the Black educational leaders again. Their decision was not quite the correct one and therefore we want to prescribe to them. I do not want to get involved in a long dispute about this. I just want to say that once this council is functioning and comes forward with requests such as those that were mentioned here today, I undertake to give consideration to them. In the meantime we want to get the thing going. If they want to suggest improvements at a later stage these will certainly be considered by my department and I. At this stage I regret to have to say that I cannot accept these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I was very glad indeed to read of the inclusion, in this clause, of subsection (3)(c) involving “any person providing without reward informal education which does not lead to the acquisition of any diploma, certificate or statement”. I am glad that such people are able to provide education to Black people because in the past it has been a great stumbling block that people have always had to go and get permission to provide even informal tuition to Black people. I know that it was a bone of contention with members of church groups and teachers— very often White teachers—who provided, in their spare time and free of charge, some sort of adult education in the townships. I know that a number of those classes were closed down, and it was the cause of much dismay amongst adult Blacks who were taking their matric by way of this tuition provided by White school-teachers. I am therefore very glad indeed to see that the hon. the Minister has included this in clause 8.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

I want to explain the amendment briefly. The amendment, briefly, relates to the fact that provision is made in a later clause enabling women to retire at the age of 60. Therefore we cannot prescribe 65 as the retirement age, because it has to be brought into line with the retirement age of women.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31:

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

1. (1) On page 34, in line 52, to omit “Black”;
2. (2) on page 34, in line 54, to omit “Black”;
3. (3) on page 36, in line 54, to omit “Black”;
4. (4) on page 36, in line 55, after “Council” to insert:
   or the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites

I now just want to give the overriding motivation for these amendments. Since the word “Black” has already been deleted, we are now dealing with a body called a Teachers’ Council for Education and Training. My motivation for moving the amendments is, however, purely to eliminate any possible accusation that one is dealing with something here that could be regarded by people as being some or other form of discrimination. [Interjections.] I just want to indicate that the problem we have is simply one of terminology.

Secondly, it must be remembered that in South Africa we already have a number of other professional or registration councils. For the whole of the nursing profession, for instance, there is just one council and members of all the different race groups can belong to it provided they possess the necessary qualifications. That can serve as a background to indicate that what I am suggesting is not a sort of heresy even in terms of Government policy. It can be done in terms of Government policy. I have no doubt that in education, too, we should open the way for this and not create the impression that certain people are specifically excluded purely on the basis of colour.

I want to deal with my amendments one by one. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will appreciate the difficulty I have. My first two amendments concern subsection (3) which stipulates who can, upon application, be included in the register of the proposed council. This is not a compulsory registration, but registration on application. As the provision now reads, only Blacks can be included. There are, however, still a number of White teachers employed by the Department of Education and Training. That is a reality. I believe it would be wrong to have some members of staff of one school or one establishment excluded and others included. If the first two amendments are accepted, it would purely mean that the White teachers at such schools and attached to that department can, if they so wish, apply to have their names entered on that register. After all, they already find themselves in an integrated situation.

The third amendment is to the same end. I want the hon. the Minister to appreciate the objective I am aiming at, which is to eliminate the possibility of the accusation being made that Whites attached to the department are being favoured in one way or another. As it stands, subsection (6) provides that from a certain date to be announced by the Minister—

Again, we must be conscious of the fact that there are White teachers still employed by that department and that one cannot explain this type of differentiation.

The fourth amendment follows the same principle. If it is accepted, the provision will read—

I believe it is necessary to make that provision for the White teachers on the staff who, as I read it, will perhaps not qualify for a full-time appointment because, unless my amendments are accepted, they will be excluded from membership of the Teachers’ Council referred to in this Bill. Such registration by the Teachers’ Council is in fact a prerequisite to full-time employment.

For a Black person.

Yes, but if one deletes “Black”, it becomes necessary to insert “South African Teachers’ Council for Whites”. Here we are faced with the situation that the Teachers’ Council for Whites must itself be amended in order to allow Black people to belong to it. The point is that, if these amendments are accepted, it will not be necessary to come with amendments in the future since people of different race groups could then belong to the teachers’ council to which they really want to belong. We should move in that direction.

Mr. Chairman, the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central is once again based on the premise that they, too, are advocates of one umbrella department of national education that has control over the education of all the various population groups. As a result of that standpoint the hon. member has now produced this amendment as far as the teachers’ council is concerned.

The hon. member must accept that if he wants to carry that amendment through to its logical conclusion it means that in the teachers’ council—it is a professional council that seeks to establish the codes and deal with the status of the profession it serves, i.e. Black education—he could find a White teacher who may have qualifications differing from the qualifications of Black teachers at present. Let us admit to one another that at the moment there is a difference between the required qualifications for Black teachers to be able to teach in a certain standard and those for Whites. On the one hand this is so because of the shortage of teachers in Black education and on the other hand it is so because of the lack of qualifications of Blacks. If the amendment of the hon. member were to be accepted, we would, of necessity, have a problem in the teachers’ council with Black teachers on the one hand and White teachers on the other hand as far as their qualifications were concerned.

There is, however, a second aspect which would become evident if the amendment of the hon. member were accepted. We would immediately have the problem that if such a White teacher were registered with the Black teachers’ council he would have a problem with his registration with the White teachers’ council.

Why?

The hon. member wants to know why. There will be problems because then one would be dealing with membership of two different councils. The requirements for admission to the two councils might differ. It is a fact that some White teachers cannot become members of the White teachers’ council because they do not satisfy some qualification or other. The fact that they do not have that qualification, however, does not prevent them from teaching at a White school in a temporary capacity. If one takes this argument further one comes to the conclusion that such a White teacher may be allowed to assist with Black education although he might not be granted permission to become a member of the Black teachers’ council.

With the acceptance of the principle embodied in clause 2 of this Bill it is logical that in this clause we will also content ourselves with only Black teachers being able to obtain membership of the professional teachers’ council for Black education if they ask for it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to indicate our support for the amendments moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. With respect, I think the hon. member for Virginia does the hon. member for Durban Central an injustice. I do not believe that the hon. member for Durban Central has been motivated by the fact that one is looking for one single centralized administration in regard to education. Having listened to the hon. member for Durban Central, I believe that his is a practical proposal to deal with the situation we have at the moment. We have White teachers and Black teachers, but there is a shortage of Black teachers and such a shortage will be experienced for a very long time. It is quite probable that the situation will continue for a considerable time that White teachers will assist with Black education.

Under these circumstances I do not see any reason why the White teachers should be discriminated against—one may call it “discrimination in reverse”—in not being able to participate, if they want to, in the teachers’ councils involved with exactly the same thing in which they are involved, viz. providing education for Black people. I cannot see any reason whatever why White teachers concerned with that operation should be differentiated against as opposed to the Black teachers. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept the amendments as a practical proposal.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing I should like to avoid in this legislation, it is a colour connotation. In this regard I want to thank the Select Committee for being able to delete so many of the words which were used. I would also have liked gradually to do away with the words “Black” or “Coloured”, of whatever had been used, as other departments have done. However, if one speaks about practical things, one should be consistent. If we appoint a White principal at a school in Soweto, all hell breaks loose and some people say that we appointed a White above a Black and that Blacks “do not get equal opportunities”. However, if we appoint a Black man with somewhat lower qualifications accusation of “inferior qualifications” is levelled. They claim we want to keep it inferior. It looks as if one can never win in this game. Here we now have an effort to involve Blacks to the utmost degree in the control of their own affairs, even in White areas, so that they can have the greatest say in the affairs of their own people. But this, too, is wrong now. There are still approximately 1 000—if my information is correct—White teachers who are at present teaching under the control of the Department of Education and Training. Can hon. members now imagine the complaints there will be if some of these people are elected in the Teachers’ Council as a result of their higher qualifications and dominate the Teachers’ Council as a result of their superior knowledge? However, that is not all. The hon. member for Durban Central was a practising teacher.

†Perhaps the hon. member for Musgrave and I should bow to the superior knowledge of the hon. member for Durban Central when it comes to educational matters, but at times he makes suggestions, as he has done in this instance, when I think we have no reason to feel inferior.

*I say this for a very simple reason. Let us take the case where a White teacher is temporarily seconded to a Black department of education. Hon. members who know about education know that we do not yet have parity as far as salaries are concerned, and that teacher can at any moment be seconded back to the White department of education. This is a practical problem, as the hon. member for Virginia indicated. Surely a person cannot serve two masters. Sooner or later he has to choose in which of the department’s professional bodies he wants to be integrated and White teachers are registered with that teachers’ council when they qualify and comply with the requirements. How can he be integrated in a second department. I want to ask the hon. member what would happen should the teacher return to the White department of education? Will he then lose his membership, or how does this work? It is necessary for consideration to be given in future to further liaison. It is necessary and I hope that it will happen with the exchange of ideas. However, to delete the words now is totally impractical and I therefore request the hon. member to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is being very reasonable, but I do think that he is making an error of judgment I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that we must take it that it really has nothing to do with the number of departments there are. At present it is possible for any person with the necessary qualifications to approach the Teachers’ Council for Whites as a professional body without being employed by any department, and to register. One can register without being in the employ of one of the departments. It is only that one has an obligation to register oneself, because they can say that they will only employ someone who is registered. By means of my amendment I am trying to rectify the situation. Even if the qualifications of a White person in that department are better, I believe that he should be given the opportunity to belong to such an organization. There will be a much better mutual feeling amongst people at the same school if they know that there is no legal provision which prohibits them from belonging to the same body.

I said that the hon. the Minister made an error of judgment. The hon. the Minister perhaps knows a lot more than I do about religious matters. I know the hon. the Minister deals with the churches of the Transvaal but…

I want him to pray for you.

There are many people who pray for me. I think—the hon. the Minister can tell me whether I am right or wrong—that especially the N.G Sendingkerk and the daughter churches of the Dutch Reformed Church have started appealing to people in recent years to join them as members. People who are in the ministry have already started saying that they prefer to belong to the N.G. Sendingkerk than to the mother church. Is it not true that there is such a trend?

It is very contentious.

I accept that it is very contentious but the fact is that it is so. There are approximately 1 000 White teachers who, as the hon. the Minister said, might be much better qualified than the Black teachers. We know it. All I want to say is that a provision should not be written into the Statute Book which could result in anyone feeling that he is in fact employed by the department but that he has to maintain a code of conduct different to that maintained by another. Everyone who is employed in the same department should be subject to the same code of conduct.

The reason I want to insert the words “or the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites” in the clause by way of an amendment is to make it possible for a teacher who does not want to join the Teachers’ Council of the Department of Education and Training, to be able to retain his membership. The hon. the Minister was correct in this regard. As long as such persons are still involved in the department I believe that it will be wrong to include legal provisions in the Statute Book which will prevent them from belonging to it. It is for this reason that I moved this amendment. The hon. the Minister will tell me to withdraw these amendments but I do not believe that I can withdraw my amendments, because I am convinced that it is not I who is making an error of judgment but the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the objection of the hon. member for Durban Central is that a restriction will be imposed on the White staff at schools where Black tuition is given with regard to membership of this association. In this regard there is a plea I want to make. The White teachers in this country came a long way before we established a professional council for them the other day by way of legislation.

This Bill deals with Black education. With great piety and appreciation towards those teachers I want to say that as a corps they still have to develop a profession to maturity. I think it is only right that we should give them the opportunity to develop in their own right without interference and without influencing, but under the leadership of the hon. Minister and his department. Then, on that occasion, there will be ample opportunity for the executive of these two professional organizations to consult with each other.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the remarks of the hon. member for Standerton have merit, but as regards the wording of the clause as a whole I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central, without repeating the whole history, that before the Select Committee deliberated on these matters, I personally, as I have informed the House, together with departmental heads, have held discussions with Black education leaders on several occasions. The members of the Select Committee will know that a submission was made by Atasa. Let me also say about this clause, without speaking superciliously about people, initially Atasa was strongly in favour of this teachers’ council. Later they withdrew this and said that they no longer wanted a teachers’ council. For that reason it is permissibly worded. This clause does not state that there will be such a thing, but clause 31(1) states—

†Therefore this can only be done after a request has been received by such an organization.

*Perhaps I might just inform the hon. member for Durban Central that we are now talking about things which are still in the future. I do not intend to establish this body if such requests are not made at least by representative teachers’ associations. By that time one could once again obtain the opinion of these people who might have opinions on this themselves. The fact that they withdrew their original proposals is in my opinion a warning signal, telling us that we should not decide on this lightly. That is why we have not taken a definite decision and only added this permissive clause so that it will in fact be possible to do this.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35:

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

On the basis of advice obtained from the legal advisers, this amendment is apparently necessary since clause 39(2), on the same page, contains certain provisions which in fact make this clause redundant and which might even, according to legal opinion, make it contradictory.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40:

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

The clause as it stands provides for the attendance of certain persons at a school to be forbidden in certain situations. The clause reads—

1. (a) a pupil, teacher or an employee of the school in question;
2. (b) the Minister, the Secretary or any officer authorized in terms of section 33;
3. (c) a member of the council, committee, board or other body established in terms of section 7 …;
4. (d) a parent or guardian …;
5. (e) a visitor from some other school …; or
6. (f) members of the community who at the request of the principal attend a particular school activity,

We believe this is a very far-reaching provision which will preclude a number of other people, who might, in a bona fide way, want to attend the school, from doing so. It seems a very cumbersome procedure that any person who does not fall under these exceptions, would have to apply to the Secretary for Education and Training for permission to attend such a school. We believe that it surely detracts from the authority of the principal of the school, under whose charge the school is, that any such person—and it may be a member of Parliament, a minister of religion or anybody of this kind—who wants to attend a particular school, must, before he can do so, go right to the Secretary of the department to obtain permission to do so.

Even to visit the school?

Yes, to visit the school. This seems to be a totally unreasonable provision. One would think that in such a case the option should rest with and the decision should be taken by the principal, which is what the effect will be of the amendment that I have moved. We see no reason to exclude a large number of people by making them have to go to the Secretary of the department. We think this should be left to the principal of the school.

Mr. Chairman, I immediately want to reply to the hon. member’s argument, and perhaps I can put his mind at rest, by saying that it is not intended that the Secretary will in every case have to give his permission personally. These powers can, of course, under the regulations be delegated at any time, and it is in fact the intention to empower him to delegate his powers under this clause to such other officials as he may deem fit. This clause was brought into the Bill at the direct request of the principals concerned. The principals of different schools complained to the department on numerous occasions that they had been receiving visits at all hours of the day from all kinds of people, for example insurance agents, who simply demand to be admitted or demand to see a particular teacher in order to discuss certain matters with them. These principals have found that they do not have the authority to stop these people from doing so. The hon. member can accept my assurance that this provision will not be used in any way to make it difficult for bona fide visitors to go to these schools at any time. We do want, at least, the effective discipline which, I regret to say, has been lacking in certain areas.

I would also like the hon. member to bear in mind that we still have double sessions at schools, which means that two different principals are held responsible for the functioning of that school everyday. If one therefore wants an explanation of certain things that have happened at a school, one often finds that the principal shrugs his shoulders and says: “I have no authority in the afternoon session; somebody else allowed this to happen.” I repeat that it is at the special request of the principals of the schools and also the school boards that this clause was inserted and phrased in this way in the Bill.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the principal aim of this legislation is to provide for the density of population to be restored in areas which for several reasons, economic and otherwise, are becoming depopulated. To this end, certain financial measures are being taken which will make it more attractive for farmers to return to those areas or to purchase additional land in those areas. Before the financial benefits spelt out in this Bill can accrue to those people, that area first has to be declared a designated area. That designation must be done by the State President. It must be done because it is in the national interest that those areas should be declared designated areas. Provision is made in clause 3 for the State President to designate those areas. In clause 2, to which I wish to move an amendment which I have already submitted, I have the problem, however, that certain specified areas are excluded. Those areas are, firstly—

I assume that this refers to a Black person—

And secondly—

To me it is inconceivable that the State President would designate areas if it were not absolutely necessary to do so. In his Second Reading speech, as well as in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister said that areas to which particular attention had been paid in this respect were those situated on the northern, eastern and western borders of the Republic of South Africa. In the Bill itself, however, no indication is given of the areas which may be identified as designated areas in the future.

It therefore seems possible to me that in the course of time, other areas which are not border areas may also be declared designated areas. Therefore, to impose such a restriction on the right of the State President to declare an area to be a designated area in the national interest, seems to me to be quite unnecessary. Why is this restriction imposed in terms of this legislation, when it is already quite clearly explained in the Bill on what basis the State President may designate an area? This is the one statement I wish to make.

The second statement I wish to make is that we are accustomed as far as possible to steer clear of race, racial politics, etc., in agricultural legislation. The hon. the Minister himself referred to this during the Second Reading debate. Now I simply cannot understand why it is necessary in this legislation to involve land which is used for agricultural purposes by races other than Whites.

I believe that clause 2, as it is worded at the moment, is unnecessary. Its provisions are too widely phrased and impose unnecessary restrictions on the State President. It is just possible that areas which are presently being used for agricultural purposes by Coloured farmers—or even by Black farmers—may become depopulated for the same reasons to which the hon. the Minister referred, i.e. economic and other reasons. In such a case, the State President might want to declare those areas to be designated areas.

For the reasons I have just explained, I have therefore decided to move the following amendment—

Order! I am afraid I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg, as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to explain that I do not blame the hon. member for Wynberg for moving his amendment, because he has to be consistent in terms of his party’s policy. Therefore he has to move such an amendment or to express the idea that there should not be any difference between the land belonging to Whites and that belonging to Blacks or Coloureds. However, the Government’s policy is that there is land for the White man, land for the Black man and, where this is practicable, land for the Coloured man. His policy is that all land should be divided equally. Under his policy, there is no separation. Unfortunately, I cannot consider such a line of thought I want to thank him for having supported all the other principles, but on this one aspect there will always be a difference of opinion between us. I still maintain that in South Africa, a Venda would like to remain a Venda, a Zulu would like to remain a Zulu and a White would like to remain a White. We shall have to agree to differ about that. That hon. member would like White and Black to live together in Sea Point and I would like the Whites in Sea Point to live apart. We shall just have to go on disagreeing about that. I do not think it is necessary to argue the matter. He says we always steer clear of the question of race in agricultural legislation, but I should prefer to say that we steer clear of politics in agricultural legislation. I hope that the hon. member understands my explanation, therefore, and that it satisfies him.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we are sorry, of course, that our amendment was not acceptable. As for the rest of the Bill, we explained during the Second Reading debate that we are strongly in favour of it. We also said that we had long been concerned about the depopulation of the rural areas and all the economic problems this entails.

This legislation will enable a large number of new young men to enter agriculture, and this is strongly to be recommended. The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he has made approximately R21 million available this year for the application of this new principle in agriculture. However, one would like to know from him how many agricultural units are being made available in this way, and I should also like to hear, in addition to the economic aid which is going to be provided, how he is going to make it possible for those new farmers to farm economically and profitably as well. I am saying this because of the price increases, production costs and the problems we are having with the sale of agricultural products. I assume that the areas referred to will mainly be areas in which cattle-farming is practised, and perhaps maize-farming as well, but especially cattle farming. We know that there is considerable over-production as it is. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would enlarge a little on the aspects I have referred to.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House wish to thank the official Opposition and the other Opposition parties for supporting this good legislation which the hon. the Minister has introduced. I think it would be very difficult at this stage to give a final reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Wynberg. What happens there from time to time will depend on many aspects.

However, I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one other aspect. There is no indication in clause 3 of the legislation of the definite boundaries within which the benefits will apply. However, the reasons are given why farmers will have to receive some encouragement to settle in these areas. The reasons advanced in the legislation are uncertain rainfall, unsatisfactory farming results and other problems. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that in a certain area, the boundaries were 50 km and in another region they were 30 km from the country’s borders. However, I have the specific problem that when one looks at the reasons which have been mentioned and at the map, it may be that because of the topography of the land and the farming circumstances in a certain area, one may not be able to draw a definite boundary in terms of kilometres, but should rather use a map based on the farming practices in a particular region to delimitate an area which may in certain cases be narrower and in other cases even wider than 50 km. Because of this, I want to suggest that the people who investigate the specific delimitation—this is not mentioned in the Bill—should ensure that farmers who have the same farming conditions, apply the same farming practices and whose farms adjoin one another should not find that one is included and the other is excluded. I think this could be a real source of concern to the specific farmers and it could give rise to a certain measure of discontent. I therefore think the delimitation of the boundaries should be more flexible. I mention this aspect to the hon. the Minister so that special attention may be given to it.

I also want to suggest that consideration be given to the possibility of farming with game on a larger scale, specifically in those areas which are designated and which are suitable for this purpose. There are certain specific problems which may arise from this, such as marketing and veterinary problems such as foot and mouth disease. When one considers game farming under those circumstances, the attention that can be given to it, the economics of the matter and the specific amount of meat that can be produced on a given area, it is true that game can yield more meat per morgen than other kinds of stock. I think that special attention and consideration can be given to special aid in this connection.

With these few remarks I want to conclude, except for saying that the legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister can have a very beneficial effect on the country as a whole in that greater density of population can be encouraged. For the farmers who farm in these areas, financial and other aid can be of great value. For this we want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is now at the Third Reading Stage and one is therefore entitled to discuss the consequences that it will have. I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister a problem which the Bill might well bring about in the areas which it is intended to repopulate. At this moment many farms in the areas concerned are unoccupied, and I would have imagined it would have been the intention of the hon. the Minister rather to allow those farms to be purchased and reoccupied by White farmers than, as I imagine is going to happen, to have the farms which are at present occupied by White farmers and which are being farmed either profitably or at least in a marginal way, being bought out before the other farms which are not occupied and which have not been maintained and are, therefore, going to require a considerable amount of effort on the part of any new farmer who takes them over, to get them back into production. I think this is something the hon. the Minister is going to have to guard against. Where it is the intention to put new farmers on land which is idle and vacant at the present time, he will have to see to it that there is not a rush for farms which are currently occupied and in production.

A note has been handed to me to convey, on behalf of our side of the House, our congratulations to the hon. the Minister on his birthday. [Interjections.]

He does not look a day over 40.

I am expecting the usual offer that one gets from the hon. the Minister, viz. either a bottle of KWV or a “slagding”.

However, I do feel that what is intended with this legislation is that farmers who are currently in production should not be encouraged to sell their land to people coming in on this basis. Although I do not suppose it is possible, perhaps there should be a prohibition on them selling their land to people who would come in and make offers on this basis. In addition, it is going to create the problem that, where farmers have left their farms for economic reasons and a new group of people are to be introduced into that area on an advantageous basis, the farmers who are still there and who are today struggling to make a go of their farming projects will be affected. A lot of new people are to be introduced into the area, preferably, we hope, young people, people who will have a great deal of energy and initiative, and these people, in competition with the existing people in that area, will be at an advantage. I know that one can expect that, with an influx of people, there will be much more activity in the area. There will be new business, new schools, etc. Therefore, the general economic scene there should show an uplift. However, it may well create a problem in that, rather than assisting the people who are already there by introducing people who would farm at an advantage, one may well depress the conditions under which the current population, the people who have held out there for a long while, are farming. They may well be placed at a serious disadvantage by this. I mention this to the hon. the Minister, because he may have to take this into consideration. Farmers’ associations and farmers’ organizations in those areas may make representations to him to try to even out their chances in the competition which is going to result between the established farmer and the new man who is entering the area.

For many years I have said that the White farmers are the absolute backbone of White government in the rural areas. I go so far as to say “Mlungu uHulumeni”; Zulu for the White man is the Government. To all practical intents and purposes the White farmer on the land is the stabilizing element in vast stretches of our country. For that reason, we very much welcome the legislation. However, there may well be the two problems which I have mentioned. I hope the hon. the Minister will answer this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for congratulating me on my birthday. The hon. member for Houghton interjected that I was turning 65.

I said you did not look a day older than 65.

The hon. member must remember one thing: I do not want to disclose any secrets, but she and I were both born in 1927. [Interjections.] She and I decided to duco our hair white a little, but that is only to be in fashion today.

*The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the amount of R21 million. I have already said what we envisage. I still have to get this money from the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, I believe we shall get it. He asked me a question about the number of units. If one proceeds from the assumption that one needs R100 000 for one unit, one can work out more or less what one can achieve with R20 million. In the long term we shall need much more money.

He also asked how economic the farming operations were. He asked whether these farms would not produce a product of which there was already an over-supply. In the light of the oil prices which are going to hit the whole of Africa, I foresee that we shall really have to encourage surpluses to be able to feed hungry people. We shall start having a shortage of red meat as the population increases and the pasturage diminishes. I do not think we are going to have a major problem in this connection.

The hon. member for Carletonville summed up these matters quite correctly. We cannot lay down a definite boundary running in a straight line at a distance of 50 km from Botswana or 30 km from Mozambique. That boundary will fluctuate. We must only lay down a guideline. One has to make out a case to be able to get the money. The hon. member for Marico has also drawn my attention to this matter before. One cannot keep to a distance of 50 km if, for practical reasons, it should be 54 km or 30 km, for example. It depends on the kind of farming that is practised. I agree that we should also consider game farming, as long as it causes a specific economic unit to be occupied by the right person, someone who will be able to handle all the agricultural activities.

†The hon. member for Mooi River is perfectly right when he says that there has to be a responsible person on an economic unit. I think he made a mistake when he said that we were going to buy out farmers. If a farmer is at the moment farming on an economic basis and he is not asking the Government for any financial aid, we shall be completely happy to leave him alone.

Can he accept an offer from somebody who wishes to buy him out?

It all depends. If somebody else wants to buy him out, we can assist him in doing so at low interest rates, provided the farm is occupied. On certain farms the farmers are at the moment struggling because of low prices for beef and transport costs, etc. We can assist the man on the land by granting him low interest loans to enable him to stay on the land.

*The hon. member and I understand each other. He also said that we should consult the agricultural unions. We should ask for the opinions of the practical farmers. This proposed legislation still has to be given teeth. It is a new principle which we are going to apply here, with an object about which we are all agreed, including the hon. member for Wynberg, and that is to keep the remote areas populated.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman …

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

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

This amendment seeks to remove certain words from the clause, and its effect will be that the statements which the secretary of every trade union has to submit every year will no longer have to mention the number of members of every race group. If I may borrow an expression from what is a very well-known source these days, I would say that one of the golden threads which has run through our resistance to this Bill is related to the retention by this Bill of racial apartheid within the trade unions. This clause is just one of those that perpetuate this principle. As far as we are concerned, we quite realize that it is necessary for every trade union to submit a statement to the Registrar every year, and that it must contain particulars as to its membership, the number of members it has and, if necessary, their qualifications, abilities and skills as well. It does not seem necessary to us and it is not acceptable to us that heads should be counted on a basis of skin colour. That is what it amounts to. My amendment will therefore have the effect that every secretary will still have to furnish particulars concerning membership, but that he will not have to do so on a racial basis.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown as it is not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It seems to us that the purpose of this clause as a whole is to provide that certain statements have to be submitted every year. The amendment I have moved relates to certain information contained in those statements. We are asking that those statements should be drawn up in a somewhat different form from the one required by the clause. I should therefore be very grateful indeed if you would explain to me why this is not relevant.

Order! I think the greater part of what the hon. member wants to delete is already being deleted by the clause, the part between brackets. Furthermore, it is being proposed that words be omitted which are not before us.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand your explanation correctly, the meaning of the clause which is before us is that the words “White persons and Coloured persons”—the words between brackets—are being deleted and replaced with “each population group”. Where in the past the secretary was forced to say in his statements how many White members and how many Coloured members it had, therefore, he is now being forced to say in his statements how many White, Brown and Black members there are. Therefore it is an extension.

Order! I have given my ruling.

Clause put and the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. J. D. du P. Basson, D. J. Dalling, Dr. Z. J. de Beer, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, J. F. Marais, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

1. (1) On page 12, in line 57, after “be” to insert:
   a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa
2. (2) on page 12, after line 62, to insert:
   1. (d) The registrar of the industrial court shall be a senior official appointed by the Minister by reason of his knowledge of the law relating to labour and of administration, and shall be in charge of the administrative functions of the industrial court.
3. (3) on page 12, after line 62, to insert:
   1. (e) In every instance of a dispute the president shall appoint at least two suitably qualified assessors on a parity basis from the names submitted to him in order of preference by employers’ and employees’ organizations who are parties to such dispute and, in the case of an individual complainant or defendant the presiding officer may, if he deems it necessary, appoint assessors.
4. (4) on page 14, in line 9, after “a” to insert “qualified magistrate as”;
5. (5) on page 14, in lines 29 to 41, to omit subsection (5);
6. (6) on page 20, in line 28, after “or” to insert “shall,”;
7. (7) on page 20, in line 32, to omit “of law”;
8. (8) on page 20, in line 58, after “rules” to insert:

My first amendment relates to page 12 of the Bill. This is completely in line with the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, as accepted by the Government in its White Paper, that the court proposed by the hon. the Minister should be headed by a senior jurist. I want to make it perfectly clear that what we are referring to here is a judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa. That is the first amendment and one can certainly support it As I say, it is completely in line with the report of the Wiehahn Commission and the Government’s White Paper. I hope that the hon. the Minister will not have any difficulty in accepting this particular amendment.

The second amendment refers to the status of the registrar of the court. Here again it is completely in line with the Wiehahn Commission’s recommendation and with that contained in the White Paper, where it is said that the court should have an experienced and competent registrar. We are having this provision because the clause, as it stands, makes no reference to the Registrar of the court. Both the commission and the White Paper emphasize that there should be an experienced registrar.

The third amendment refers to the question of assessors. Again it was suggested in the report and in the White Paper that lay assessors should be appointed in every case referred to an industrial court and not only in arbitration disputes. In this amendment we attempt to give effect to that recommendation. The fourth amendment I moved emphasizes again that the local division of the industrial court should be staffed by suitably qualified people. That is why one also says there should be a qualified magistrate in this respect.

The fifth amendment is one which is consequential to the third amendment I have moved. The sixth amendment is, I believe, important. It provides for the right of appeal to the Appellate Division to be an automatic right when requested by the parties. I believe this is very important. I think it goes to the heart of the whole matter of whether the Appellate Division is brought into line and is allowed to participate. It allows the parties to a dispute to decide whether they want particular matters of law to be referred to the Appellate Division.

My seventh amendment again broadens the ground for the right of appeal to include both matters of fact as well as matters of law, as is usual in other branches of the judiciary. The final amendment I have moved—that is my eighth amendment—provides that whilst the procedure of the court might be informal, the rules of natural justice should nevertheless apply. This is again as recommended by the commission and as accepted in the White Paper. One could quote the references to this, but I want to assure the hon. the Minister—I believe, however, that he is aware of the provisions contained in the Wiehahn Commission’s report, and he ought to be aware of the fact that the Government accepts it in its White Paper—that most of these amendments are directly in line with the recommendations of the report and also with the Government’s acceptances contained in the White Paper. We believe that these amendments ought to be accepted by the Government. We believe they are an improvement on the existing legislation. We believe that they will remove any doubt and will give certainty with regard to the status of the courts concerned. They will also give certainty about the status of the individuals concerned, for example the Registrar, and the fact that the person who presides must be a judge of the Supreme Court. We feel that, in general, they are totally in line with the spirit of the Wiehahn Commission. I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to comply with my request. There are eight amendments. I believe I ought to have a chance of at least a 50% success, should the hon. the Minister be in a good state of mind this evening. I hope he will be reasonable and I also hope he will make a sincere attempt to improve the clause which stands in the Bill at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I am reacting to the amendments which the hon. member for Musgrave moved. His first and fourth amendments—those relating to the chairmanship of the industrial court and the local divisions— will, I believe, contribute towards those appointments being too restrictive as far as the Minister is concerned. The recommendation is that a person should be appointed by reason of his knowledge of labour law. If the first amendment of the hon. member is accepted, it will mean that people who are academically perfectly qualified for this task, will be excluded because they are not at this stage judges of the Supreme Court or, as far as the local divisions are concerned, specifically magistrates. It would also have the effect that a practising senior advocate, for example, would be unable to become chairman of a local division.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, the question occurs to me whether it is really necessary to embody an administrative matter such as this in the proposed legislation. The third amendment of the hon. member also goes too far, in my opinion, in that it places an obligation upon the president of the industrial court to appoint assessors in every case, even for minor, unimportant matters. The fifth amendment of the hon. member is in a certain sense, consequential to the acceptance of his third amendment, but because I have already argued against that amendment, his fifth amendment also falls away as far as I am concerned. I should also just like to point out that the provisions of the proposed section 17(5)(a) and (b) have been taken word for word from the existing legislation with regard to arbitration in matters of that nature.

As far as the sixth and seventh amendments of the hon. member are concerned, it seems to me as if the hon. member is under a slight misapprehension. We are not dealing here with the normal appeal after a finding. This is merely a reference for argument and a decision regarding a question of law, and if the hon. member would look at the proposed subsection (21)(d) he would also notice that the industrial court has to withhold its finding until the Appellate Division has made its finding and has given judgment on the point of law in question. In other words, it is not an appeal which follows on a judgment of the industrial court.

As far as his eighth amendment is concerned, it is a matter of course, in my opinion, that the relevant rules will be drawn up and that they will comply with the requirements he has set.

At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I find myself in the odd position that this amendment is actually consequential to the amendment I moved on clause 10, a clause which will be discussed by this Committee at a later stage. The hon. the Minister did, however, intimate in his Second Reading speech that the amendment was acceptable to him, and the hon. member for Parktown, too, was kind enough to imply during the discussion of the instruction that they would support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if I may start with the last amendment first, I should just like to say that I have no dispute with it. It is simply a consequential amendment.

I now want to refer to five of the amendments of the hon. member for Musgrave. As far as the first one is concerned, I am in a spot of trouble, because I have already had representations from the S.A. Association of Law Societies and they adopt a very firm standpoint on the matter. They say that the profession offers a wide variety of people who will be able to qualify. They regard it as a qualification of the diversity and their argument in fact runs counter to the hon. member’s whole argument. I think we should also be practical. If one were looking for knowledgeable people in this regard, one would be able to go further than only a judge. One would also be able to seek in other ranks than those of judges, and therefore I do not think that one should make the provision so restrictive. One can receive specialized service from a far wider circle of people than only those who are on the bench. Also as a result of the strong standpoint of the Association of Law Societies, which approached me personally about this matter only last week, I am unable to accept the amendment.

In spite of my own viewpoint, in spite of the argument of the hon. member for Randburg and in spite of the fact that the hon. member’s second amendment is a little superfluous—it is not really necessary because, after all, this kind of thing happens with the co-operation of the department and the Department of Justice, because if one wants a good registrar, one appoints him after consultation—I can see that the hon. member’s amendment is not unnecessary. I shall therefore accept his amendment.

I also have to argue with the hon. member about his third amendment by telling him that it can naturally be expected that the president will be acting within his discretionary powers when the interests of groups are at issue. I am afraid I am unable to concede on this point.

The fourth amendment of the hon. member is in fact based on the same kind of argument we had in respect of the chairman of the industrial court. The same kind of thing is applicable there.

As far as the hon. member’s fifth amendment is concerned, I want to tell him that I think that we shall come back to that on a subsequent occasion, because the Wiehahn Commission has not yet published a final report in this regard. I want to tell him, however, that the wording of the Bill has been taken from the Act just as it stands. Therefore, it is not a different wording.

I shall accept the hon. member’s second amendment. With regard to his first amendment, I would prefer to accept the arguments of the Association of Law Societies. I think the hon. member should be pleased that I have accepted at least one of his amendments.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has accepted one out of the five amendments I have proposed. The hon. the Minister has, however, not dealt with three of my amendments. Nevertheless I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for at least accepting my second amendment, the one relating to the status and the appointment of a Registrar of the court. I want to remind the hon. the Minister though that, when it comes to the person who presides over the court— and here I refer to my first and fifth amendments, relating to the magistrate—the Wiehahn Commission report is very clear when it deals with the presiding officers. The commission recommends somebody who is a jurist of senior standing and should have the designation of president of the court.

An advocate is also a jurist.

The hon. the Minister says an advocate also is a jurist. But one thinks immediately in terms of a judge, and I think that if the hon. the Minister cannot accept the amendment in the form it is couched, I hope that, in the spirit in which the amendment is moved, he will realize that one is looking here for somebody who is not merely a sort of lay expert in labour matters, but for a jurist of senior standing. The same would apply to the question of assessors. The commission is very specific on this. In paragraph 4.28.3 on page 50 of its report it recommends that—

Again I hope the hon. the Minister will at least observe the spirit of the recommendation of the Wiehahn Commission in this regard.

On the question of the appeal and the questions raised by the hon. member for Randburg, subsection (21)(a) reads, inter alia, that—

But surely, if this is to make sense, one must allow the parties to the issue also to be able to make the decision to refer the matter to the Appellate Division. That is why I have moved that the word “shall” be inserted so that the industrial court may of its own motion, and in the case of any party who wants the matter referred to the Appellate Division, shall, decide that it be so referred. One would think this would be a reasonable request, even for an investigation or a tribunal of this kind. I still believe this is a reasonable amendment and ought to be considered and accepted.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman or the president of a court obviously has to be a person who is the most suitable person for that office. If one appoints a judge to this office, one is not only raising the status, one is also creating confidence.

†Naturally one would appoint a senior judge if one could. If one cannot obtain the services of a judge who is a specialist in this field, one has to look around for a senior jurist from another walk of life. I therefore think we should accept it in the same spirit it was put and argued by the Wiehahn Commission. The hon. member will know that I am not against it because I do not think a jurist will be available. The point is that one would make use of the services of a jurist if one is available.

*We have already argued the other matter the hon. member raised. I do not want to argue the matter any further with the hon. member, except to tell him that I agree with him in respect of the approach which was adopted and the spirit in which it is being done. One should like to do it in that way, but one simply has to accept that once it is in the hands óf such a court, that court will regard it as a matter of pride to build up its own stature and its own tradition. Therefore I do not think that the hon. member should be of the opinion that the court would not be prepared to act in the same spirit as the spirit in which we intend it.

I am afraid that I am able to accept only one of his amendments. He should be pleased about that, because I did not originally intend to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, it almost sounded as if the hon. the Minister is having second thoughts about the amendment he has accepted. I hope that is not the case.

As a complete non-lawyer I find myself in the odd position of confronting the hon. member for Randburg, who is very much a lawyer, in respect of the issues I am going to mention. The essence of these amendments concerns, firstly, the question whether a certain judicial status should be attached to the president of the court and to the presiding officers of the local divisions of the court, and secondly, the question of appeal. I have grounds to believe that it is in the tradition of the legal profession and a matter of the greatest pride to them that when lawyers are trained, they are able to apply their minds to technical matters, master these technical matters, and by virtue of their legal training come to objective and valid decisions on these matters, in many cases better decisions than those arrived at by experts in special fields. The hon. the Minister has argued that the reason he does not want to commit himself to the appointment of a judge as the president of the court, is that he wants to make sure that he has an expert on labour matters at his disposal.

I prefer a judge.

I accept that. The hon. the Minister would like to obtain the services of an expert on labour matters who is also a judge, but if he cannot get an expert on labour matters who is a judge, he would rather appoint an expert on labour matters who is not a judge. I want to repeat that I am not a lawyer, but I believe it is actually better to appoint a judge who is not an expert on labour matters than the other way around, because of a judge’s ability to absorb arguments, even technical arguments, which are presented to him by two sides and then to make the correct and objective decision thereon. The same applies mutatis mutandis to the question of a magistrate of a branch of the divisional court.

The other question to which I want to refer is the question of the appeal. Of course this will be an expert court. The more the hon. the Minister persists in his attitude that the chairman of the court will not necessarily have to be a judicial or judicially experienced person, all the more it seems to me to be necessary that the hon. the Minister, if he wants there to be confidence in this legislation, should give a right of appeal to any party in a dispute that is heard before the court. That is the effect of the last amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. In terms of this amendment any one of the parties can ask for the right of appeal and obtain it, because the decision as to whether or not they have a right of appeal is not in the hands of the court itself.

I believe that even if the hon. the Minister will not accept the hon. member for Musgrave’s earlier amendments concerning the judge and the magistrate—and I will greatly regret it if he does not accept them—it will be of enormous value if he accepts the last amendment, which is to the effect that any of the parties to a dispute may obtain the right of appeal from the industrial court if it wishes to do so. I use the word “may” in the sense that any party can, if it so wishes, make it mandatory that there is to be an appeal. I really want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think I should just point out one problem to the hon. member for Parktown, a problem which he probably did not understand in the hon. the Minister’s argument, and that is that there is a basic difference between labour matters and labour law. There is a vital difference between an expert in labour relations and one in labour law. I think that is the basic point which the hon. member for Parktown missed in the hon. the Minister’s argument. The hon. the Minister does not want to find someone else if he is unable to obtain a judge with a labour law background, who is an expert in the labour field. The hon. the Minister’s statement is that he should very much like to have a jurist. That is his first choice as prescribed. However, if he could find a jurist who is a judge with a labour law background and who has knowledge of labour law as such, then he would prefer him to someone who is simply a legal expert with a labour law background.

The hon. member for Parktown, who is a big businessman in his own right, will surely agree with me that if we take the science of law, all of us cannot be experts on all branches of law. Perhaps the hon. member himself has occasionally appointed certain people to deal with certain matters on his or his firm’s behalf. If one looks at company law, one will not accept a man who is simply an expert in criminal law to act on one’s behalf in the commercial law sector of the science of law. Therefore I believe that the hon. member, as well as the hon. member who moved the amendment, will agree with me that one would look, in that sector of the science of law, for the greatest expert in that field that could be found.

We are also aware of the fact that labour law is one of the newer sectors of the science of law. It is the case to such an extent that many of our universities do not even yet have labour law as a subject. It is one of the newer branches of our science of law which I believe is going to develop to an increasing extent in future. Therefore I think that the hon. the Minister is quite correct when he says that one should like to make use of a judge to take over this office of president, but that it would then have to be a judge with a labour law background. I want to repeat, however, that such a person is very rare. On the other hand, if one had a senior advocate or some other legal expert with the necessary experience, one would prefer him to someone who was simply a judge, but who did not have that background. Therefore I think the hon. the Minister is correct in rejecting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react again on the last part of the argument advanced by the hon. member for Parktown. It seems to me that he is not reading the proposed subsection (21) properly. It has nothing to do with an appeal against a finding of the industrial court. It deals with an appeal before the industrial court or with any other proceedings of the industrial court in the course of which the court may, of its own accord, or at the request of any party, allow any dispute which deals with the law—I am referring to the concept of “stated case”—to go to the Appellate Division as a special case, simply to give a final decision on such a question of law. Pending the final decision on the question of law, the industrial court reserves its judgment. Consequently this is no appeal against the judgment but it is a final decision on a legal matter and when the case returns to the industrial court, it gives its decision in terms of subsection (21)(b). I think that what the hon. member for Musgrave is envisaging with his amendment, as he motivated it, deals with an appeal against the finding of the industrial court and consequently I do not think these two amendments in any way serve the purpose which the hon. member is envisaging.

Mr. Chairman, I said in my Second Reading speech that we are venturing into a new field with this legislation. This new court which we are introducing, is for the most part going to perform two functions. It will decide on rights and it will decide on interests. The question of interests is being added and is therefore a new factor. If the hon. member understands what our purpose with that is, he will also understand why I am unable to agree to his request and in this regard I also associate myself with the argument which the hon. member for Randburg put forward.

The hon. member also raised a second point and argued very strongly that a judge should be appointed, a man with status, who would also have the knowledge and the necessary judgment. That is, of course, the type of man we are looking for and we shall appoint such a person if we can. There are, however, many people on the South African Bench who reached the highest position on the bench without having previously been judges. In this regard, I am thinking, for example, of Mr. Chief Justice L. C. Steyn. He was not a judge, but had been in the administrative service, from whence we then appointed him Chief Justice of South Africa. He gave excellent decisions from the Bench and all of us have to agree that he was a great Chief Justice. I am mentioning him as an example of a man who was able to fulfil such a unique position and who had not previously been on the Bench. For these reasons I therefore adhere to my standpoints.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart agreed to.

Amendments (3), (4) and (5) moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. W. C. Malan (Randburg) agreed to.

Amendments (6), (7) and (8) moved by Mr. R. A. F. Swart negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, clause 10 of the Bill inserts the new section 21A, which provides that all existing parties to an industrial council will have to agree in writing to any additional party being admitted to the council. In its present form the clause is unacceptable to us. We find it a strange provision. If an additional employer, employers’ organization or registered trade union, has met all the criteria for registration, a single vote can still keep them out of any industrial council. It means that an unanimous decision is necessary to admit them.

In terms of section 27 of the existing Act, there already is the principle that industrial councils shall make decisions by a two-thirds majority. We would think that this should be preferable. In terms of the notice of instruction which the House passed and the proposed amendment on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Randburg, it would indicate that there shall be a right of appeal to the industrial court. This would certainly improve the clause immeasurably as far as we are concerned. However, we believe that it would be better to stick to the idea that a two-thirds majority decision of the industrial council should be binding. I should like to wait until I hear the argument of the hon. member for Randburg before making a final decision on the clause, because although we think his amendment would improve the clause, we are not totally satisfied with it at the moment.

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

This is in accordance with the instruction of the House to this committee. I said on a previous occasion that this removes the opportunity for the obstinate trade union serving on more than one industrial council, to exclude another registered trade union or employers’ organization from the industrial councils out of sheer perverseness..

The amendment by the hon. member for Orange Grove could cause problems. I think we should just take a brief look at the report itself. In paragraph 3.92.2 of the report the possibility is mentioned that industrial councils themselves could include certain provisions in their constitutions, among other things, the right of veto as regards the admission of new parties. The White Paper also deals with it and accepts the idea in principle.

On page 17, paragraph 6.9, the report goes on to point out the danger inherent in this situation. I quote—

Then follows this important part—

I submit—and I want the hon. member for Orange Grove to listen very carefully to this—that if this premise were to be accepted, that an industrial council will in fact be allowed to grant a right of veto to each of its members, there is so much more chance of this unfair labour practice occurring. The proposed section 21(a) is unsatisfactory as it stands. Moreover I have argued to that effect. But together with the amendment, I argue that the matter is made more manageable when it comes to the implementation of these recommendations, particularly in view of the entry of Black trade unions and Black employers’ organizations into the industrial system. I want to make an urgent appeal to the hon. member for Orange Grove to withdraw his amendment in the light of this argument.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Randburg for the explanation. Regrettably I do not agree with his interpretation of the effect of his amendment vide the present situation and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Orange Grove. We have heard the explanation given by the hon. member that he in fact believes that it will facilitate the introduction of additional members. However, it would seem to us in this party that it is preferable to retain the status quo as we have it at the moment in terms of the two-thirds majority which will be required.

I believe that when one is negotiating in the delicate situation which is going to arise after this amending legislation has been promulgated, it is going to be preferable for the two-thirds majority rule to remain in force rather than the new provision as proposed in the Bill, although, obviously if we cannot retain the present situation, we will probably find it possible to support the instruction and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Randburg.

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the hon. member for Randburg—now that he has moved his amendment—we must say at the outset that the clause is immeasurably improved by that amendment. However, we must stick to our viewpoint that it is still not entirely satisfactory. There appears to be a paradoxical situation in the White Paper on the Wiehahn Commission’s report in that the White Paper says—

Then it also refers to recourse to the industrial court if a matter of right is at issue. However, the situation at the moment is that if the admission of a new member is vetoed by every member of an industrial council, in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Randburg, that can be taken on appeal to the industrial court. The industrial court can then decide against the wishes of every member of that industrial council. It can decide against the wishes of every member.

We believe that the status quo is better because it does give the existing members certain rights, with a two-thirds majority, to reject something if they feel it is necessary to do so. We too, as does the hon. member for Durban North, believe that the status quo is preferable to what is envisaged in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Randburg. By voting against this clause we would have the status quo upheld.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this problem can be solved very easily. On the one hand we have a subjective decision, i.e. by the members of the industrial council. On the other hand we have an objective decision. It is certainly always more desirable to listen to the objective decision of the court, even if the court should go against the unanimous decision of the industrial council. For that reason I should like to agree with the hon. member for Randburg when he argues that instead of the unanimous decision by the industrial council, a decision should be given by the court in this regard on a matter which he should be able to consider objectively.

Under those circumstances I, too, together with the hon. member for Randburg, want to call on hon. members opposite to accept this amendment as moved by the hon. member for Randburg.

Mr. Chairman, I agree fully with what the hon. member for Orange Grove has said. We agree that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Randburg improves the situation, but we still believe that the status quo is better.

However, I should like to argue another point. I raised during the second debate—and I hope the hon. the Minister and I will be able to debate this in a more friendly spirit—the indirect effect of the veto on closed shop agreements. Now, the hon. the Minister will know that the Bill is completely silent on the issue of closed shop agreements. However, the Wiehahn Commission made recommendations. The majority recommended in principle that closed shop agreements be continued, but the minority report recommended that they be discontinued. The White Paper, of course, supported the minority report on this issue. However, there is nothing in the Bill on this.

I fear that this veto right is an indirect way of extending closed shop agreements, in direct contrast to what the White Paper itself says that it wants in this regard. If I may put it this way: If there is a veto on a newly registered Black trade union being admitted, it means that all those people who are part of a registered trade union are employees in terms of the new definition contained in this legislation. Now they are voted out by the veto. Surely, that is a way of extending closed-shop agreements.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell me if I am right in this or whether I am merely seeing ghosts as far as this is concerned. In any case, can he tell the Committee whether it is his intention not to promulgate any new closed-shop agreements, and I ask this in view of the White Paper recommendations?

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion we should get away from the concept of “closed-shop”. The correct terminology is really “compulsory membership”. That is actually what it is. I hope we shall use the correct designation in future. I want to concede immediately, however, that the whole question of closed-shop, and everything related to it, is not dealt with exhaustively in this report and is not settled in the proposed legislation. We shall still have to take a careful look at these matters. If we had more time, we could perhaps have investigated them more thoroughly matter to be gone into now. That is not a problem which could be solved with this Bill. Therefore, I do not want to argue about it now. However, we shall take a very careful look at this. I also want to orientate myself much better as regards the possibilities or the malpractices which might or might not result from this measure. Consequently, I do not want to prejudice the situation by expressing an opinion at this point, while knowing full well that we shall have to come back again at sometime in the future and, probably, will have to take another look at this matter by way of legislation. So I cannot take the argument any further with the hon. member at this point, because I do not consider this the right time to do so.

I do not have much to add to what other hon. members have said. In fact I thought I was being accommodating in advance by allowing the hon. member for Randburg to come forward with the instruction. There is one thing, however, which we must understand very well. In the labour situation we are dealing with interested parties who feel very strongly about their situation, and I am referring to both employers and employees. Employees fear any deviation—any union is like that—from an existing situation. Of course, one can encounter willfulness. A single person or agency can keep a new entrant out, and that could be founded on unfairness, but that is not the end of the matter. It can be taken further to a court. A court has then to judge whether that person, agency or party that voted against the entrant, acted fairly or not. That is why the case goes to a court. The case goes to an industrial court, and what does the industrial court do? This is the industrial court which has to develop a system which takes into consideration not only rights, but also interests. In other words, the industrial court has to look after the interests of the groups in order to see whether there are real grounds for fears or not I cannot see how an industrial council, composed perhaps of a dozen or more parties on the one hand against an equal number on the other, tackling one another in such a way in the course of industrial bargaining that there need be any fear of their hurting or prejudicing one another. In practice this simply does not happen. However, we are nt only dealing with the practical situation. We are dealing with a situation that is emotionally highly-charged. We are dealing with people with real fears and for that reason I thought I would be accommodating to both sides. On the one hand I intended to grant the right of appeal to a court so that the courts could look after the interests of people and the protection of those interests by passing judgment on them. The concession to which I refer, is that to the hon. member for Randburg, and I can go no further in my concession to him, other than to say that I accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the majority view of the Wiehahn Commission on the whole question of closed-shops was that the modification of the status quo through the introduction of certain safety measures would prevent the abuse of the closed-shop practice. Now obviously the hon. the Minister at this stage prefers the amendment of the hon. member for Randburg to prevent abuse of the closed-shop practice.

Not in connection with the closed-shop practice, but in connection with the other aspect we have been arguing about, viz. that of not allowing an agreement to be extended or allowing a new party to enter an agreement.

I accept that, but I see very clearly the danger which was posed by the hon. member for Houghton. In the minority report of the Wiehahn Commission it is stated, on page 37 in paragraph 3.103.3—

I see a real danger in the clause that they might attempt to “freeze out” a union of one sort or another. The safeguard, as provided by the hon. member for Randburg in his amendment, enables the industrial court to make the decision, and, as he says, it makes that decision from a dispassionate point of view because it is not involved. It can, therefore, possibly make a fair decision. To a certain extent, however, we would go along with the majority report of the Wiehahn Commission that the establishment should have a certain say in this matter. We do not believe that they can be pushed aside entirely. We believe that this can be achieved through the retention of the requirement of a two-thirds majority. It might be an answer to retain the two-thirds majority, and going from that…

A two-thirds majority with or without an appeal?

A two-thirds majority with an appeal might be better.

[Inaudible.]

Having listened to the arguments of the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Randburg, I have now come to the conclusion it would probably be better to have the requirement of approval by two-thirds, plus the appeal, because then one would have an equitable situation. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to that suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, in any case any party would have access to the court. The court would be this new court which we are going to establish and will be assisted by the National Manpower Commission which will look into the factual situation for the court. So, one will have the double instrument of the court and the commission. The commission could, before the court went into the matter, advise the court on the suitability of the situation and the court could then make its decision. So, I cannot really see how anybody could be prevented from getting a fair deal, as is his right, because there is a …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that, in view of the fact that the union or employers’ organization have had to meet fairly rigid criteria to get registration, those criteria in themselves should be sufficient to ensure that for purposes of registration they are a fit and proper union or employers’ organization?

It is up to any party to go to court to establish his rights, and therefore I think that it is quite a deviation from what we initially intended by introducing this improvement, if I may call it that, enabling anyone to go to court to establish his rights. I am therefore sorry, but I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member. The furthest I can go is to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Randburg. We will have occasion in the future of reviewing the situation if any misunderstanding or mismanagement of the position is detected. We can then always come back to Parliament. I am afraid that I cannot at the outset accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the position he wants to maintain. For two fundamental reasons we feel that the two-thirds majority rule as it stands at the moment is far preferable, with or without the addendum of an appeal, because as the hon. the Minister has rightly pointed out, even if we just retain the status quo, the parties to the dispute in fact do have access to an appeal as well. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that we in the NRP feel that the major objection we have to the clause as it stands at the moment is that it introduces the tyranny of the minority who, with all the consequences flowing from and all the connotations attached to the principle of maintaining a closed shop, can utilize this particular clause to prevent the entry of other trade unions.

It is that fundamental principle to which we object most strongly. The proposed section 21A reads as follows—

Our objection in this respect is that obviously this leaves the very strong possibility that one party to an industrial council can maintain a racially exclusive or a trade union exclusive situation. The interesting question is that if, as the hon. member for Randburg has visualized, an appeal is made to the industrial court, what criteria the court is going to use to overrule the will of the majority of that particular industrial council. I believe that if the one party is successful with an appeal, a legal precedent will be created. If one successful appeal is made, the effect of this clause is going to be nullified. We therefore believe it is preferable to retain the status quo whereby the minority cannot exercise a veto and whereby the industrial court will not be put in the invidious position to have to nullify this clause by its very first favourable decision of appeal.

Mr. Chairman, a situation could arise in which one wilful person could wreck the position of a new party. All the members of the industrial council must achieve unanimity before a new party may be admitted to the council as a new member. If there had been no right of appeal, I would have conceded that we were dealing with a serious situation, but now there is in fact the right of appeal. The hon. member asked me what anyone who avails himself of his right of appeal and goes to the court, is to tell the court and how the court is to come to a decision. In this regard we are breaking new ground. The industrial court will be a court that protects rights and interests. It is not for me or for the hon. member to tell the court how to investigate a case, how it should reason and what its decision should be. We are going to afford this court that we want to establish, every opportunity to look after the interests and rights of parties. I cannot imagine such a court allowing any unfairness. I cannot see how the court could uphold the application of a wilful party, one that could not duly justify itself. For that reason a safety valve has been built into the legislation. If one party should deny membership to another in an unfair way, the aggrieved party will be able to state his case in the court. In other words, provision is made for a remedy and a rectification in cases of wilfulness. That is why we allow a party to appeal.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he envisages that all the parties must reach 100% consensus in the first place?

I want to explain what normally happens when an industrial council meets. An industrial council is a place of negotiation where consensus is usually reached. I do not attend the meetings of the industrial councils, but I receive proposals from the industrial council every day, which I have to approve. The people in my department who deal with these things, tell me that there is such a measure of consensus in an industrial council that it happens very seldom that consensus is not reached in the council. The same principle applies in this case. The hon. member argued that it seemed unreasonable to him that everybody had to agree. Perhaps it would seem more reasonable to him if two-thirds or three-quarters of the members were to agree. I give him full marks for that argument. That is how one should argue.

Do you regard consensus as a good thing?

The principle of negotiation in the industrial council system is that they should come to an agreement. They agree on wages, on working conditions and on quite a number of other things. Once they are satisfied and have come to an agreement, it goes through. They set themselves up in two parties. Usually the employers first reach an agreement. They adopt a standpoint and make an offer. Then the employees come along and tell them whether they accept it or not. That is the way it is normally done. Here, however, we are dealing with something else.

Is this a desirable procedure?

It is traditional. They are usually unanimous on these things. They have to be unanimous, because if they are not, the one who does not stand with his fellows, loses. The employees must be unanimous, because if they do not stand firm, they do not obtain whatever they want to get from their employers. That is why there is usually unanimity. But here we are dealing with something new. This is a question of a new party that seeks admission. It is a brand new party and wants to join for the first time. The party and its circumstances are investigated, and subsequently a decision is taken on whether it can join as a new party. The hon. member maintains that it need not be unanimous. I can understand his arguments, but as I said at the beginning, I can also understand the fear of unfairness. This fear we are trying to allay by saying, if someone is unreasonable: “There is the industrial court; it is easily accessible and cheap. Go and seek justice there.”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister’s explanation that in practice it is usual for the industrial councils to reach consensus, is quite acceptable. I believe it is true. In that sense the hon. the Minister has a good point when he requests us to accept that on the implementation of this legislation, the admission of a new party to an industrial council will require unanimous agreement instead of two-thirds. But the hon. the Minister must also accept that from our point of view it is important that the hon. the Minister and his supporters have a greater interest in looking after the interests of the right-wing unions and not alienating them. We are worried about the possibility that a new union, with every possible qualification for admission, could be refused due to the wilfulness—to use the hon. the Minister’s word—of a single group. I readily concede that the amendment by the hon. member for Randburg is a real improvement on the clause as printed. Consequently we are gratified that the hon. the Minister has accepted that amendment. However, I ask the hon. the Minister for the last time to consider whether he is not creating a potentially dangerous situation in which the admission of a party—let us assume it will be a union, although it could also be a workers’ organization—to that particular industrial council could be voted down and the council could then find that it was being overlooked by the industrial court, which is a Government institution. Could this not create a new danger in the sense that industrial democracy, which the commission and the hon. the Minister, as I understand him, and all of us desire, is being jeopardized by this provision that there must be 100% unanimity instead of two-thirds, which could lead to a decision by the industrial council being reversed by the industrial court, which will have been appointed by the Minister? Is that not a danger? Should we not be better off with a two-thirds majority and a subsequent appeal?

Mr. Chairman, I find it a pity that the hon. member for Parktown has now introduced a new nuance in this debate. For the first time tonight we heard of a right-wing and a left-wing trade union applying for membership. The hon. member for Parktown asked what would happen if a certain trade union applied for representation on an industrial council and the right-wing members of that industrial council vetoed its application. To my mind the hon. member is, to a certain extent, being insensitive in this area, and he should reflect calmly for a while on the matter. When we refer to industrial councils and debate this type of labour matter, we should not refer imprudently to what left-wing trade unions are going to be established or what right-wing trade unions already exist. As far as the field of labour is concerned, the hon. the Minister is in fact seeking to move away from possible leftism or rightism, and pinkness or blackness.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Parktown wondered, inter alia, which hon. members on this side of the House knew anything about trade unions. I want to suggest to the hon. member that when it comes to industrial councils and how matters are dealt with within an industrial council, the hon. member is probably going to find that among hon. members on the Government side there are people who have dealt with more industrial councils and reconciliation boards than the hon. member has counted millions for Oppenheimer.

The hon. member for Durban North tried to suggest that if the industrial court upholds or rejects one of these appeals on a single argument, it is subsequently functus officio. Consequently he argues that such a court then has no further function in such an appeal, since a precedent has then been created …

If it is upheld.

Very well. We accept that it has been upheld. The hon. member argued that a precedent is then created and that the court cannot then try a similar case. But that is not the case in law, for there are various grounds on which the industrial court may consider the case.

In all fairness to the hon. the Minister I believe that if the amendment of the hon. member for Randburg were accepted it would create an opportunity for any applicant, whether an employers’ organization or an employees’ organization, that feels aggrieved to appeal and to ensure that its appeal will come before an impartial—and this is what I have against the argument of the hon. member for Parktown—industrial court. The hon. member cannot argue that it might cause a potentially dangerous political situation, in the sense that such an application could be ignored by the industrial court If he does that he is shooting down the industrial court in advance. He is then saying in anticipation to the employees and employers of South Africa: You cannot look for objectivity from the industrial court. I do not think that that is what the hon. member meant, but in essence that is what he said, for the gist of his argument was: Here is something which constitutes a potential danger, for the applicant may feel that the merits of his case have been overlooked by the court I do not think that that is the idea in regard to an industrial court Consequently I think that we should content ourselves with accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Randburg.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react very briefly to hon. members’ arguments. I find it very interesting that the hon. Opposition, who have submitted a plan to the nation for Government by consensus and minority veto, opposes this idea. They do not like consensus or a minority veto at all tonight. The other part of the argument has also been raised here tonight, viz. that the party which is refused admission to the industrial council could appeal to the industrial court against the decision relating to the whole industrial council set-up and of all his members so that such a party could still be admitted. Surely this is not correct. Surely this court should exercise the discretion on equitable grounds in considering that application.

I believe hon. members on that side of the House should call the hon. member for Johannesburg North to their assistance. These matters are his forte. In matters of this kind the court really has to apply its mind to the whole issue. It has to gather evidence. It will be very difficult to uphold its decision if it has to be revised and if that decision has been taken against the whole feeling of that industrial council. I believe hon. members are unduly concerned. I am convinced that for the moment the dispensation is by far the best we can get.

What about the two-thirds majority?

The two-thirds majority cannot be successful. We have spoken about the minority veto. The hon. member has just said that there should be 34% to handle a minority veto. That is a large group. This could lead to people who are already in, being kicked out. This is a very sensitive area which we are venturing into. I believe we should go ahead with this and see how it works. The recommendations, as accepted in the White Paper, are that this should be looked at carefully, that proper action should be taken. The Government will not hesitate to take action if it should see that these measures are being abused. I believe we can accept the matter as it stands at present.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randburg has just delivered a punch which one has seen coming for a very long time. He is perfectly correct to say that this party has committed itself to the idea of consensus in government. Whether consensus in government is the same thing as the consensus in an industrial council is a matter we could argue at length. However, I shall leave it there.

What the hon. member knows very well— we have all been flattered by the close attention he has given to our constitutional proposals—is that when we speak of consensus we do not speak of a 100% consensus. He is also right to say that we do not speak of a two-third consensus. We speak of something about halfway in between these two. The odds between him and me are about even if we are going to try to draw parallels between what this party has said about constitutional policy in the national field and what we have said here tonight.

My real reason for making this speech is not so much to have the enjoyment of replying to the hon. member for Randburg as to say something which I think needs to be said in reply to the hon. member for Pretoria East. It certainly was no part of my intention or need or I should have hoped of the meaning of what I said, to cast the slightest reflection upon the proposed industrial court. On the contrary, I have said throughout this debate that there are two features of this legislation which we can happily welcome and support in principle. These are the Manpower Commission and the industrial court. What I have said is that if one deliberately creates a situation in which one party to an industrial council has the right to veto the admission of another party—no matter how well-qualified —and one then refers to the matter to an industrial court which promptly reverses that decision and finds against the vetoing party, that vetoing party is likely to believe that it has been ill-treated in some sort of political way. I am not for a moment suggesting that the court will act politically. That is not the case. It would in fact be the party to the industrial council that would have acted politically in the example I have given. The court would have acted objectively. Why give to one politically motivated party on an industrial council the opportunity to believe and to argue that it is being victimized by the industrial court, thereby bringing the industrial court into dispute in a way that was not necessary.

That is what I intended to say. I thought that it could possibly put the record straight.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for Parktown whether in terms of his broader policy he accepts a 10 to 15% minority veto as being an effective veto?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, in this clause we again have to deal with the same principle as in clause 10. Section 27 of the Act sets down the procedures to be adopted in the industrial council when a decision is taken by vote. Normally a two-thirds majority would be enough to have a decision either way. In terms of this clause, however, one would need a unanimous decision when it comes to a dispute concerning an “alleged” unfair practice. Firstly one has to realize that an unfair practice means any labour practice which is considered to be unfair by the industrial court. I am also interested, however, in the use of the word “alleged” unfair practice, because this in itself constitutes a difficulty as far as procedure is concerned. If, in the workings of an industrial council, an allegation is made about an unfair labour practice, in terms of this amendment the industrial council would vote on it and, if there were a unanimous decision, action would be taken either way. At that stage, however, one is only dealing with an allegation which would have to be considered, in the fullness of time, by the industrial court itself to decide whether, in fact, it was an unfair practice. As I have said, the principle is the same as that in the last clause in the sense that a unanimous decision is necessary and there can be a veto of one. We regard this as undesirable. We believe that even in the case of unfair labour practices— and I have not yet quite been able to grasp why there should be a difference between this and a normal decision by an industrial council —the two-thirds principle should apply and that it would be fair for it to apply. If one continues with a principle that in the absence of a unanimous vote a decision cannot be made, one is in fact depriving a good percentage of the industrial council’s members of a say if the decision is subsequently changed on appeal to the industrial court. I would therefore suggest to the hon. the Minister that there would most certainly be procedural difficulties in the operations of industrial councils if this amendment is accepted. Again we believe that the two-thirds majority principle is desirable. In that respect we should like to see the status quo maintained, and we shall accordingly vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, we shall vote against this clause. I do not want to reiterate the whole argument about the question of a two-thirds majority. What I want to do is point out a practical difficulty which the hon. the Minister and the industrial council are going to have if this clause goes through as it stands at the moment. One of the aggrieved parties may possibly be one of the employer parties in the industrial council. The alleged unfair practice is reported to the council, an unfair practice involving the specific employer on the council who is party to the discussions and the decision-making of the industrial council. The clause, as it stands at present, states that it will be necessary for unanimity to be achieved. However, when one of the aggrieved parties is party to the dispute, I do not think it is practical to expect unanimity to be reached. If the person being accused of the alleged malpractice has to vote with the parties who are accusing him, how can one hope that in such an effort at consensus, if one can call it that, the aggrieved party, who is defending himself against the other parties in the industrial council, will vote with them on the particular issue?

That is the major part of our objection to this particular clause, since in practice, because we are changing the position where at the moment a two-thirds majority is required, to a situation where all the parties concerned have to agree to the particular action, one of those parties is likely to be the aggrieved party that is defending its action before a particular industrial council. We do not think it is practical to expect that particular party to vote with the people who are accusing it of malpractice.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Durban North might have overlooked one aspect, which is that we are specifically concerned here with a sui generis case. We are concerned specifically with only three examples in the entire Industrial Conciliation Act. Section 43 of this Act is the so-called order section. If the hon. member had looked at that section, he would have seen that subsections (l)(a) and (b) contain the present two cases in terms of which the Minister may make a status quo order. Now a third case is being added to that section, and only in those three cases may the Minister make, and does the Minister have the discretion to make a status quo order. Consequently one cannot read clause 11 without automatically taking clause 14 into consideration, because clause 14 is consequential upon clause 11. Clause 11 is the initial clause which deals with the elementary control within the industry or the undertaking. This means that in clause 11 provision is being made for a dispute or a labour malpractice to be referred to the industrial council or a conciliation board. However, it is not all that simple, for what happens in practice? In practice such a matter, in the case of Whites, Coloureds or Asiatics, would be referred to the personnel advisory committee, or to a works or liaison committee in the case of Black people, if such organizations exist. When no decisive ruling is given, the matter is referred either to an industrial council, or application is made for a conciliation board to deal with the matter. In such a case the machinery works in the following way. Application is made in terms of the provisions of section 35, and together with this application a second application is made in terms of section 43, so that while this labour malpractice is before the industrial council or conciliation board, the Minister may make an order reinstating and maintaining the status quo.

Consequently it is important that when this dispute is dealt with by the industrial council or the conciliation board, there will be total parity in the outcome of this case, in other words that there will be full agreement between the various parties, otherwise the application of clause 14, which we shall discuss soon, automatically follows, and the matter is referred to compulsory arbitration.

Therefore I do not think there is any reason for us to deviate from full parity and full consensus in this case, and I think that the hon. member, who is a logical and reasonable person, might not have read far enough before he moved his amendment. I believe we ought to accept the clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, it is á question of how one feels about the matter. What is the position in practice? When an industrial council meets to deal with a wage dispute or whatever, the provision applies that a decision on the matter is to be taken by the majority of the representatives. However, one can imagine what would happen around a table when the parties meet to deal with a dispute regarding an unfair labour practice. In a case like that, the requirement of a two-third majority, or a 66% majority, is actually absurd, because the industrial council consists of 50% employers and 50% employees. So it might happen that the two parties would either be in complete agreement or in direct confrontation with each other. If the requirement regarding the 66% majority were to apply, it would mean that only 16% of the employees would have to agree with the employers in order to have a resolution carried. In other words, a majority of the employees will, in that case, agree with a majority of the employers. Once one starts arguing in this fashion, one will not arrive at an absolute conclusion. However, this is not the most important aspect we have to bear in mind. An important fact I want to point out, is that if any of the parties were to feel aggrieved or inconvenienced and were to think that his rights had been prejudiced, he could go to the industrial court at once. Any aggrieved party, can go to the industrial court at any time to put his case and to have his rights confirmed. If we find in future that this new dispensation does not work out in practice as we now think it will, we can change it, but at this stage I do not see any reason for doing so. Consequently I am unable to accept the amendment.

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

The amendment is self-explanatory. We are dealing here with an amendment to section 46 of the principal Act which applies to compulsory arbitration proceedings. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that arbitration in regard to matters relating to industrial disputes is kept within the scope of the court’s special division. The purpose is clearly to keep the distinction between conflicts of rights and conflicts of interests clear and to separate these functions within the court I believe it is a reasonable amendment and that, following the hon. the Minister’s earlier attitude in regard to a number of amendments which I submitted, he should have no difficulty in accepting this amendment as an improvement on the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, was correct in saying that this is a small amendment, but that it has a far-reaching effect on the Bill as such. I have a great deal of sympathy for this amendment, for I myself made a plea in the Second Reading debate for the retention of the existing industrial tribunal, even if it is only in the form of a special division. Tonight I also want to avail myself of the opportunity to ask the hon. the Minister, if there is any possibility of this being done, whether one cannot retain these people who have since 1956 been doing pioneering work, so as to make use of their knowledge within the labour/industrial court sphere. I would be very pleased if this could be done, because these are for the most part people who have built up their own body of precedents, although juridically it might not be seen in this way.

I suggest to the hon. member that we cannot, on the one hand, create an industrial court with its own president on a centralized national basis and allow him, in terms of section 17 of the Act, to create his own divisions, whether provincial or otherwise and still allow him to create a special division, other than the provincial or other divisions, and then deprive that president of the court of his discretion by saying that if there is a certain case in Cape Town, the president of the industrial court may refer it to the Cape division of the court, but if it deals with a labour malpractice—in other words a dispute in terms of section 46—then the case cannot be referred to the Cape division of the industrial court; then it must of necessity be referred to the special division.

Consequently I think that this is one of the most important aspects of this measure, for now we have an extension of compulsory arbitration, in terms of the provisions of section 46, as against voluntary arbitration in terms of the provisions of section 45. Consequently I think that it should be left to the discretion of the president, the leader of this court, so that he may at his own discretion and on the basis of the circumstances of the case, refer the case to a division of the court, to the full court or to the special division.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have an interpretation problem here, because I can do no more than to say that a subdivision of a court is a court itself. The court can take decisions on its subdivisions and consequently a subdivision is in fact a court. I do not want to argue about this; this is how I see the matter. I do not believe there is any doubt about the matter on this side of the House. Now one might argue that if this was the case, why could one not effect a small change? In this regard, however, I have nothing to add to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria East as it suffices. That is my standpoint.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I regret to have to say it, but we on this side of the House do not really like this clause. The clause concerns the so-called “check-off facility” which can be a very important mechanism in the practical relations between employers and employees. I know that it is not the practice at the moment that unregistered trade unions and other organizations of workers that do not fall within the purview of the industrial council machinery as it exists at present, can be granted check-off facilities by employers. Nevertheless there is a provision in the Act to the effect that the hon. the Minister may permit it if he so wishes. But now we find that what we have here, as part of a measure which, in general, seeks to liberalize and grant more rights to Black workers than the Act has afforded them in the past, is a provision to the effect that check-off facilities may not be granted under any circumstances to anyone who is not an employee under the Act, viz. anyone who is not a member of a registered trade union. This narrows still further the possibilities which have existed up to now and does so at a stage at which there is a danger, as we stressed at an earlier stage of the debate, that members of existing—but unregistered— trade unions will find themselves in a still weaker position due to the fact that those of their members who possess section 10 qualifications may leave them to be able to register, as a result of which the position of the remaining workers who now, due to no fault or weakness of their own, are not eligible for registration, is weakened still further. It is for these reasons that we oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, in this legislation we are providing that everyone can now belong to trade unions. By that I mean members of all population groups.

Certain members of trade unions …

Wait a moment. I have given the undertaking that in the case of certain sections or groups of workers, for example the commuters, we shall try to make provision as soon as possible. However we cannot have two systems. I must tell hon. members at this point that I am by no means in favour of moneys being deducted from non-registered members, of members who do not belong to trade unions.

Mr. Chairman, we should very much have liked to agree with the hon. the Minister. If he accepts the recommendations of his commission and permits every permanent worker within the accepted meaning of those words to belong to trade unions, we should have no objections whatsoever. Naturally one would very much like to see that if every permanent worker has the right to be a member of a trade union, he should have check-off facilities. If that were the case we would have seen our way clear to accepting a provision such as this. But now we again come to an argument which came to the fore in the course of the debate. We are now being asked to accept the hon. the Minister’s word that this Bill means something other than its contents. I am sorry, but we adopt our standpoint on the basis of the contents of the Bill. It is on this basis that we do not like this clause.

Mr. Chairman, having tried to listen carefully to what the hon. member for Parktown said, I find it difficult to understand that they are seeking to delete this specific clause on the basis of the Bill. In my opinion it is of cardinal importance that this very clause, concerning exemptions from Industrial Council agreements, be accepted, particularly if we take into account the fact that there are about 30 different trade unions with more than 70 000 employees eligible for registration. Moreover, the benefits these employees will enjoy when they have themselves registered as members of a trade union ought also to be taken into account, so that eventually employers will be able to apply for trade union fees to be deducted from the wages of these specific workers.

This clause is specifically aimed at preventing a whole series of unregistered trade unions coming into being without it being possible to exercise any control over them, trade unions which can be infiltrated by influences from all kinds of sources and all kinds of pressure groups, as the hon. the Minister and certain members have rightly remarked. Surely this is a situation that could create tremendous problems in the labour market! For the employer, too, it is so much more advantageous to negotiate with a responsible juristic person—a trade union will be a juristic person—rather than with a nonregistered, non-official trade union with its own regulations and membership fees, things which will be illegal in terms of this clause.

It is also important that such a trade union, with its members, should undergo specific selection processes by way of pre-registration before eventually being registered. It is also of the utmost importance that we take note of the ideal that we are striving to achieve in terms of clause 16 and which is also, as it were, embodied in the legislation as a whole. It is therefore of importance that we should regard clause 16 in this light. Is it not the ideal to combine as many fully skilled workers as possible in separate associated trade unions, trade unions in which all will enjoy guarantees of security in terms of the legislation? Can they not exercise their rights and privileges in this way? If, perhaps, dissatisfaction occurs over the long term concerning one or other matter, then surely they can achieve consensus by way of the industrial council or the industrial court with regard to this specific problem. I do of course also want to point out to the hon. member for Parktown that it is, after all, the practice that membership fees may be deducted by the trade unions from the remuneration of their members. It is also the practice that this is done by way of regulation, to be precise, by way of collective negotiation. The individual worker must grant his permission for this. He does so in writing and may accordingly withdraw that permission in writing as well. The reason I also maintained earlier that it is of cardinal importance that we accept this clause is that it is also provided that postponement is not granted to employers with regard to deductions of membership fees from the wages of Black people for trade union associations.

Then, too, exemption is not granted to the employers by the industrial council to deduct membership fees for unregistered trade unions. I am therefore unable to associate myself with the attitude adopted by the hon. member in wanting this clause to be deleted. As far as I am concerned, this specific clause is one of the cardinal clauses of the Bill.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, this takes us back a very long way indeed. I am interested to see that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is in the House this evening. He will remember, as will the hon. members for Musgrave and Parktown, the long arguments that took place in this House some 23 years ago, when section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act was introduced.

Yes, and he was very convincing in those days.

Your memory is failing you. It was 24 years ago.

Well, then that hon. Minister made some of the best speeches of his career. [Interjections.] Those of us who were in the House then supported him as best we could, and indeed I played a very active part in that debate myself, as the hon. the Minister will recall. [Interjections.] All the arguments we used in those days were to be of no avail, and for 23 years South Africa has had on its Statute Books the power given to the Minister of Labour to enforce work reservation, to reserve certain jobs for certain races.

Now, I have to say at once that section 77 was by no means the first job reservation measure South Africa had known. Before that, of course, we had the Mines and Works Act, of 1911, as amended, and we had also had the Building Workers Act, which was a statutory job reservation measure. However, the extension of this principle over the entire spectrum of secondary industry was, of course, a very important and, we believe, a very unfortunate part of South Africa’s industrial history.

Clause 17 of this Bill—the clause now under discussion—carries out very fairly the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission’s report. That I have to concede right away. The Wiehahn Commission report analyses the whole principle of job reservation. It states that job reservation is no longer required because, and I quote from paragraph 3.127, on page 41 of the report—

Now, all those were, of course, things that we predicted way back in 1956. We said it was unnecessary to give White workers this additional protection. We were perfectly sure that they were able to stand on their own feet, that their own skills would protect them if the rate for the job was observed. However, notwithstanding that, the job reservation clause was introduced, and it was, as the Wiehahn Commission tells us, extended to some 28 occupations in South Africa. I quote from the report again, this time from paragraph 3.128—

Those were the 25 which still remained at that date—

Apart from all the reservations still contained in the Mines and Works Act and in the building industry, there are also the other three to which I have referred in quoting. The Wiehahn Commission points out very clearly that the original objective of job reservation in industry was to prevent friction among the different population groups. In paragraph 3.129.1 it says quite categorically that—

That means the category of workers capable of being trained, but being prevented from being trained at a time when South Africa most desperately needs to have more trained workers. The report also points out that this is fundamentally in conflict with the basic principles of the free enterprise system.

All these are absolutely valid arguments. They are the arguments we advanced way back in 1956, arguments which were rejected at the time by the then Minister of Labour. Mr. Chairman, it is for these reasons that I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

It is with this amendment that I move for the removal of the remaining five job reservations. The clause, as it stands, repeals section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act but retains the existing five job reservations. I must admit that I cannot understand this in view of the arguments that the Wiehahn Commission advances about how the job reservation provision has failed in its original objective. On page 41 the report states that it was and is extremely injurious to race relations in this country. It goes on to point out that it continues to do tremendous harm to South Africa’s international image, that it inhibits mobility in the industrial sector and, in view of the growing unemployment amongst Blacks, especially educated Blacks, is harmful to our industrial development. With all those arguments advanced by the Wiehahn Commission, I cannot understand why it still recommends that the five remaining job reservations be retained although it does say, of course, that the process of phasing out the remaining determinations should take place in the shortest possible time. We think that the shortest possible time is right now. We think that we should amend this clause and repeal job reservation entirely, but not only as far as the actual enabling provision is concerned, i.e. section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act. We think that we should also repeal the five remaining job reservations which have such an inhibiting influence on industrial development and which are so injurious to race relations in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, after an intensive investigation the Wiehahn Commission found that section 77 had fallen into disuse, in other words that section 77 was no longer applicable in regard to certain categories of employment. Clause 17(2) now provides that certain determinations under the mentioned section 77 must still be retained. What does this indicate? It indicates that in its day, section 77 met certain needs and provided the degree of protection required by White workers in industry. However, what happened then? There were 25 determinations which were investigated by the industrial court to find whether they were still serviceable. After the industrial court had made the recommendations, the hon. the Minister repealed 18 of them and suspended two which were no longer applicable. Five still remain. Accordingly, it is very interesting to read on page 42 of the Wiehahn Report why the remaining five determinations are to be retained. I should very much like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Houghton to this. I quote from paragraph 3.139—

What about the last paragraph?

What has changed the situation? The hon. member is making a big mistake if she thinks that apart from section 77 there has never been work reservation. There has in fact been work reservation but at the industrial level, viz. by way of negotiation between employer and employee, with, of course, the necessary legal sanctions granted in this regard. In other words, an administrative form of work reservation did in fact take place. However, what is the position of these specific workers in this regard? The practical problem with regard to the people who take samples and who work with ventilation is that they only comprise a small subsection of one employees’ organization, and have no bargaining power.

We are not now referring to old determinations that have lapsed, but determinations made a few years ago which still apply in practice. If provision is not made in subsection (2) for the retention of these determinations, the security of these people will be affected. In terms of the fundamental principle that there must be consultation and recognition of people’s rights, these people possess an established right under section 77, and we would not be justified in repealing the entire section 77. If the entire section 77 were to be repealed, it would mean in practice that these people would have to establish a separate trade union. They would then have to go through the whole process and run the risk of not being granted recognition. In the process they could lose their established right. Consequently we most certainly cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is necessary for me to explain the NRP’s attitude towards the amendment which the hon. member for Houghton has proposed. Firstly, I want to say that one of the most important aspects of this entire Bill is the proposed repeal of section 77, which means that, as the clause stands at the moment, no new determinations can be declared and job reservation will be entirely removed from the Statute Book. We believe that this is something which is desirable and something which South Africa has been waiting for for a long time. One of the most positive aspects of this whole amending legislation is in fact the proposed repeal of section 77.

I am, however, afraid that we cannot support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. There are quite a number of fundamental reasons for this. Firstly, as I said in my Second Reading speech, our attitude is that, as a top priority, we must maintain industrial peace while we are bringing about evolutionary change in South Africa. I believe that the immediate withdrawal of all five determinations which are still in force will result in industrial unrest, which will then remove the opportunity for the creation of goodwill by negotiation between the employer and the employee organizations. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the effect of this clause as it stands at the moment is that, by mutual negotiation and agreement, the employer and the employee organizations can decide to do away with the determination. In other words, the effect of the determination can be cancelled by agreement and consensus between the parties concerned. We believe that, in the interests of industrial peace as at the moment, it is necessary that the parties concerned should have the opportunity, by free and voluntary association agreements, to actually get rid of the determinations that still affect the industry. Here, in particular, we have in mind the mining industry. I do not go along with all the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Bethal, but that, certainly, is a highly sensitive area in which it is unwise to precipitate industrial unrest by being provocative by repealing these particular determinations.

I can agree with the sentiments of the hon. member for Houghton, but our top priority at the moment is not to be provocative by getting rid of this job reservation on a unilateral basis. I believe it is up to the parties concerned, the employer and employee organizations, to get together to solve this particular problem in a peaceful manner. Therefore, unfortunately, we are unable to support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton to this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North has said that people must not be provocative and must try to preserve industrial peace. To whom does he refer? What about the people in South Africa who are provoked by a provision of this kind? The people who are provoked are those who have been excluded by the five determinations that we are dealing with, namely the Black people of South Africa. If one takes into account the spirit of the Wiehahn Commission’s report and one looks at the comments they have made in regard to the general principle of job reservation in South Africa, one sees that they have been very specific. I quote paragraph 3.129.2—

The hon. member for Houghton has reminded us that the determinations proved very difficult to police adequately. I also quote paragraph 3.129.5—

What we are trying to have is a strange and inadequate compromise. On the one hand clause 17(1) repeals section 77 and on the other hand these five determinations are retained. I see this as being nothing else than a concession to prejudice and race discrimination in the labour field. That is what it is. One is putting off the day, because in respect of these five areas in which a determination exists, one is conceding that the provisions concerning job reservation are allowed to be applied, despite all the harm this has done to South Africa. So, to talk in terms of not being provocative, is quite nonsensical and quite beyond the realities of the situation. The retention of these provisions is in itself provoking all the worst things which can exist in the labour field. I therefore believe that clause 17(1) has to be removed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Houghton quote very selectively from the report of the Wiehahn Commission. The hon. member for Houghton said to the hon. member for Bethal by way of an interjection that he should also read the last paragraph. But the hon. member for Bethal only omitted to quote the following section of paragraph 3.139—

Surely this supports his argument. The hon. member must not maintain now that this side of the House is concealing things to the detriment of the Government’s case. I take in pleasure in supporting the argument by the hon. member for Durban North that we must try to get away from these determinations in this regard but should do so in accordance with the method prescribed by the commission. Our argument here is about the process and not about the end purpose. If hon. members would only realize that this is the only real way in which we can achieve our aim and maintain industrial peace, they will indeed also support it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randburg has suggested that we quote the report of the Wiehahn Commission selectively. I want to select another paragraph which to my mind is unanswerable, namely paragraph 3.136, which reads as follows—

I think the hon. member for Randburg is quite right when he says it is a matter of timing and application we are talking about and that we are arguing towards the same end, which is getting rid of job reservation. What we in these benches are stressing is that we believe a tremendous amount of harm is being done day by day by the retention of job reservation. The sooner we can get away from this conflict situation which exists in industry in South Africa, the better. Paragraph 3.137 deals with a variety of ways in which action can be taken to facilitate the total scrapping of job reservation almost immediately. I quote paragraph 3.138—

There are 11 of them—

It is a question of emphasis. With this I am in total agreement, but we are absolutely convinced that one has to be bold about this and one has to be courageous about this.

Not reckless.

Not reckless at all— and this is not being reckless. As the hon. member for Durban North suggests that this might be reckless, I suggest that he reads paragraph 3.136. I believe that in fact we are being reckless by retaining any form of job reservation on our Statute Book because by doing so we are doing immeasurable damage to South Africa’s name overseas and to South Africa’s reputation and industrial well-being here at home.

Mr. Chairman, the Bible says that the sting of sin is the law. I feel that in this situation the strength of the job reservation provisions has always been their entrenchment in the law. The clause, as I understand it, is to repeal the law, the statutory provision, which has done so much harm to our name overseas. However, with negotiation taking place between employers and employees without it being affected by the strength of the law, I believe this restores matters to the normal condition of the market place where real negotiation can take place, where real bargaining can take place and where one can arrive at an equitable solution to a problem and a real means of getting away from the provisions of job reservation which remain. I cannot see that it is in any way detrimental to the interests of the workers in these industries that there should be a genuine negotiating procedure set in motion which can take care of the problem and which, I believe, can achieve something which both the workers desire and the employers desire. I whole heartedly agree with the hon. member for Durban North when he says that one simply cannot jump in at the deep end in regard to a situation like this. The process must go through some channel, and the channel which was established in terms of the section which is now being repealed, has now fallen away. But there is another channel, and that is the channel of normal negotiating procedures. In this channel of normal negotiating procedures the strength on the side of both the employers and the employees will result in their coming to a reasonable solution. That is why we are not supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. We want to see the normal process of the free market…

Then you must vote for the repeal of the entire section.

Well, I am trying to say something, but I am being interrupted. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton goes on interjecting all the time.

Order!

I am trying to explain to the hon. member why we are not supporting her amendment, but I get a continual diatribe from that side which really and truly has no point and achieves nothing. However, I think that I have made my point, which is that we believe that the normal process of the market place is something which will decide this matter far more reasonably. Therefore I believe we are perfectly justified in not supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, I can well understand why the hon. member for Mooi River becomes despondent about the conduct of the hon. member for Houghton, who wastes his time at this late hour by trying to chip in with a weak contribution. When we look at this clause we cannot get away from the fact that the hon. the Minister has on a number of occasions given certain undertakings, including undertakings to the Confederation of Labour and various other employers’ organizations, and to the employees. This legislation is not of a revolutionary nature. It is based on a sober, realistic evaluation of the labour situation—in the widest sense of the word—in our country. It is therefore designed to achieve labour peace and affords worker protection to every employee, irrespective of the work he does. That is why the two key words are “consensus” and “bargaining”. I should therefore like to request the hon. members of the PFP to allow themselves to be guided by the spirit of the Bill and not the spirit of money as is at present the case. I certainly cannot support the standpoint which the hon. member for Houghton has just adopted.

Mr. Chairman, it is really quite astounding how a number of hon. members, and perhaps particularly the hon. member for Mooi River, seem to have put the cart before the horse. Hon. members have said over and over again that this matter should be left to be negotiated between the employers and the employees. However, the position is precisely that, as long as these five reservations are left on the Statute Book, there is nothing the employers and employees can do by way of negotiations in terms of these five reservations. [Interjections.] The existence of a job reservation determination means precisely that. It means one cannot negotiate away the reservation of the work and the protection of the worker in the hands of the White workers. This is precisely what we are concerned about. If one were to repeal these five determinations tonight, it would not mean that Black men would have the White men’s jobs in the morning; it would mean that negotiations could start in the morning. [Interjections.] What is being done here is that section 77 is being taken out of the Act and, certainly, that is a good thing and everybody welcomes it. However, the Government is in fact saying that section 77 is to be repealed except for this little bit of it, and because of that it will be just as though section 77 had never been repealed. [Interjections.] There is, in other words, no way in which employer and employee can negotiate between them … [Interjections.] What do hon. members think has happened in all the other cases where Black advancement has occurred in situations where there was no job reservation determination applicable? In all those cases there has been negotiation in the industrial council or in some other way where there was no industrial council, between employer and employee. Gradually some progress has been made in this way. That is the situation that can occur where there is no job reservation.

Job reservation is put there precisely to prevent negotiation between employers and employees, negotiation leading to Black advancement into what were formerly White jobs. What hon. members are voting for here is not for a situation where gradual democratic change can take place, but precisely for a situation where it cannot take place. That is why the hon. member for Houghton has moved her amendment and why we support it.

Mr. Chairman, I have two minutes at my disposal. To dispose of this point may I just say that it is not correct to say job reservation did not serve a good purpose in the past. There was a time in the past when it did in fact serve a good purpose. Secondly, it is not correct to say that over the years, and particularly in recent times, job reservation has only done harm. It is true to say that a great deal of harm has been done, arising out of the determination of job reservation in South Africa, because we said that we wanted to protect our people in a specific way. However a far worse form of reservation than in South Africa is to be found in the outside world.

I do not have any more time to argue, and to conclude I just want to say that the reason why we are not summarily dispensing with the next five restrictions is that I gave my word of honour to the workers of South Africa that I would consult them in the matter. I am not going to break that promise. That is why I say that when we dispense with these restrictions, we shall offer them something better. As regards the five restrictions which remain, I shall consult them before doing away with them. That is the honourable thing to do and we are going to do it.