Mr. Chairman, under the Department of Agriculture there is one problem with regard to the Western Cape which I would very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, a problem which specifically relates to this area and which is so important from a social point of view that I should very much like the hon. the Minister to give attention to it. I have previously, on similar occasions, referred to the problem of Black workers in the Western Cape who come and work here in terms of 12 months contract periods. Now, the position is that during the full period of one year in which those Black workers are employed in the Western Cape, they are not allowed to bring their wives with them. It could of course be argued that the Western Cape is exclusively a preferential area for Coloured labour and that Black people who come and work here, have to accept the condition that during the period in which they are employed here, they may not bring their wives with them. The truth is that this system creates problems for Black contract workers in the Western Cape. I do not wish to go into detail with regard to the type of problem this creates for them, but hon. members will realize that since several thousands of such Black workers come to the Western Cape—people who are in all respects only human, after all—they also create certain problems for the Coloured population in the Western Cape, social problems which could be eliminated if arrangements could be made for Black contract workers to bring their wives along with them for a reasonable period—even though it need not be for the full period of one year. [Interjections.]

On what Vote are you speaking now?

I am referring to Black workers in the agricultural sector … [Interjections.] … who come to work on farms in the Western Cape. It concerns agriculture. They are agricultural workers. They are important to the farmer; it is important to them and to other people in the Western Cape that they should be allowed to lead a normal family life. [Interjections.] It is also true that workers who are satisfied with their place of employment, workers living under normal family conditions, inevitably perform better work. Consequently, even if it is only for that reason, I should say the hon. the Minister should be prepared to give attention to this particular problem.

What I wish to suggest, is that consideration should be given to affording Black contract workers the right to bring their wives with them, or …

Order! The hon. member may speak on agricultural matters. There are, however, aspects of his speech which are more particularly relevant to the Co-operation and Development Vote. I think the hon. member should rather confine himself to agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I have to put it to you that for Black workers coming to work in the Western Cape in terms of a 12 month contract period, for workers who come to work on farms here, and also for the farmers involved, it is important that they should be satisfied with the working conditions here. They would do their work in the agricultural sector far better if they were allowed to bring their wives with them for a period. That is what I wish to state to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! I have heard the argument of the hon. member in this regard and I have allowed him to discuss it. It is very obvious to me, however, that what the hon. member has to say, concerns a matter which falls under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The matter raised by the hon. member for Wynberg has to do with workers working in the farming industry. His appeal is for the hon. the Minister to consult with his Cabinet colleagues. [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe this is very reasonable. In the same way I have raised in past debates—for example under the Manpower Utilization Vote—matters concerning migratory labour. That is the only point the hon. member for Wynberg wishes to raise. [Interjections.]

I have allowed the hon. member for Wynberg to talk about that. I have indicated to him that he can be brief on this matter. I should say, however, that the tenor of his approach rather concerns the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. The hon. member for Wynberg may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. All I wish to ask, therefore, is whether the hon. the Minister of Agriculture would please discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister concerned. [Interjections.]

I now wish to discuss another matter. I wish to refer to the re-organization of the Division of Sea Fisheries which has now been incorporated into the Department of Agriculture. I wish to express the hope that now, at last, we have a Minister who is prepared to take active steps in order to protect the fishing resources of South Africa. During the past decade or more it has repeatedly been brought to the notice of the Government that our fishing resources were rapidly being destroyed. At the moment we have a commission attending to this matter, which is going to put proposals to the hon. the Minister, and consequently I neither wish nor can I be allowed to make detailed proposals on what should be done to protect the resources. However, I wish to remind hon. members of something. At times, during the past few years, we have seen as many as 30 to 40 trawlers working around the clock in the False Bay area and depleting the bay of any resources of fish that could be caught. During the past few years we have seen how False Bay and Walker Bay no longer afforded the ordinary angler any pleasure any more. There are no longer any fish to be caught there. From this it is very obvious that in that particular area very urgent attention will have to be given to the problem of how we can enable the resources to recover.

What I wish to propose is that from now on the hon. the Minister should give attention to the proposals and recommendations made by the various research organizations, and even by researchers in the department itself. I understand that year after year they make recommendations on the quotas that should be introduced for the ordinary type of fish and that they make suggestions on where and when catches should or should not be made. I understand, however, that the pressure exerted by the fishing industry has been such that it has been extremely difficult, actually impossible, for the hon. the Minister to introduce the necessary quota restrictions in time to protect the fishing resources and in that way give the resources sufficient time to recover. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I assume that the hon. the Minister will furnish the hon. member for Wynberg with decisive replies to all his questions.

Sir, I have been following this debate with great interest. It is obvious to me that both sides of the House accept two basic characteristics of agriculture: The very important strategic role which agriculture will have to play in our country in future in respect of a balanced economic development pattern, the creation of sound ethnic relations and the decisive role which agriculture has to play in our struggle for survival in Southern Africa. But in contrast to this, the second equally important basic feature, namely the increasingly risky nature of agriculture owing to the uncertainty and the limitations imposed by nature and the soil. However it is equally obvious to me that the basis on which one wishes to reconcile these two divergent features forms the nucleus of an agricultural policy for our country. I believe that inherent in the nucleus of such a policy is the pursuit of two basic objectives: Keeping the right people on the land. Establishing confidence and certainty in agriculture by means of purposeful planning and an effective price policy. Mr. Chairman, it is my conviction that over the years these two broad objectives have formed the basis of the agricultural policy of the Government, a policy that has been applied with a great measure of success over the years. The production of surplus crops in so many agricultural sectors underlines the truth of this statement. In contrast to this success, however, there are constant problems which arise mainly as a result of the unpredictability of nature. For example, the unpredictability of climate and the natural elements result in a constant struggle having to be waged to keep the right people on the land. Sir, what is meant by the concept of “keeping the right people on the land”? I should like to sum up the concept as follows: The right people in agriculture are those farmers who leave the land in a more productive state than that in which they received it. Agriculture tolerates no fortune-hunters; the land eventually rejects such a person, but sometimes not before he has caused incalculable harm.

Now we are very fortunate in that, when we speak this language, we have an hon. the Minister and an hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture who fully understand it because they have close ties with agriculture and are intimately acquainted with agriculture’s problems and future expectations. We are also fortunate in having people in the Department of Agriculture who are striving with devotion and inspiration to help realize the lifelong ideal of the true farmer, which is to leave the land in a more productive state for the next generation.

As the pursuit of this ideal makes ever greater demands on the scientific and economic planning of farming operations, the State will, to an increasing extent, have to play a supportive role in agriculture. I wish to advocate that State aid to agriculture should be applied in such a way that it should not detract from the self-respect and the personal pride of the farmer. Sir, a great deal has already been said in this House about the status of a profession, and my request today is: Give the farmer who bears the burden of preserving one of our most important national assets, the land, the status he deserves. If we wish to achieve this objective, the point of departure with State aid to agriculture will have to be to make the farmer more self-supporting and consequently less dependent on the State.

With this point of departure in mind, I wish to address a sincere request to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister. At this juncture, agriculture is experiencing an increasing shortage of the necessary cash flow, owing to various factors, but to the unfavourable and unstable effect of natural conditions in particular. The Jacobs Committee has made a very practical recommendation in this regard to make agriculture more self-supporting. By and large, the recommendation amounts to the following: During years of good harvests, full-time farmers should be allowed to invest profits as a reserve investment with the Land Bank or another prescribed financial institution; such investment should be exempted from income tax in the year of investment; during poor years the farmer should be able to withdraw this investment to stabilize his income; the farmer should pay income tax in the year in which this income is withdrawn from this Reserve or Stabilization fund. The basic idea is therefore that the farmer should be able to build up a reserve by means of a system of deferred income tax and in this way ensure greater stability in agriculture. I wish to make it clear that this is not a question of avoidance of or exemption from income tax, but merely deferred tax based on the actual situation in agriculture and paid in the year in which the funds are withdrawn from the Stabilization Fund.

It is general knowledge that this recommendation is being considered by the Standing Committee on Income Tax. But, Mr. Chairman, my sincere request to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that they should use their influence to expedite this investigation, because the effect of a devastating drought in the North-Western Cape once again emphasizes the unavoidable introduction of such a long-term measure to make agriculture more self-supporting.

I am not implying by this that there is no recognition and gratitude for the present State aid in the drought stricken areas. On the contrary, without this State aid there would have been an unbearable burden on agriculture in those regions. It is for the very purpose of preparing for the next drought that I am advocating the introduction of such a long-term measure.

In conclusion, I wish to express my sincere thanks once again to the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the officials involved, for the time and attention they have devoted to the farmers in this drought disaster area and the understanding and sympathy they have shown. But Sir, it is my sincere conviction that if this drought continues much longer, more drastic and more far-reaching measures will be necessary if we are in earnest about keeping these people on the land. A state of emergency necessitates emergency measures such as the increase of the State subsidy on fodder loans from 50% to 66%, the increase of the maximum number of small stock that qualifies for fodder loans, from 1 000 to 1 500. Sir, I am fully confident that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will make a timeous and penetrating analysis of this situation and make the necessary and correct decisions.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, raised a number of matters and we look forward to studying them. It appears to me as if they arise mainly from the drought prevailing in many parts of the country, and I think he made a few very interesting suggestions in that regard.

†In the five minutes at my disposal, I wish to turn to the matter raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove, namely the problem with Sampi and Samso in the maize industry. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that we have a situation here which could be handled in a way which I think would lead to the settlement of a dispute which is doing nobody in South Africa any good at all. I think we have to start from the premise that here we have a group of farmers, genuine and bona fide farmers who got together for the improvement of their own industry. I am talking about the maize farmers. They have founded an institute for the improvement and the maintenance of their own industry, and nobody can fault them for having the good of the maize industry at heart. What has happened is that over a period of years, this institute has grown into a very strong organization, funded from the farmers’ own contributions. Nothing that we are going to do in this House is going to make them disappear. One cannot wish them away; one cannot simply hope that they are going to be disbanded; one cannot force them into disbandment. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we have a situation arising in Natal which is very similar to this. In Natal a group of farmers got together to form the Durban Combined Dairies. These were a group of milk farmers who were dissatisfied with the way in which the National Cooperative Dairies were running milk affairs in Natal. In the course of time, this group applied to the Natal Agricultural Union for affiliation. The council, in which I was serving at the time, had to consider the question of affiliation, and it was quite naturally opposed by the co-operative movement, the Natal Co-operative Dairies. We discussed this for quite a while and came to the conclusion that here we had a group of people who were bona fide farmers and were looking for the improvement of their own industry, and on that basis we allowed them affiliation with the Natal Agricultural Union. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for Sampi, as an organization, to be affiliated with the S.A. Agricultural Union, because one of the problems we always have is that when there is a body of people like this who feel that they are being discriminated against and attacked, etc., the cohesion within that group is far stronger than under any other circumstances. So I think the hon. the Minister might be able to defuse the situation by allowing affiliation. Once people are inside a movement, discussion takes place much easier and in a much more relaxed and even friendly spirit than where it is felt that one organization is being excluded. So I think Sampi should be admitted even if the movement is to be given access to the levy funds which have been raised according to the number of members who are signed up on their books. I think that this is a positive suggestion, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will look into it and that the whole of the agricultural movement will look towards a real reconciliation. The hon. the Minister will remember that I raised this matter two years ago and asked for his personal intervention. I have heard the hon. the Minister say that he did not think that his own intervention was doing much good in this particular matter and that he hoped that there would be other avenues to explore which could lead to a solution. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this, to bring them into the organization so that they then can have a fruitful discussion.

Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege for me to follow the speech by the hon. member for Mooi River, but since my time is very limited I do not wish to react to his arguments this afternoon. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and that of those other hon. Ministers with whom I have discussed the appeal I want to make this afternoon, to the fact that one of the most fertile regions in our country is undoubtedly the Crocodile River basin. It is a region extending from the Hartebeespoort Dam in the south past Brits, Beestekraal, Koedoeskop and Thabazimbi to where the river joins the Groot Marico River a little lower down to form the start of the mighty Limpopo River. I mention this for the information of any hon. member who does not know where this fantastic valley is situated. This fertile Nile-in-miniature cuts virtually diagonally across the most fantastically mineral-rich area in the world. Here I refer to the Bosveld ignious complex where some of the most strategic minerals in our country are encountered, for example manganese, vanadium, coal, iron, †In and many others. It is a region with the potential of the German Ruhr region in miniature. It is a region which, as far as its strategic situation is concerned, is probably one of the top priority areas in our total security structure. As far as the region’s agricultural value is concerned, there are three commodities of real value, namely tobacco, soya beans and grain. The yield from this region with regard to these three commodities is the highest in the Republic. To determine the real potential of this area on a purely agricultural basis is, in my opinion, vital, firstly in order to determine precisely what demand exists for an infrastructure in this area in the agricultural sphere. Then it is necessary to look, in the first place, at the flow of the Crocodile River, where there is a moderate rainfall, particularly in the higher parts, and the flow of the river is boosted by a number of large dams built in its streams, which keep the flow of the river stable for long periods during the year. These dams are not used merely as a network for purely agricultural purposes, but also for industry, mining and township development purposes. However, I wish to confine myself to the agricultural aspect. To establish a flourishing agricultural community in this entire area from the Hartebeespoort Dam to where the Crocodile flows into the Limpopo, there are, in my humble opinion, three matters which require attention. In the first place, I want to mention—I have settled this matter with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation, and I thank him for the opportunity afforded me—that an additional storage dam must be built in the region known as Boskop. This is a very important point because rivers such as the Elands River, Pienaars River and the Crocodile River and other rivers on which dams have been built, come together at this point. I also think that it is of the utmost importance that it should be taken into account that the creation of an additional source of water would mean that all the agricultural communities from the Hartebeespoort Dam down to the Limpopo River would benefit greatly from such an additional source not only due to the flow of the stream, but also due to a scheduled provision of water for the farmers in that area. It would require a once-only input from the Government to save farmers from impoverishment and the area from depopulation.

A second extremely important priority is that if a power line were to be built from Ellisras past Rooibokkraal to Thabazimbi, where Escom power is not available, this region, which already has land which is among the best in the Republic would, if there was sufficient water, become one of the most fruitful agricultural regions—which will also form part of the border area—in the Republic. In the third place I want to state that if a source of water was created and if sufficient power could be provided for this specific area between Rooibokkraal and Thabazimbi, there would only be one other priority, viz. a rail link between Assen where the big Portland Cement mine is situated, and Thabazimbi would have to be built. Eventually this would mean that the whole North-Western Transvaal Bosveld region, through the Brits corridor to the open territory of the PWV region, would form a funnel for all the commodities of the agricultural area and those of the industries and mines.

Now that I have said these things to hon. members this afternoon I can sum up and conclude by saying that we should set as a total objective, in the first place, the acute need for an additional source of water; in the second place, the real necessity of a rail link between the points I have mentioned and in the third place, power supply.

I wish to state very clearly that the objective of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, namely to populate those regions and maintain them economically, will only be realized if the three requirements to which I have referred can be complied with. I sum up: This, therefore, involves one additional source of water, one rail link and one additional power line.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the hon. member for Brits has never yet been in the Breë River Valley. [Interjections.] It is true that we do not have crocodiles there, but nevertheless it is a better place than the Crocodile River.

It is a very good thing that the agricultural vote has come up for discussion so early, because agriculture is and will always be the backbone of our country. Here where we are standing now, civilization began. Civilization took shape from the soil. Everyone with a reasonably rural background has something which a born city-dweller does not have. Even in this hon. House one can easily spot them. I am speaking about the people of the soil. They are well-developed, and their heads are screwed on the right way. These are the people that our country needs so badly. Providence has been very good to us by giving us, in this country, that which the rest of the world envies us. Everything comes out of the soil which has been entrusted to us and which we must guard like a treasure, or else it will mean our death knell in this country. I want to appeal to our farmers not to join the ranks of the Jeremiahs that one encounters everywhere nowadays. A psychosis has developed in our country, the complaint psychosis. If one wishes to be popular, all one has to do is complain constantly, or else one is of no account, and everyone wants to be a person of note nowadays.

I am a wine farmer and I am very proud of it. I, too, could complain if I wanted to. Prices simply keep rising. The only thing that falls is the rain, and not always to order, either. The prices of power tariffs, fertilizer, labour and irrigation water are rising. About the price of irrigation water in particular I could really complain, because in the Boland we pay through the nose. There is still a whole series of complaints I could mention but I want to let that suffice, because these blows rain down on the head of the Government, sometimes rightly, but for the most part, quite unjustly. I would go so far as to say that at the moment the State has succeeded in providing our farmers with information and extension which the farmers can use free of charge, or almost free of charge if they want to, but many of us farmers do not want to or do not know about it. The time is past when everything simply has to come of itself. Farmers must realize that we shall have to provide a bigger quid pro quo. Nowadays farming is no longer simply a way of life. Fortunately many of our farmers realize this. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what can be done if we have the will, and if we make use of the knowledge which the State makes available? I do not want to bore you with figures, Mr. Chairman. In any event you would not remember all the figures if I were to quote them. In former times, in my part of the world—so the clever people tell one—one needed one million gallons of water to farm intensively one morgen of land. Nowadays we succeed in irrigating three ha with the same quantity of water and still push up production. Nowadays it is by no means fun and games to farm, but if we play our cards right, then we shall get through. To farm successfully, one has to be clever. The time is past when the stupid fellow had to go and farm while the clever ones were sent to become clergymen and doctors. Today it is better if we send that stupid fellow to the pulpit and let the other one farm. Here I have in mind, for example, everything I had to fix myself this weekend, from pumps onwards, and in addition I had to play stork, because that is a bird that only visits us at night. Nowadays a farmer has to be an economist, a planner—the lot. Let alone Job’s patience and a whole bag of psychology. The most important characteristic he must have is love of the soil. We farmers must now display our confidence, particularly in the most important factor in South Africa, namely the agricultural industry, in its ability to keep the people on the land. There are many bottlenecks in the farming industry, but with better production efficiency, better planning and management practices, many of these bottlenecks can be eliminated, and we can create greater stability in agriculture. Farming has its own problems and needs, like any other field, and we must guard against the younger generation, today’s boys, getting cold feet as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, because if that were to happen that would be the beginning of the end for us.

I am a farmer, and I have confidence in the future of farming, not only as far as the production of wine is concerned, but also in regard to all other spheres. Of course, as a wine farmer I can wax lyrical about our industry’s future, notwithstanding the fact that hon. members here support the product so poorly. I want to point out to hon. members that tests have shown that if one uses the fruit of the vine moderately and regularly, one’s chances of living until one dies are greatly improved. We are also burdened by excise duty, and we are feeling the pinch in this regard, but we hope and trust that we shall be afforded relief in the future.

Recently we wrote a piece of history with the establishment of a new company, those new investments that have just seen the light. It is characteristic of the wine farmer that it has always been his striving to be self-sufficient through active participation in the development of his industry. This issue of shares is clear and evident proof of the confidence we have in our industry, and I am very pleased that these shares have been so over-subscribed. The predictions of the prophets of doom have been proved groundless. This is the confidence that I should like to see penetrating to all spheres of agriculture. We have a first-class Minister of Agriculture. The hon. the Deputy Minister is also a wide-awake and effective man. We also have very good extension officers. Let all these many problems be a challenge to us. My father always said that one should never show how one was struggling, that one should be “grand” when one was having a hard time of it, and then everything would come right. I want this idea to take root among our farmers; One should have confidence in the future and one should not complain so much, even if one does have complaints.

However, there is one thing about which I do want to complain. I want to ask the Transvaal, as the preserver of our antiques, something about the distilling of mampoer. I want to ask whether this could not be extended to this part of the world, because that would be to the benefit of the wine farmers too. Surely something could be done about this. Surely we are not so rotten that we allow ourselves to be prohibited from doing such things by an Act. The old people lived on it and why should we allow this system to pass from our hands?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member for Worcester in his argument. Obviously he knows a great deal about “witblits”, peach brandy and that type of thing.

In my speech on Friday I discussed a ten-point plan that could assist the farming community in the short and the medium term. Today I wish to motivate three more ideas that could benefit the livestock industry in the long term.

The first point I wish to raise refers to the training of veterinarians in South Africa. Only a few weeks ago it came to me quite as a shock when I realized that South Africa had never yet trained an Indian, Coloured or Black veterinarian at any of our South African universities. I do not intend making any political issue of this fact. Let me rather suggest how we should correct this position, which, I am sure, is not acceptable to any of us here.

South Africa can, however, be very proud of its general veterinary record. She is certainly a front-runner in the world in the field of veterinary science and know-how of tropical and subtropical diseases. For this reason I submit that South Africa should become the training ground for veterinarians, not only for our own people, our homelands and neighbouring States, but also for the rest of Africa. Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Minister has stated that we should build bigger and better bridges to Africa. What better bridge could we build than by training young men, by exporting our technical knowledge and goodwill to Africa and by improving our own livestock position in our own country and in our own homelands?

Let us also not forget that disease or plague does not recognize the international borders of South Africa. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he investigate the possibility of building a brand new veterinary school capable of accommodating students of all races. Since it would cater for students from all comers of South Africa, our homelands and other countries of Africa, it would at first have to be an English-medium college.

It should be in East London.

Secondly, it would have to be located in an area in which a wide variety of livestock is readily available, and thirdly, it would have to be situated in a community in which the atmosphere of racial bias do not present any problems, and that excludes East London. I suggest that the Cedara Agricultural College is most suitable for this purpose. It is situated in a magnificent setting near Pietermaritzburg and is close to the heart of some of the best poultry, dairy, pig, sheep and cattle farms in the Republic. Many of the facilities required for a veterinary college are already available there. If the hon. the Minister could get cracking, he could open its doors by January 1982. If he could do that, I would even vote for it to be called the Hendrik Schoeman Veterinary College— [Interjections.] “If he could do it” of course.

The second point I want to raise concerns my investigation into the extremely high incidence of cattle bruising recorded at the Cato Ridge abattoir and the resulting financial losses as a result thereof. After a thorough investigation at the abattoir itself, I came to the conclusion—and I think the hon. the Minister is going to be very pleased with this conclusion—that no blame could be placed on the abattoir itself. Most of the bruising was caused by homed cattle that have been transported over long distances, and by poor driving and poorly equipped trucks in which the cattle have been hauled to Cato Ridge. After my inspection I was more than convinced that the transportation of homed cattle is costing South Africa millions of rands per annum. It is for this reason, as well as for humanitarian reasons, that I propose that South Africa follows the example set by other countries. That is to outlaw horns. I should like to see the phasing in of a regulation that prohibits the acceptance of homed cattle for transport to any South African abattoir. Many farmers will, no doubt, complain, but it is really in their own interests. If a farmer wishes to retain horns on his cattle on his own farm, that is all right, but if he sends them to an abattoir he should be required to have their horns cut off, leaving a stump of not longer than 20 cm.

I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he take the bull by the horns. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister should take the bull by the horns and cut those horns off. On Friday the hon. member for Paarl made a plea for the improvement of the quality of our stock of bulls and semen. He motivated his case thoroughly and illustrated the incredible improvements that could be achieved in dairy production merely by using top quality bulls.

As my third point I should like to take this case considerably further and suggest that if South Africa could embark on a programme of replacing all the inferior and below average beef bulls with better-than average and superior bulls, dramatic results could easily be achieved in less than ten years. Firstly, the calf percentage would increase from the present low 50% to more than 60%. Secondly, it will increase the average mass of the calves by at least 20% in a very short time.

That is rather bold.

You might say that again. In actual terms these two factors alone will increase beef production dramatically. Let us say South Africa produces 2,5 million calves per year, each weighing 200 kg at one year old, thus producing a total mass of 500 million kilograms. If, on the other hand, South Africa was using superior quality bulls, some three million calves would be born, each weighing 240 kg at one year old, giving us a total mass of 720 million kg.

This represents an increase of 320 million kg, or a staggering increase in value of R192 million per year, if it were calculated at 60c per kilogram live weight. In order to achieve this we should, I suggest, insist that every bull used in South Africa should be tested and licensed. In other words, a bull should be performance-evaluated, scrutinized and passed by an inspector. This would immediately eliminate the tens of thousands of poor quality bulls that are presently negatively affecting our national herd. I do not think it should be necessary that bulls require stud pedigrees, as I have no objection to crossbred bulls that would qualify under the same set of improvement standards.

Naturally, such a scheme would have to be phased in over a period, but if one started with the younger cattle and required farmers to castrate all young bulls that are not required for evaluation before they reached the age of, say, 2½ years, it would mean that the entire scheme would be operational within 10 years, after all the old non-licensed bulls had died off.

I have already illustrated that South Africa could, in effect, on the same land area and with the same number of cows, produce an additional R192 million worth of beef on the hoof. On the other hand, it would—and this is a guess—cost the State some R10 per bull per year for evaluation and licensing costs, as well as for keeping a running check on the entire South African bull herd. If one assumes that there are some 250 000 bulls, the funds required would be R2,5 million per year. I cannot think of a better investment than the spending of R2,5 million a year in order to increase South African beef production by almost R200 million a year.

I realize, of course, that the department will have difficulty in obtaining staff to organize and run such a programme. “Maar ’n boer maak egter ’n plan”. There is no reasons why panels of experienced farmers in each district should not be appointed to serve as inspectors. I honestly believe that South Africa can no longer afford the poor quality cattle on our farms. This is one way in which to achieve that end.

That concludes the three points I wanted to make. Hon. members will notice that two of these actually place more regulations on the farmer, something of which he is not very fond. I should, however, like to point out that these regulations will place no restrictions on the better farmer at all. He is already applying these very restrictions to himself because he has found it pays him to do so. Those farmers who do object, need to be shaken up in any case. They, too, may find out that the value of improving their own herds will be the financial benefit derived from such an undertaking.

In conclusion I should like to point out that I obviously do not expect the hon. the Minister to offer me a conclusive answer now on all the suggestions I have put to him. Nevertheless, I respectfully suggest that, after the department has evaluated my 13 points, the hon. the Minister informs me in writing what action, if any, he intends to take.

Mr. Chairman, before my time expired on Friday, I was replying to the speech of the hon. member for Carletonville on the problem created by the great difference which exists today between the agricultural value and the market value of land. In fact, the hon. member pleaded for an adjustment in the valuations for financing purposes. This is a very big problem and one I pointed out very emphatically in last year’s debate. It is a problem that cannot easily be overcome. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as far as applications to Agricultural Credit are concerned, adjustments are constantly being made. Perhaps I should explain in a few sentences exactly what the policy of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is in regard to the provision of credit, and then he might agree that it is a sound policy.

When an applicant is assessed, the applicant and his abilities are assessed. That comes first and is a basic requirement. Secondly the potential of his farm is assessed—in other words, what that farm can yield under normal managerial ability with its available soil, water, rainfall and so on. What is considered therefore, is what the possible net farming income of such an applicant will be, and these are the criteria according to which all applicants are assessed. I want to add that the role played by agricultural credit committees is of the utmost importance. We are grateful for the particular contribution they are making in this respect. However, as I said at the outset, it is not so easy to bridge this enormous gulf between agricultural and market value.

†The hon. member for Mooi River asked me what steps can be taken to try to establish young people with a military background or military training in the border areas. I can assure the hon. member that this is an aspect which weighs very heavily with the Agricultural Credit Board. Together with the application for assistance which the applicant submits, there is a questionnaire which the appropriate Agricultural Credit Committee must complete. This questionnaire contains the following questions—

The hon. member must realize that this is very important, and I agree fully with him that it is of the utmost importance that these people must have a military background and must be available for military service in those areas.

The hon. member also mentioned the fact that there must be certain controls over the farming activities of farmers who obtain State aid. I agree fully with the hon. member and wish to assure him that we are continuously looking at this problem. It is not that easy, that I can assure the hon. member, but we are continuously looking at the problem, especially the aspect of economic or financial guidance. It is absolutely vital to have a good look at this in the future.

*I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to reply very briefly to what the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said. He made certain suggestions on border benefits for border farmers. I do not think that I can disagree with the hon. member. This is a matter that he has been advocating for a long time, starting in the years when he was still engaged in organized agriculture. I think that this is a matter which one will have to look at. I think he knows that the Steyn Committee brought out a very penetrating report on this matter, and certain proposals were put for ward. As a result of the fact that the old scheme had virtually been scrapped, however, it is in no way possible to implement those proposals at this stage. But I think we should keep on reviewing the situation in any case. It requires a comprehensive study to determine exactly what type of assistance one should give the border farmers. If one gives assistance, one will of course have to give it to all border farmers, whether they farm along the Transkei border, the Ciskei border or along the Limpopo. An hon. member happened to mention the Kalahari pipeline scheme. These are the things we shall have to consider, and immediately, too.

It is essential that the infrastructure—I think the hon. member for Marico also raised this matter—in those areas should be preserved, and I am referring to things like roads, bridges, telephones, post offices, magistrate’s offices, police offices, education, electricity, hospitals, medical services, etc. After we had visited these places, the Transvaal Agricultural Union held discussions with all relevant bodies to bring these matters to public notice. The Cabinet, in fact, decided that all departments should constantly look to the preservation of the infrastructure in those areas.

I should like to mention very briefly that this year, the current budget year, we have once again introduced the land purchase scheme. Hon. members will remember that as a result of circumstances, a lack of sufficient funds for example, we had to scrap this scheme as far back as 1976. However, I have pleasure in announcing that we decided to expand the scheme this year, mainly for the lessees of land, share-croppers, farm foremen and farm managers who have already proved themselves to be successful farmers and who have built up sufficient working capital and/ or current assets. And if they are persons who proved themselves to be successful farmers in the past, but who had to leave as a result of circumstances beyond their control, we shall endeavour to re-establish them.

Just one further announcement concerning labourers’ housing. It has been decided that farmers will now be able to qualify for a maximum of ten houses for labourers. For example, farmers who received assistance for five houses in the past, may now apply for the remaining five. There was some misunderstanding in this regard, therefore I should like to clarify the matter. Farmers who applied for a smaller number in the past and received assistance, may now make application for the balance, up to a maximum of ten houses.

There is just one more matter that I want to deal with very briefly. I am referring to the question of the drought. The hon. member for Prieska asked that we should not press people to pay their debts after the drought is broken. I think the hon. member knows the department, and I think he knows me too. I have just made an analysis of the debt position of the farmers in those areas, and I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of them were still in good credit standing. However, I want to repeat today what I have already said so often: When the drought is broken, these people may certainly turn to the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, particularly to have short-term debts, that are burdening them, transferred to a long-term basis. I want to give the hon. member this assurance.

I also want to say that I have received extremely interesting memorandums on longterm planning for future droughts. In the main everything revolves around the soil. I can spell out already that in our thinking on this matter everything revolves around the soil. The subsidy at present being granted in respect of drought is going to be shifted from the sheep’s back to the soil. Our first object should be to protect the soil.

I want to associate myself with the hon. members for Worcester and Paarl. We should never forget the success stories in agriculture and we have to be careful that agriculture does not complain itself to death. The week before last I attended the congress of the Free State Wool Growers’ Association where a young farmer from Marquard received the price for the best flock. He keeps 2 000 ewes and he shears 10 kg wool per ewe per annum. The weaning percentation of the number of ewe paired is 143%. We calculated that he made approximately R45 per merino ewe. If this could be done by a young man in that area, I feel that it could be done everywhere.

Mr. Chairman, nowadays sea fisheries falls under the Minister of Agriculture, where I think it belongs. So I want to wish the Minister well with this new division which now falls under his control. I think he will need some luck.

The exploitation of marine resources on the open sea is fundamentally the same as stock farming on land, the difference being that animals on land can be counted but marine animals cannot. This is where the whole problem lies, and I believe the hon. the Minister will come to realize it very soon.

On Friday I put a question to the hon. the Minister in connection with boats which had been registered in Walvis Bay and which came to the Republic recently. There are 20 of them, and I want to make a few comments on the fact that they are now catching fish in Republican waters.

†The first 16 fishing vessels have been given permission to catch tunny by way of long-line and pole methods. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I know most of these boats and that they are not properly equipped for catching tunny. Neither do they have sophisticated freezing facilities. As a result it is going to harm the embryo tunny industry very considerably if tunny are going to be exported to Europe while they are not in a good enough condition.

The second point I want to make is that one of the vessels, the Duinekus, has been given permission to catch tunny by means of a purse-seine net on a temporary experimental basis. Purse-seine netting is a very, very contentious issue, and I would say that, because the fishing commission is sitting at the moment, it is most ill advised to give a concession of this kind to a boat from Walvis Bay.

The third remark I should like to make is that the last three fishing vessels on the list I was given are equipped with sea-water freezing facilities and have been given permission to catch pelagic fish. It is common cause that the pelagic fish resources of South West Africa and of the Republic are under severe stress and strain. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to which companies those vessels belong and whose quota they are helping to fill, or have they been given an additional quota? The fact that they have been given licences to catch pelagic fish is, to me, again a slap in the face for the fishing commission which is dealing with just this sort of matter.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think this is the thin edge of the wedge. These fishing companies do not need consideration. For years and years they have lived off the fat of the land in Walvis Bay. They have made exorbitant profits and, now that they have caught the fish in Walvis Bay, they are coming down to the Republic. I do not think that that is right. If any people should receive consideration from the Government it is not the big fishing companies, many of which have other activities, diversified activities, which in fact have very little to do with the sea. It is the fishing families of Walvis Bay who at the moment are struggling. They deserve help. I want to refer briefly to a report in The Star of 1 April. The report quotes the Director of Economics in South West Africa, Mr. Piet Kruger, as saying that the South West African fishing industry has entered a survival situation and that drastic steps must be taken if it is to be saved. The pilchard catch in Walvis Bay is down to less than 1% of what it was in 1968. The town clerk of Walvis Bay, Mr. J. J. J. Wilken, said—

I could not agree with him more. A few years ago there were six canning factories in Walvis Bay. Last year there were only two and this year only one will be in operation. What has happened in Walvis Bay has been an absolute catastrophe. The Government has had years of warning, especially from me here in Parliament and from outside Parliament from Dr. Lochner, a professor in Port Elizabeth. In 1967 I moved a private member’s Motion in Parliament asking for the extension of our fishery zone and of our territorial waters and the appointment of a commission of inquiry into the granting of licences and quotas in the fishing industry, not only in South West Africa, but also here in South Africa. In 1968 the Chari du Plessis Commission was appointed, but it did not deal with licences and quotas, and that is where the whole problem of over-exploitation began. The report of that commission was tabled in Parliament five years later, but in the meantime they were so concerned with the situation in Republican waters, more particularly in South West African waters, that it tabled three urgent interim reports. In the 1971 parliamentary session I made no fewer than seven speeches here warning the Government of what was going to happen to the pelagic and rock lobster industries of South West Africa. I stand by those speeches and the allegations I made at that time. All those who were responsible for the over-exploitation have subsequently left the political scene, and unfortunately the present hon. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is now left holding the baby.

In the interim report of the commission in 1969 it was revealed that Dr. Lochner of Port Elizabeth had found a way of determining the quantity of fish that could be caught with safety in any fishing industry. In 1972 there was a minority report, and four out of the seven commissioners regarded Dr. Lochner’s work, which included accurate forecasts on the catches for 1968, 1969 and 1970 in South West Africa, as being a “valuable indicator”, but three out of those four commissioners who constituted the majority were not impartial. They had substantial fishing interests of one kind or another. The three commissioners who constituted the minority said that Dr. Lochner’s theory should be accepted. What happened? Quotas were cut in 1972, and the resource started to grow again, but it had no sooner started to grow when Dr. Lochner again warned that there was a danger of over-exploitation and suggested that the quotas should be cut. The department, marine biologists and the advisory council refused to heed his warning. The result was that the resource started collapsing in about 1976 and today it is in a mess. There was an adamant refusal to recognize the validity of his theory.

I recently received a memorandum from a fisheries scientist who is at present lecturing in Germany on the collapse of fishing resources. His name is B. L. Cram, who previously worked for the department here. I want to read an extract from an memorandum which he sent me and which I think is apposite to our discussion. This concerns the existence of the advisory council, the body that advised the hon. the Minister in South West Africa. In connection with the advisory council the memorandum says—

and a few other individual representatives.

The overwhelming majority of the people serving on that advisory council are people in the industry.

Secondly, he says the way it reached a decision was to arrive at a consensus. This is another way of saying there was horse-trading. He says, for example, that there was extensive lobbying of industry leaders and members of other groups by the scientists to try to ensure that the audience of the advisory council would be receptive to the scientific arguments that were placed before that council. He says that this process worked well while there was still fish, but as soon as there was a shortage of fish, the lack of scientific power at the meetings was very noticeable and the industry got its way. In other words, that means that the quotas were not cut back when they should have been cut back. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon. member for Simonstown the opportunity of completing his speech.

Thank you very much. A branch of science known as marine population dynamics has been developed for the purpose of controlling our marine resources in the open sea for continued maximum production. In other words, conventional methods were used. In a recent publication Catch-based Management Techniques by a certain Mr. Butterworth of the University of Cape Town, formerly a population dynamics expert, recognition is given to the fact that conventional methods cannot determine the strength of a resource. Only in 1978 was the Sea Fisheries Division, using conventional methods, able to observe the recurrent collapse of the pilchard resources of South West Africa, which had begun in 1975. If the Sea Fisheries Division cannot observe a collapse until three years after it has begun, they have no hope whatsoever of observing an impending collapse before it begins. In simple terms, this means that they are unable to control a fish resource and that their advice alone cannot be relied upon. The purpose of Dr. Butterworth’s publication is apparently to prove that it was impossible by means of accepted techniques to prevent the destruction of the South West African pilchard resource, in other words he apologized for the fact that the resource had been destroyed.

I want to say something about Dr. Lochner. The west coast of Southern Africa is biologically one of the richest marine areas in the world, but all our marine resources are in a depleted state and at the moment the yield is a mere fraction of what it could have been had these resources been correctly exploited. Years ago Dr. Lochner made a study of the collapse of the Californian pilchard resources. In 1968 he analysed the South West African resource and found that if the quotas allocated that year were to be caught, and the necessary measures were not taken, the source would begin to collapse as from 1969. The necessary measures were not taken, and over-exploitation continued in the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. In those years catches were within 1% of Dr. Lochner’s theoretical expectations. Because of my speeches here in 1971 and all the publicity which they received, and particularly after my speech in 1972, drastic control measures were introduced in 1972 and the resources started to pick up again. Gradually catches were increased, but in 1975 Dr. Lochner observed that the critical limits of the catches were once again being exceeded. He warned the authorities and made recommendations aimed at halting the collapse of the resources, but to no avail. The marine biologists of the department knew better. In 1979 only 27 000 tons of pilchards were caught in South West Africa, approximately 1,5% of the 1968 catches. Thus year the quota is approximately 12 000 tons, less than 1% of the 1968 catches. Dr. Lochner’s work in connection with the control of fish resources is based on the analysis of a biological control system, but the work as such falls into the category of Control engineering, a specialized branch of electrical engineering. So the electrical engineer is qualified to evaluate the particulars of his work but the biologist, particularly the marine biologist is in no way qualified to do so. Any person worthy of being called a scientist, whether engineer or biologist, will realize, however, that Dr. Lochner could not have predicted the collapse in South West Africa, as it actually took place in 1969, so accurately or have observed the re-occurrence of it in 1975 so early if the work in question was wrong. As far as existing techniques for the control of fishing resources are concerned, they have failed completely. Since they have caused the country so many millions of rands of damage, it is only logical for a new technique that has repeatedly been proved in practice to be the correct one and with which prominent scientists who understand the matter agree, should now be accepted by the Government regardless of the opposition of vested interests. Who are these vested interests?

†Firstly, industry which has tremendous representation on the advisory council. Then, too, the marine biologists, and marine biologists who have had a record of failure for the last 12 years in respect of the pilchard resources of South West Africa do not, I think, require very much attention.

*What is the purpose of Dr. Lochner’s work? What can he really achieve? He tells me in a letter—

†This man was supported by two other commissioners in the minority report of 1972. He was also supported by the same minority commissioners in the interim report. He forecast 1969, 1970 and 1971, accurately in the case of South West Africa. I have in my possession letters he wrote to hon. Ministers. First of all, Minister Muller in 1975 and thereafter Minister Heunis in 1977, warning them about what was going to happen although the stocks were apparently building up in South West Africa. He warned them that it was in a state of collapse. But what happened? Within five years of those warnings the state of pilchard resources in South West Africa is nil. It is less than 1%. Therefore the Government can no longer afford to delay in utilizing the services of this man. If this man is as accurate as it appears he is, if he really does have something, he has made a world-shattering discovery. It is the sort of discovery that would be of benefit to every single fishing nation in the world. It is the sort of discovery which could well result in his being awarded a Nobel prize. Yet, through the obstinacy of the marine biologists and the influence of the vested interests, this man’s theory is not being given the opportunity to be put into practice. I want to call upon the Government today to use Dr. Lochner’s services, to bring him in as a consultant and to use him in conjunction with the fisheries biologists. Let him point out to them what the safe limits are within which pilchards may be caught off the coast of South West Africa, and not only pilchards, but every other single marine resource. Give him an opportunity to put his case. There cannot be a greater mess than has been made to date.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Simonstown on the Lochner theory and to what extent Dr. Lochner may be correct, for the simple reason that at the moment a commission of inquiry is engaged in an inquiry into the marine industry in all its various facets. We are both members of that commission. We had Dr. Lochner before us to give evidence and after that we requested various scientists in South Africa to assist us in making an assessment of the Lochner theory. Consequently, I do not think it is altogether fitting to conduct a debate on this situation before the report of the commission of inquiry has been made available.

I was referring to South West Africa.

It does not matter. In any event, the Lochner theory applies to the whole situation. I do not think it was fitting.

I would rather point out a few other situations, and on that score I agree with the hon. member. He initially pointed out that we were in fact participating in quite an historical debate here this afternoon since South Africa’s Minister of Agriculture would in future, also be the Minister of Fisheries. I remember that during the ’sixties I had occasion to introduce a private motion in the House in which I made a plea that we should separate Sea Fisheries from the Department of Industries and place it under the Department of Agriculture. My principal argument at the time was that we should have a shift in emphasis in South Africa.

All the most important facets of the marine industry are, incidentally, concentrated within my constituency. There is, for example, the rock lobster industry. In South Africa today, approximately 12 million rock lobsters are landed every year. The pelagic fishing industry is mainly concentrated along the coast line of my constituency and the biggest white fish factory in the world happens to be situated in my constituency. Over the years I have come to know the underlying philosophy of this industry. One thing has always troubled me. The truth of the matter is that there is a group of outsiders whom one could consider to be fortune-hunters, intruders who thought they could catch rock lobster and fish to make money in South Africa. This has in fact been harmful to the fishing industry.

We are now at the stage where, in the reorientation of the Government machinery, this industry is being placed under the Minister of Agriculture. I think the underlying philosophy of what we are doing now, is absolutely correct for the simple reason that in future the emphasis will, in the first place, not be on what can be taken from the sea, but rather on marine farming; how can the sea be looked to augment South Africa’s food supplies? I think the fishing industry fits perfectly into the Ministry of Agriculture.

I can state in passing that in the past, over the past number of years, when there were representations in regard to the lobster industry, the white fish industry and the pelagic industry, I have repeatedly had to lead big delegations to Pretoria. Since we are now creating a new dispensation, I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister for the head office of this industry to be in Cape Town or in the Western Province in future, so that it will not be necessary for us, in having discussions on this important industry, to have to go to Pretoria.

Since I am not allowed to speak about the commission because its report has not appeared yet, I just wish to make a few general remarks on marine farming. South Africa, with its long coastline, is a long way behind the rest of the world as far as marine farming is concerned. This is really ironical when we think what an extensive coastline we have and what potential there is for South Africa in this regard. I just wish to quote two examples today. In the first place there is Japan. The Japanese Government has demarcated certain parts of its coastline for the express purpose of marine farming. Various species of seaweed are being cultivated and harvested there today. This industry alone extends over 100 000 ha and provides approximately 30 000 families with a livelihood. In the second place, in Taiwan more than 30 edible species of seaweed are being cultivated at present. The Grahasaliaria species, in particular, is receiving a great deal of attention and with very great success. In that country, approximately 7 000 metric tons of seaweed are being cultivated at present and this provides employment for 200 families. In South Africa we are lagging far behind as far as this situation is concerned. During the past decade, the oriental countries have increased their marine production ten-fold. South Africa as the larder of Africa will have to give immediate attention to this matter.

In the second place, as far as marine farming as such is concerned, I just wish to make one observation. In reality South Africa has not even made a start yet. It has been calculated that at present as much as 20 million tons of fish are being bred in the ocean in other parts of the world. In this connection I am referring particularly to the breeding of shrimps, crabs, oysters and mussels. It is a fact that during the ’fifties we made an excellent start in this connection in the Knysna lagoon, under the guidance of Fishcor. However, we ran into trouble. In recent years a major part of this industry in the Knysna lagoons was transferred to the private sector. From a scientific point of view, we have experienced very serious difficulties in this particular region during recent years.

Fishcor, however, also made a start with experiments in the Langebaan lagoon in this regard, experiments with which, from a scientific point of view, they have achieved very great successes at this stage. I wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to enable us to expand this situation with the greatest possible expedition. According to scientific calculations, a mere 0,28% of the surface area of the Langebaan lagoon would be required for the production of five million oysters. It does not entail a visual impairment of this lagoon. I must admit that the ecologists have already descended on us on the question of the Langebaan lagoon. They are saying that we are causing a visual impairment of this beautiful lake above the water level. There are scientists who hold the view—and the ecologists with whom I have had discussions in recent times, also agree on this point—that a minor shift in the activities of Fishcor—and I think an investment of approximately R100 000 has already been made in this project—from Church haven to the far side of the lagoon could be undertaken without any impairment whatsoever of that environment.

I wish to extend an invitation to the hon. the Minister and his senior officers now taking over the responsibilities for this division, to come and visit the heartland of the marine industry of South Africa in order to acquaint themselves with conditions in that area.

According to calculations, 10 million oysters could already be absorbed by the local market in South Africa at present, but we are nevertheless importing oysters, and that is not necessary. I cannot understand why we have been left so far behind in this field in South Africa.

I wish to conclude now. The fishing industry is now getting a new Minister and a new dispensation. The hon. the Minister has an eye for a pretty girl. He is an imaginative Minister.

You are making a very good speech.

I wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to co-operate with us in creating an entirely new dispensation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said that there is much to be done in terms of fish farming in the future. The fishing industry now has a new dispensation and a new Minister whose responsibility it is going to be to look at and to develop the fishing industry in South Africa. I think the hon. the Minister is probably beginning to realize that he has taken over the Division of Sea Fisheries at a very difficult time indeed. With many of my hon. colleagues who have been involved in the Fisheries Commission I believe that logical sector of control over Fisheries is the agricultural sector, because we are talking about fish farming and food, both of which are the responsibility of the hon. the Minister. Very logically it should be something that goes side by side with agriculture, because fish is one of the most important sources of protein in the world.

What about soya beans?

The hon. member for Simonstown has made a plea concerning the writings and theories of Dr. Lochner. It is not my intention to adopt a viewpoint one way or another. However, I think that the argument Dr. Lochner, other people and many marine biologists have put forward, is that we have over-exploited our fish resources in South Africa. The signs are there! As far as South West Africa is concerned it is quite apparent that we have come very close to the total collapse of the industry, and we could well be in a situation in which the fish resources will not recover. At all costs we shall have to avoid a situation in South Africa in which there might be any danger of a total collapse of the resources. If I can at this stage, before we have the report of the commission, say something to the hon. the Minister about the fishing industry, I should like to put it to him that it is vitally necessary that in assessing the maximum sustainable yield of fish that can be taken out per year, the hon. the Minister’s responsibility now is to set quotas for the fishing industry. In setting those quotas he must, however, be as conservative as possible. Year after year we can see a situation arise in which quotas have to diminish because fewer fish are available.

Let us be conservative. Let us set low quotas in the hope that the fish resources will grow so that we can do better in future. If, however, we continue to over-exploit—and it is my belief that we have over-exploited for a number of years—we run the very dangerous risk of a total collapse.

I do not want to throw too many stones to people who have been responsible for setting quotas in the past, but it is quite apparent to me that quotas have frequently been set for reasons that are not scientific. They have been set because of a particular economic situation, and because sometimes people have pleaded in a most articulate fashion for larger quotas and former Ministers have fallen for this line of talk. This must not be allowed to happen in future. I believe a considerable responsibility rests on the shoulders of this hon. Minister to bring some sort of reason into the situation, to control the situation, and to be conservative in order to ensure that a resource which belongs to all South Africa is going to remain a resource which can be exploited without collapsing completely.

It is quite interesting though that these two departments have now come together and that we now have the situation in which this hon. Minister also has the responsibility for inland fisheries. I know the provincial councils have a certain responsibility in this regard in that they run the fish hatcheries in the separate provinces. An area which could be exploited as a source of protein, however, are inland fisheries. We have fish types that are ideally suited for South African conditions. Trout, which is derived from the North American rainbow trout, and the brown trout from Europe, are both excellent sources of protein. They do well in South African waters. Trout do not breed in still water, but they can grow in still water. Trout released from hatcheries into still water is a wonderful source of protein. There are also types of fish that can be used for the same purpose. There is, for example, the kurper, as well as the Pelagia Mozambica. These are both excellent sources of protein. A certain amount of fish farming has already been done with these two types of fish in Kariba. That was before the trouble began in Rhodesia, which is now Zimbabwe. We have only scratched the surface as far as this is concerned. Many farm dams do have a few carp, and the farmers might eat a few fish from their own dams. In some industrial undertakings, I am pleased to note, fish are now being put into water used for industrial purposes. Some of these industrial undertakings are even breeding fish as a source of protein for their labourers. Then there are also large-mouth and small-mouth bass. We have many types of fish that are ideal as a source of protein.

I went along with a recommendation that suggested that the Department of Sea Fisheries go together with the Department of Agriculture. I am now going to take the accent a little bit off fisheries and talk about another department. With all respect to the hon. the Minister, I should like to suggest that because of the reorganization of departments, he should think again about the whole question of the Parks Board falling under his control. We now have a new department, which encompasses water affairs, forestry and environmental conservation. I actually believe we should be in a situation in which the Parks Board, which has for so long been under the control of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, should come under the Department of Environmental Conservation. I think that it fits in better there and that that is ideally its place. I want to fault the hon. the Minister on one thing and that is the Parks Board. Parks Board members should be experts in the field of conservation. We recently had many changes in the Parks Board, partly as a result of some hon. members of this House becoming Deputy Ministers. One of them, the late Mr. Piet van Vuuren, the hon. member for Edenvale, died. I think it is time for whoever is going to control the Parks Board in the future to ensure that the people who serve on that board are experts in the field of conservation. I am just a little tired of seeing so many NP MPs sitting on that board, people who are not qualified. They might have their hearts in the right place as far as conservation is concerned, but it is not right for such an appointment to be regarded as a political appointment, as something one gets when one has given loyal service to the governing party. It is quite extraordinary the number of MPs who do sit on that board. What I know of those MPs, they are first-class people who have the interests of conservation at heart, but people who sit on that board should be people who have a positive, skilled contribution to make to the activities of the board. [Interjections.]

There are a couple of minor matters I want to raise, and this is also going to take us away from the realm of fisheries. One aspect has to do with a seminar that was held by the Fertilizer Society of South Africa, a seminar on potash in fertilizers. To this seminar came many foreign agricultural experts. I may say that this Fertilizer Society of South Africa is run by the major fertilizer companies in South Africa, e.g. Triomf, African Explosives, Fedmis, etc. All of them contribute towards making up the Fertilizer Society of South Africa. This society decided to have a seminar on potash. What happened, however? Through some stupid fall-out between the department and the society, departmental officials were forbidden to attend the seminar. We understand that instructions went out from the head of the department to say that no departmental official should become involved. I should like to know exactly why this happened. Government departments cannot afford to be oversensitive. If they felt they were being by-passed, if they felt that the Fertilizer Society of South Africa, representing as it does all the big fertilizer companies, was doing something wrong, it was nevertheless up to the department to bite on the bullet and attend a technical seminar of this nature, because seminars of this sort are organized for the benefit of the farmer and agriculture as a whole. So I really cannot understand all this. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister why departmental officials did not attend this seminar when so many foreign agricultural experts were there.

Finally, in the very short time left to me, I want to go back to a matter I raised earlier on in the debate, a matter that seems to annoy the hon. the Minister considerably. I am referring to the question of Sampi and Samso. We had a very responsible speech from the hon. member for Mooi River who put the case very well indeed. We have, however, been having responsible speeches on this matter for many years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, for once I find that I have no particular quarrel with a speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, and for that reason I do not propose commenting further on what he has just said.

*The rich fish potential of the sea around the Cape was realized at the time of the settlement in 1652 already. It was known even then. In this connection I refer to what Janzsen and Proot wrote in their Remonstrantie, 1649, about this—

However, it was considered that fisheries would interfere with agriculture and for that reason the burghers were discouraged from embarking upon the catching of fish. The position did not change much over the years and centuries, although a modest fishing industry became established in this country.

It has only been since the Second World War that the South African fishing industry has really developed. The Republic of South Africa is now firmly established as one of the 10 foremost fishing countries of the world. The value of South African marine products has increased to more than R200 million per annum. The fishing industry is not only a great earner of foreign exchange, but it is also an important supplier of food in general and proteins in particular. So, it is fitting that fisheries as a food-producing industry should from now on fall under the Ministry of Agriculture.

While I welcome this step, I think it is correct and appropriate that at this stage thanks should be expressed to the Department of Industries, which has been responsible for the fishing industry over the past years. Perhaps there are reasons for criticism of the way in which the fishing industry has functioned during the past few years, as we have indeed heard this afternoon, but the fact remains that the Department of Industries did its very best to control this complex industry to the best advantage of the country. I thank that department for its efforts in this regard.

The step being taken in placing fisheries under the Ministry of Agriculture, is proof that there is now a different approach to fisheries than the one which was adopted in the time of Van Riebeeck and to which I have already referred. Instead of fisheries interfering with agriculture, it has the very effect of supplementing agriculture in various ways. I am referring to the supply of fish meal as an example.

The debate today on fisheries as a subdivision of the Vote Agriculture actually takes place at the beginning of a new dispensation. In fact, it ushers in a new dispensation and is consequently of historic significance.

It is essential that a balance should be maintained at all times between the exploitation and the conservation of our marine resources. An expansion of the industry such as has occurred during the past number of years, inevitably results in a greater exploitation of these resources. In the nature of things, it places greater pressure on these resources and this could lead to over-exploitation, as has happened in the recent past. In order to prevent over-exploitation, it is necessary to determine the maximum sustainable yield of the resources scientifically. Therefore scientific research in this regard is of cardinal importance.

The recent expansion of the exclusive fishing zone of the Republic was an important step to ensure that the Republic of South Africa would obtain its rightful share of the off-shore fishing wealth along its coastline. This extension of the exclusive fishing zone from 12 to 200 nautical miles from the coast has, however, also resulted in a great additional responsibility because in that way the territory of the Republic of South Africa has been increased by 50% and the authorities that have to see to the exploitation of our marine reserves, have now acquired a huge additional farm to manage.

In the past, foreign fishing fleets encroached too drastically on our fishing resources. Consequently it was essential that the Republic should obtain greater control of the sea along its coast to ensure that the foreign fishing fleets would not snatch away our fishing resources from our very doorstep.

The function of the authorities entails, in the first place, the prevention of over-exploitation by determining the maximum sustainable yield of the resources for every branch of the industry; the introduction of control measures, the implementation and enforcement of the control measures; and the proclamation of reserves. The second part of this function is to ensure that the maximum sustainable potential is utilized at all times. That can be done by the provision of the necessary facilities and by the proper organization of the industry. In the third place, the authorities also have the task of stimulating fish farming and so supplementing the natural resources.

I believe there is still vast unexploited potential along the Southern Cape coastline in particular. I am thinking in particular of commodities such as sole, oysters and white fish. The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the potential of oyster farming and mentioned that we were consuming 10 million oysters in the country every year. Without differing with him, I believe that there are more oysters available on the Mossel Bay coast than could ever be used for home consumption. There is also sufficient to export, only it must be determined on the basis of scientific research what the maximum sustainable yield is. I regard that as the first important task of the Department of Agriculture in connection with the fishing industry.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay said to the hon. member for Orange Grove, I should in turn like to say to him that I have no quarrel with him. In fact, as far as the speakers who have so far spoken on sea fisheries are concerned, I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will find that there is a great deal of consensus. It so happens that all of us are members of the Sea Fisheries Commission and I think it bodes well for the future that, as far as this commission is concerned, there is a degree of consensus as to what should be done in the future in respect of the sea fisheries industry.

Like my colleagues, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on now being placed in charge of this particular section of industry in South Africa. I do not know whether to congratulate him or whether to commiserate with him, because I am quite sure that, as time goes on, he is going to find himself in a hornet’s nest. He has possibly already had an indication of that from one or two comments that have been made here this afternoon. As regards South West Africa, it is a fact that the fishing industry is in a state of collapse and that here in South Africa one of the greatest natural resources our nation possesses is in danger of collapsing because of the lack of correct control and management of our marine resources. That is one reason why I am so pleased that this hon. Minister is now in charge of this particular resource. It is because he, being an agriculturalist and a practical farmer, I will apply his mind to some of the problems, as he has done with the problems relating to agriculture. Let us face it: Farming the sea is really not much different from farming the land. The one thing we must make sure of is to take care of our basic resources. In agriculture it is the land and as far as the sea is concerned it is the breeding stock and the ability of that breeding stock to reproduce so as to ensure that future generations will also be able to exploit this resource to its full capacity. Regrettably, around the world today fishing industries have collapsed. It is strange that we do not learn the lessons of history. We have seen the Californian fishing industry, the Chilian fishing industry and the Japanese fishing industry collapse. Right in front of our noses the South West African fishing industry has also collapsed, despite all the warnings and all the things that we know we should do. Why has it been allowed to collapse? I feel that one of the greatest problems the hon. the Minister is going to have to deal with is human nature, especially the greedy side of human nature. Another aspect is that a lot of people look upon the sea and the fish therein as common property. The concept is that because the sea belongs to the people, what is in the sea also belongs to the people and that every man has the right to take his fair share out of the sea. Unfortunately history has shown us that under the concept of the sea being common property there are always those who say: “If I do not take my fair share now someone else is going to take it, and if I can get someone else’s share it is better still; so I will take as much as I can while the going is good.” In the process the resource is totally destroyed. It is basic economics that apply under these circumstances. Eventually, if the concept of common property is allowed to prevail without control, the economic base of the industry will be totally destroyed. We also find this in the agriculture of tribal societies, and I am quite sure that we in South Africa are fully aware of this. One just has to look at tribally owned land to see what the concept of common property has done to that resource. We, as farmers, look upon the land as something which we treasure, and we try to ensure that it is not eroded by water or destroyed by wind and sand. We take care of the land, treasure it and protect it for our children. I believe that this concept must also be applied as far as our sea resources are concerned. This means there must be a control over the resources of the sea.

The question is who should exploit this resource and how should it be exploited. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there are two broad areas of activity that become involved in the fishing industry. One is the commercial side of the fishing industry and the other the recreational or sporting side of the industry. I think we must identify these very clearly and also identify the role which each of these can play within the total fishing industry in South Africa. In so doing we must also identify the ecology of our fishing zones. On the west and south coast of South Africa we have an ecology which is ideally suited for intensive commercial exploitation under control, provided, as the hon. member for Mossel Bay has said, that it is not over-exploited and that it is controlled to the extent that the maximum sustainable yield is maintained and the future of the industry is protected. However, on the east coast of South Africa, especially off Natal where there is a sub-tropical ecology, the ecology is extremely fragile. It is very vulnerable to over-exploitation. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is not suitable for heavy commercial exploitation. We do not get the huge shoals of pelagic fish off the east coast as is the case off the south and west coasts. I believe we must take cognizance of this, especially as—I hope hon. members already know this, but if they do not know they might be very interested to know—something like 200 000 to 300 000 anglers come to the Natal coast annually to fish those waters. Between 200 000 and 300 000 people enjoy going to the coast and fishing the Natal waters for sport or recreational fishing. This is an extremely important group of people and cognizance must be taken of them, as well as of the effect it has on the economy of an area like Natal. For example, there is the industry which builds the boats and the equipment for this particular sport and the fishing equipment itself. Then, in addition, there are the tourist resort areas, the caravan parks and the hotels. All these people are presently benefiting from this type of fishing which we have off the coast of Natal. I put it to the hon. the Minister that this must be taken cognizance of when we consider whether or not commercial exploitation of the resources in Natal should be allowed.

I hope the hon. the Minister is aware of what the Natal Provincial Administration does in this regard through the Natal Parks Board. Incidentally, it does not have a single politician on it. The Natal Parks Board consists of people who have conservation at heart, who are qualified in their particular activity and who have the Province’s interest at heart. The board consists of members of all political parties. I know of both NP supporters as well as PFP supporters who are on that board. This is our approach to conservation in Natal. Through the Natal Parks Board we have 23 full-time sea fisheries officers plus 56 full-time game guards. In addition we have 132 part-time honorary fishery officers. They are protecting the shores of Natal and our fisheries. I put it to the hon. the Minister that this is what is going on in Natal. 90% of all research into sport fishing is being done in Natal at the request of the Natal Parks Board and funded through funds made available by the Natal Provincial Administration. The work which it is doing is considered to be amongst the best in the world. Through its monitoring of catches some 60 000 anglers are monitored annually as far as their catch is concerned. Ski-boats are also monitored, so that today Natal has records which show the extent to which ski-boat fishing is exploiting the waters off Natal. They conduct population counts of all marine life along the beaches in the intertidal zone, e.g. sea lice, crabs, etc. One particular project, viz. the preservation of the leather back turtle on the Tongoland coast is, like the saving of the white rhino, today acknowledged throughout the world as wonderful conservation work which is being done by the Natal Parks Board. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about fisheries, but I intend to speak on agriculture. Consequently I shall not react to any of his arguments.

The place occupied by agriculture in the South African national economy and its contribution to the vitality and progress of the country is to a large extent the result of the initiative and enterprise of the South African farmer and his wife. I think one should at the conclusion of a debate such as this one pay tribute to the South African farmer and his wife. Few people realize that the flow of products produced on the South African farms keep many transport wheels rolling, keep many packing and processing plants busy, keep butcheries, markets and other commercial units buzzing with activity and provide many thousands of men and women in South Africa with an income. We pay tribute to these people who often stay on the farms under difficult circumstances and keep this particularly important industry in the South African national economy going.

One of the biggest problems facing the farmer today, is the constant increase in costs which he has to contend with. Although the net income per farming unit has in general increased, this income has to be reached with a far greater capital investment because of the higher land prices, and the higher prices of tractors, machinery, equipment and other means of production. Seed is costing the farmer more than R80 million this year and his diesel account exceeds R400 million. This is a vast increase compared with the prices of four to five years ago. Then, however, there are periodical droughts and other natural disasters, which unfortunately also form part of the normal weather pattern of our country. This often causes agriculture to suffer. One wonders then, when one thinks of these many set-backs the farmers suffer, the droughts, wind storms, flood and hail, the proverbial uphill struggle, whether the prosperity offset by adversity which is so characteristic of farming in large parts of our country, could not be the reason for the spiritual strength and the building of a national character on our farms, close to the soil, where the people are exposed to the beneficial and constructive influence of nature with all its vicissitudes. Surely it is there where we develop the particular virtues of tenacity, perseverance, diligence, honesty and, above all, grateful dependence on a Creator. However, one often feels saddened by the disregard for this characterful endeavour in agriculture, when the hon. member for Orange Grove says the following in his speech on agriculture—

The word “or” in this passage bothers me.

I was just asking.

Surely consumers are being incited against producers here. The hon. member asks whether the hon. the Minister exerts himself for the farmer and his cause or whether he exerts himself in the interests of the consumer.

I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister gave the right answer.

If a problem exists in South Africa in regard to the general agricultural set-up and the whole concept of producer-consumer relations, then it is important that the consumer should realize what the farmer’s problems are.

Quite correct.

Then I do not understand why this hon. member wants either the one or the other from the hon. the Minister. Surely he should expect both from the hon. the Minister if he is to be a good Minister. I think it is actions like these which quite often complicate the farmer’s task, because the consumer is encouraged, inter alia, by hon. members such as the hon. member for Orange Grove, to raise objections when the farmer claims his rightful share, a reasonable price for the products he supplies to the consumer. An important aspect which I think should be improved is this attitude, and one wants to call upon the consumer and the farmer to recognize each other’s problems so that we shall be able in this way to go forward to meet the future with a motivated knowledge of what is essential to promote agriculture. I believe that we shall in that way be eliminating a very big problem in agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of this debate and I should like to reply to the requests made by hon. members and to make a few general remarks.

Firstly, I want to tell the hon. member for Smithfield that the Russian wheat-louse is being investigated by my department. The University of Cape Town, several other bodies and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are doing research, because it is difficult to spray the lice. Because the wheat-leaves close, there is no contact and it does not react satisfactorily to systemic poison. However, it will receive the necessary attention.

As far as the Kaffer River Scheme is concerned, there is a committee which is investigating the matter in collaboration with the Department of Water Affairs. Immediately after this session, the Department of Water Affairs and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will jointly see what they can do about this scheme.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has asked that we must have a look at New Zealand to see how they undertake their exporting. New Zealand only produces mutton, wool and dairy products for the export market. They can specialize. We export any commodity one can think of, except rice and coffee. We are busy producing ever-increasing quantities for the export market. One cannot compare the two countries, because New Zealand, with its small population, is mainly dependent on export. However, I took some tips from the hon. member and we can go into those matters.

As far as the profits of the fertilizer companies are concerned, our policy is to allow a company to make 15% profit before tax on its capital outlay in order to encourage people to invest. Before tax it is 15% and after tax it is only 8%. Nobody will invest in a company not making 15% profit on its capital outlay.

Except the farmer.

The farmer is satisfied with much less.

He is fair game.

Are you referring to the capital invested or the capital outlay?

The capital invested, and also in historical values. When one looks at a company that has made a net profit of, say, R7 million, one must also take into consideration that some people have invested R100 million or R200 million in it. There must be growth to enable these people to build new factories. The main thing is that we should have more competition. [Interjections.] I took notice of that.

The hon. member also asked a question about mining options when farmers are bought out for consolidation.

*This varies from one transaction to another.

That was not my question.

The question concerned mining options and farmers who are not sure whether they will be bought out for consolidation or not.

That was not my question.

Then I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member for Marico spoke about the tobacco industry. He referred to the “friendly farmers bank” and said that the Land Bank should fall under the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. We have often discussed this. I do not want to be drawn into a polemic about it, but I can only say that the Land Bank gets along splendidly with the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. If the Managing Director of the Land Bank refuses to help a person I have referred to him, then he has very good reasons indeed for refusing assistance. We shall talk about this again. The hon. member for Marico, who has the interests of the tobacco industry at heart, said that there was unfair competition with tobacco. I agree with him. The psychosis has suddenly developed that one may commit all other sins, if only one does not smoke. We must keep our sense of values. I want us to be healthy. However, my grandfather and my father smoked, and both led exemplary lives.

That is the best reason why you should not smoke. [Interjections.]

I am glad the Bill of the hon. member for Hillbrow is not being discussed this year. It seems to be staying low down on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the tobacco farmer in the United States of America is getting a better return on the tobacco leaf he produces for the protein therein than on the tobacco leaf he produces for the tobacco industry? [Interjections.]

Why do you not emigrate?

Let us rather leave the matter there. The hon. member finds himself in a dilemma. We are always talking about the depopulation of the rural areas. There are people on the border farms on the Limpopo River who have only six ha of land to cultivate and who irrigate this land from the river by means of a hand-pump. One cannot produce vegetables, wheat or something of that nature miles from the market, but one can produce a light-leaf tobacco there. The hon. member was pleading for those people in his constituency. The hon. the Minister of Finance has agreed to have a look at excise tax. The Jacobs Committee and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing are also examining ways of helping these farmers. We have certain agreements with Malawi and Zimbabwe. This is not a one-way traffic. We have to take some of their products, while they have to take some of ours. The hon. member said that we should stop importing tobacco, but there are trade agreements that have to be honoured. I shall go into these matters.

I do not want to keep the Committee, but I want to give an example to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is so terribly concerned about the people whose health is suffering from the use of tobacco. A man was walking down the street smoking a long, fat cigar when a clergyman who did not smoke, like the hon. member for Hillbrow, asked him what that cigar cost. He replied that it cost R4. Then the clergyman asked him, “How many do you smoke every day?” He replied, “About 10 a day.” Thereupon the clergyman asked, “How long have you been smoking?” He replied, and he was getting annoyed: “I have been smoking for the past 40 years.” The clergyman was silent for a few moments and then said, “Do you see that 12-storey building? If you had not smoked, the building could have been yours.” So the smoker asked him: “Do you smoke?” He replied, “No.” Thereupon the smoker asked him, “Is it your building?” When the clergyman said “No”, the smoker said, “Well, it is mine.”

We shall give attention to the small farmer, about whom the hon. member for Marico is so concerned.

I appreciate the interest which the hon. member for Carletonville takes in the maize industry.

†While I was in the USA in November 1979, I visited the office of a farmer in Texas. Against his wall was the following slogan: “The Lord gave you two ends: One for sitting and one for thinking. Your success depends on which you use: heads you win and tails you lose.”

*The hon. member is realistic, because he says we should take a realistic view of land prices. One should remember that a grain-farmer producing maize in the Western or Eastern Transvaal who wants to raise a loan for R300 to R400 per ha, was paying R20 to R30 a ton for superphosphate only 15 years ago. Today a ton of fertilizer costs R145. When one examines the inputs for planting a morgen of maize, including weed-killer, the lot, it costs R250 to R300 today. This is only what it costs and one can lose it all in a drought. Therefore the land values will have to up-graded. I want to thank the hon. member for his standpoint.

I think the hon. member for Humansdorp has been sitting on the Citrus Board for 25 to 30 years. He knows the citrus industry like the palm of his hand, and he knows there is a standing committee which is going into tax concessions and incentives for the exportation of certain products. We take cognizance of his request and I want to thank him on behalf of the citrus industry for what he has done for our citrus industry. In his quiet way he has helped to make it one of our fine industries, one that may export citrus fruit to the value of more than R200 million this year if all goes well.

I come now to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I do not believe in mud-slinging, because it only causes me to lose soil. How does the hon. member think I felt on Friday night when I was driving home from Jan Smuts airport and I heard that the hon. member for Orange Grove had said I had a mess of the maize industry? Those were his words.

[Inaudible.]

You said: “He made a mess.” I am only grateful for the fact that I have not used such words towards a fellow member. The next morning some farmers phoned me and came to visit me on the farm, and they asked how the hon. member for Orange Grove could have said that I had made a mess. I told them to leave him alone. There is an old saying: Two men looked through the self-same bars; one saw mud, the other stars. I cannot help it if I see the stars in life. The hon. member has spoilt a fine debate. I am not going to descend to that level. In every party, 5,2% of the people are made that way. On Sunday afternoon, for example, I told a man in my constituency that he had a fine harvest. I know him. He will never say thank you for the price he can get for it. What was his reaction? His reaction was: “Have you considered what it is going to cost me to transport this harvest?” One gets people like that.

†The hon. member says an efficient farmer, not a member of the Maize Mafia or the Maize Broederbond, will come with production control. If we plant 4 million ha of maize in order to produce 10 million tons and we need only 6 million tons. Must I go to the farmer and say: “This year you are only going to plant 3 million ha of maize.” What must they do with the other million hectare?

Make ethanol.

What must they plant? In the Eastern or Western Transvaal where maize and grain sorghum are traditionally planted, which are today all in surplus, what must he plant? It is easy to shout: “Do not make a mess of the industry, have production control and stop producing surplus maize.” But he will be the first to shout “See what a mess you have made” if there is a drought and nothing can be imported. I cannot win, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon. member said Samso was the “fly in the ointment”. Samso is affiliated to the South African Agricultural Union. I spent many hours over many weeks trying to get Sampi and Samso to combine. I could not succeed, however, on account of certain personal problems amongst leaders in the agricultural field. If the S.A. Agricultural Union is prepared, however, to grant Sampi affiliation, I shall be only too prepared to accept it. I cannot, however, compel the S.A. Agricultural Union to grant Sampi affiliation. I am sure the hon. member will fully agree with this. Nevertheless, I am not standing in the way of co-operation amongst maize farmers. But the hon. member must not allege that Samso is the fly in the ointment. Those were his words. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Orange Grove also alleged that I had made a mess of the sunflower situation. This was also broadcast on the radio.

[Inaudible.]

The Cabinet meets and takes certain decisions which are then announced in this House. It is announced, for example, that motorists are not allowed to exceed 70 km an hour. It is announced here that the diesel supply of farmers is being reduced by 30%. We are in a desperate plight regarding our liquid fuel imports. We simply cannot get any oil. Cabinet Ministers are even being told to drive a Mazda 323. All those things were done because we had our backs to the wall. In July, when the hon. member for Orange Grove visited the Kruger National Park, people of the Department of Agriculture were hard at work. Just then the CSIR, in collaboration with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, made a major breakthrough with the use of sunflower oil in tractors without any loss of power for those tractors. What happened? We were so pleased that I announced that although the oil supply of farmers was being reduced by 30%, they need not be alarmed. If a farmer wants to plant maize on 100 ha of his farm and sunflowers on 10 ha, his co-operative or a company can produce enough oil for him from that 10 ha of sunflowers to enable him to plant 90 ha of maize.

Positive thinking.

However, what was the reaction to the publicity given to this matter? We received all kinds of invitations. People from the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are overseas at the moment. Dr. Immelman will be able to tell hon. members how many letters we received from America, Germany, France and elsewhere, letters from people who are doing research. It was said: “It was a breakthrough.” I have one newspaper cutting with me. It says, among other things: “You cannot boycott South Africa; they have sunflower oil.”

Flower power.

And then? Then the oil came. Now I am asking quite frankly whether it is true that I made a mess of this. What I did do was to give peace of mind to the farmers of South Africa. I am talking to the hon. member for Orange Grove as a patriot and not as … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, could the hon. the Minister tell us whether, as a result of what happened, the situation exists that we might actually have to import sunflower seed oil?

No.

Not at all?

We actually need between 450 000 and 500 000 tons of sunflower seed. That is under normal conditions. We need that for the production of margarine, cooking oil, etc., as well as for export. The quantity of sunflowers we have planted could give us even 10% more than the supply we need. What has happened since? A virus has attacked our sunflower crop.

*It is pathetic to see what has happened to the sunflower crop of people on the Springbok Flats. They had a splendid crop. There was absolutely nothing wrong with it. Now that it is being threshed, however, the blighted seeds are being blown out because they have been affected by a virus infection. At the moment it is not yet quite certain whether the problem has not perhaps been caused by a weed-killer. Now many farmers find themselves in trouble. However, I do not foresee that it will be necessary to import sunflowers. Fortunately, the sunflower crop in some parts of the Eastern Transvaal is better than we expected. However, that has nothing to do with this announcement. I do not want to dwell too long on this matter. The hon. member for Orange Grove must please accept one thing. I did not make a mess of the sunflower situation.

I am entitled to my own opinion.

The hon. member does not believe me.

*The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke has replied effectively to certain aspects. I agree with him that we shall have to consider granting the same assistance to border farms as we are granting to border industries. I just want to say that we should not overemphasize this whole position of border farms. By doing that we would be creating a border farm phobia in South Africa. That is what our enemies want. We should not make such a fuss about this matter. We should not keep emphasizing the border farm phobia and the depopulation of the border areas. There is a general depopulation because of certain circumstances in agriculture. However, this does not apply only to the border areas. My standpoint is that we must give the border farmer who produces meat or tobacco the right price for his products so that it may be made attractive for him to go on farming there. Farmers are not leaving their farms because of a so-called border phobia. They are simply leaving because of economic conditions. This is one of the things which the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke spelt out so effectively.

The hon. member for Kuruman spoke about the purchase of farms and about the Kalahari pipeline. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given him a satisfactory reply to that. We are giving attention to the question of transfer duties and transfer costs.

†I now come to the hon. member for Mooi River. He said that farmers would go to the borders if they could make a good living. That is what I have just said. He also said, however, that one should make provision for viable economic units. It is ironic, but if one wants economic units, one must have bigger units. To get bigger units, however, some people must leave, and that means depopulation.

*The hon. member agrees. I should be quite prepared to accept him on this side as the Deputy Minister of Agriculture if that were necessary, but I want nothing to do with the hon. member behind him. [Interjections.] There is nothing wrong with my Deputy Minister. I only mean if there has to be another one. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for South Coast broke a lance for our extension officers. He was an extension officer himself in our department. However, we must be careful when we talk about giving preferential treatment to the people of one section. The extension officer with a B.Sc. degree asks which section is the most important one when it comes to giving preferential treatment to one group. Is it food research? One cannot simply give preferential treatment to the people of one section. We have to keep those people. The hon. member made certain proposals which the Director-General and I will discuss with him again.

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the Black worker who leaves home for periods of up to 12 months. The hon. member should take up the matter with the Agricultural Union, the people in the Western Cape. They will be able to tell him that when a man goes from Mexico to North America to work there, he goes on condition that he does not take his wife along, otherwise he acquires permanence in the area concerned. The migrant labourers used by the Germans, people from other territories, are not allowed to bring their wives along.

That is not so.

It is. I have experienced it myself. [Interjections.] In agriculture those labourers cannot bring their wives along. The farmer does not have the facilities either to accommodate so many people on his farm for short periods, and some of those people come for periods of only three months.

Here it is in one and the same country, not a different country.

It is the same country, I agree, but there are certain problems. Make proposals to the farmers in the Western Cape and ask them whether they are prepared to accommodate these people with their families. Hon. members want to bring in a farm labourer and his wife, but what about the 12 or 14 kiddies? Can they come along too? There are many questions I can ask about this. The farmer must be prepared to accept the situation. One cannot force farmers to take these people. It is up to the farm labourer to decide whether he is prepared to come for 12 months on that basis or not. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member also spoke about our fishing resources in False Bay. I shall come to that presently.

The hon. member for Ceres referred to three important points, namely confidence in agriculture, the right people and the right price policy. He referred to reserves in good years. The standing committee is investigating that. They are investigating how a farmer can be enabled to build up reserves in good years. They are investigating how the tax collecter can be prevented from taking everything, with the result that the farmer is forced to his knees again in times of drought. I agree with the hon. member all along.

†The hon. member for Mooi River said Sampi could be wished away. He said I must allow affiliation. I would be only too glad to do so. Let me put on record that if there could be affiliation, I would immediately allow it. I will then send the hon. member a telegram and we could celebrate.

*The hon. member for Brits has come to see me repeatedly. He has also approached the Minister of Water Affairs and the planning division. He has a scheme which, if it could be put into operation for the Lower Crocodile River, would in my opinion be an attraction which would induce people to settle there. We are giving attention to the proposals made by the hon. member for Brits, because he is the man who takes a great interest in attracting farmers to his constituency and keeping them there.

The hon. member for Worcester spoke about all the good qualities today’s farmer has to have. He is quite right in saying that we must not kill the industry with complaints. I agree with him. The hon. member referred to mampoer and witblits and similar cultural things which are dying out. I was at the opening of the Cultural History Museum at Kaalplaas, between Pretoria and Bronkhorstspruit, in the Rayton district. There the cultural history people showed me a beautiful copper kettle with a big hole knocked into it. That is the kind of copper kettle in which certain farmers traditionally distilled their brandy. The excise people say they cannot allow thus kind of distilling. I have approached the Department about the problem of the remaining 90 traditional old distillers. Those people have no effect on the wine industry. Can we not allow those people to pass their expertise on to their sons so that we may preserve this tradition? The hon. member for Waterkloof drew my attention to the fact that people pay exorbitant prices in our country today for imported liqueurs with fancy names, while the same kind of beverages were traditionally distilled on farms in kettles, from pineapples, peaches, or prickly pears. One can distil it from any kind of fruit. It is a small quantity of liquor that is distilled and it has a character of its own. In the shops we pay R25 a bottle for the imported product. Because we usually cannot pronounce its name, we regard it as something fancy and we are very taken with the taste. This distilling will have no effect on the industry.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke of the training of veterinarians. I can tell the hon. member we have decided on a college in the vicinity of Pretoria for the northern Blacks. The number of students at Onderstepoort is being increased from 45 to 90. We have also decided from the point of view of agriculture to have a second faculty for the training of veterinarians. If we can get Blacks to be more interested in being trained as veterinarians, I will be all for it, because it is basic to the agriculture of the Black man.

*He has to have a few goats, a sheep and a cow. Therefore it is important that we should train these people in this direction as well.

As regards de-horned cattle, one pays a levy of R1 per head for cattle that are not de-horned. I quite agree with the hon. member in this connection. Homs on cattle that are being transported by rail or road only spoil the meat. They certainly do not encourage rapid growth. Perhaps one should try to make it obligatory for cattle to be de-horned. It is so easy to do it. One just applies something when the calf has been born. There are several ways in which it can be done. I agree with the hon. member in this respect. The hon. member also referred to the need to improve the quality of bulls. Who could be against that? It is indeed essential.

Now I want to come to the fishing business. Allow me to say that I was in an aircraft with the hon. member for Simonstown for two hours the other day and that he spent the whole time advocating the matter. However, I was struck by the fact that he never asked for a specific company or person to be given a certain quota. Nor was his plea intended to benefit anyone, including himself. He was pleading for only one thing—and this is what the other members have also pleaded for—and that is the protection and preservation of this asset, so that it may be built up again. I agree with that. When we look at our livestock today, we can say that under normal circumstances, South Africa can carry 32 million sheep. If South Africa wants to carry more, these animals must be fed and not put out to graze. South Africa can carry between 8 million and 10 million head of cattle on the open range. If we want to carry more, the additional cattle have to be fed.

What has been done in respect of the sea, however? When I took over this task, I found that I had inherited a bankrupt estate. It is tragic to think that Walvis Bay has eight factories, seven of which cannot operate this year. One hears that there are thousands of workers and labourers who have been deprived of their livelihood because of the outrageous exploitation of the sea by man. There has been wasteful exploitation. They only took out and put nothing back. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to this. I think it is disgraceful. They are only taking out and putting nothing back. Everything has simply been taken away and destroyed, and the result of this is that posterity will be deprived of fish, this source of protein. I cannot express it in stronger language. How is one to feel when there are eight factories which used to produce and only one of those factories is in operation this year?

Together with Mr. Stander, Mr. Le Roux and Dr. Newman, who are doing research in the field of sea fisheries, I shall go into all the arguments that have been advanced. We shall examine the proposals of the hon. member with regard to Dr. Lochner’s theory. Perhaps the theories of the departmental marine biologists are wrong. I have to go into it all. I also have to obtain the opinions of my predecessors in this field.

They have made a mess of it.

They have the experience which I still lack. I have been told, for example, that only 5% of our total fish production is caught at False Bay every year. It has been said that there are 50 boats in False Bay. The hon. member for Wynberg as well as the hon. member for Simonstown said that the boats converge on False Bay and that there are between 50 and 52 boats there during one night. According to the figures available to me, False Bay produces only 5% of the total amount of fish.

That falls under the commission.

Traditionally it has always been 5%. I do not know what the capacity is. We now have the commission under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Piketberg. The hon. members for Simonstown and Moorreesburg serve on the commission, and I am waiting anxiously for the report so that we may see whether we can go into all these matters.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg emphasized the importance of oysterbreeding, while the hon. member for Mossel Bay said there were enough oysters in Mossel Bay. We are talking here about something we cannot see, and hon. members can lie to me, because one hon. member said that we have a shortage of oysters and that we should breed oysters, but another hon. member said that there are oysters galore. We must have an opportunity to evaluate all these things so that we may see what the right method is that we should apply. However, I can say that all hon. members who spoke in the fisheries debate only wish to ensure that this industry is developed into a fine one.

†The hon. member for Orange Grove said I must be very conservative with the allocation of quotas. I can give him the undertaking that this is indeed the case. He also said I must not appoint Nationalists on the Parks Board.

He did not say that.

He referred to members of a certain political party. Dr. Martini serves on the Parks Board.

That is one expert.

No. What is wrong with the appointment of Dr. Knoble? What is wrong with the appointment of Dr. Neethling, a man who has his own game reserve? What is wrong with the chairman, Prof. Eloff, a world-renowned figure? The only thing I did after Mr. P. Z. J. van Vuuren passed away was to appoint the hon. member for Moorreesburg to the board, a person who displays an exceptionally keen interest in conservation. Is there anything wrong with that? If the hon. member for Orange Grove had behaved himself and had not said that I had made a mess of certain things, I might have appointed him next time. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the potash seminar. Representatives of my department cannot possibly attend all seminars. I cannot ask the department to attend all the seminars that are held in South Africa. If a seminar is to be organized, the organizers need only contact the department with a view to arranging a suitable date.

*So many seminars are held in South Africa, however, that the department simply cannot keep up. However, if the fertilizer association would only clear the date with us first, we could arrange who should represent the department and what the purpose of the discussion should be.

†Do not let us organize a seminar on potash if there is a surplus of potash. It is a business undertaking. I do not want to appear negative, but I can tell hon. members a lot about the potash story. We found in the Groblersdal district that potash decreases the production of wheat. Are hon. members aware of that? Then the people still want to sell us potash.

You must find out what the technical aspects are and then take action.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Mossel Bay concerning the determination of our resources and I want to thank him for his contribution. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that I inherited the problem pertaining to the fishing industry. He also said that greed was part of human nature and referred to people taking out of the sea without putting anything back. He also referred to between 200 000 and 300 000 anglers who annually fish off the Natal coast. The hon. member for Orange Grove also spoke about freshwater fishing. Most of the control over freshwater fishing is at present in the hands of the provincial authorities. My experience as far as freshwater fish is concerned is that one must do certain things, otherwise problems will arise.

*One has to begin by shooting every otter, hammer-head and heron. The fishing fish-catching birds are found at the earth dams from which irrigation is done. I have cut some of them open with my pocket-knife myself, and in one bird’s gizzard I found no fewer than 54 small fish. The birds feast on them. They first have to be shot. There has to be someone all the time to kill these fish-catching birds. Therefore one cannot simply ask someone to start farming with fresh-water fish.

The same applies to the seals.

Yes, the same applies to the seals. If we said that every otter had to be killed, the societies for the protection of animals would have a great deal to say about that. People farm with kurper and carp, but I have found that it is most economical to farm with barbels, which people are least willing to eat, but barbels eat all the other small fish in their turn. They are like snoek. They are scavengers which eat everything they can find, dead or alive. It is a pity that there is not enough time for me to give the hon. member some further information. However, it is true that one could successfully farm with freshwater fish in the interior, but everyone has to specialize today.

The hon. member for Swellendam paid tribute to the South African farmer and his wife. He was worried about the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove was the only one who wanted play off the consumer against the producer. We need each other, and if there is a spirit of antagonism between the consumer and the producer, if there is not a feeling of goodwill, then I say quite frankly that I believe that if there is one section of our population that should have a good car, it is the farmer. There is a great deal of joking by people who say that farmers all drive a Mercedes Benz. What does the man in Hillbrow need a car for? There is a bus and a train, after all. He lives close to the hospitals and the doctors. Do not point your fingers at the car of the farmer who lives 50, 80 or 100 km from the nearest doctor. My endeavour is that that man should have the right vehicle. He should also have the facilities to be able to share in the economy. I sometimes say jokingly that the people who live in Waterkloof have to drive a Mercedes Benz, for if they took the bus, they would have to pay cash.

The other day my wife received a Landbouweekblad of 1932 from her aunt at Darling. In it, the farmers addressed a plea to the then Minister of Agriculture, General Kemp, asking whether they could not get more than four shillings and sixpence for a bag of maize. There was also an advertisement in that edition of Landbouweekblad in which a man is looking for a White farm manager at £1 a month and accommodation, and he has to be married, so that he will not gad about. £1 a month? That is how agriculture has changed since 1932.

There are many people I still have to thank. Firstly, my colleagues in the Cabinet. One gets nowhere without their support in obtaining the right things for the section one represents. Without it, one’s hands are tied. In particular, I thank the hon. the Prime Minister for his assistance in obtaining something for the farmers. What I find worrying, however, is the fact that the profit margin in agriculture is steadily shrinking. We have 800 000 jobless people today; I am mentioning it specifically because the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization is here today. And what is the farmer doing today? A farmer can no longer expect to hire a Coloured or a Black man without giving him a good dwelling, with water, electricity and a good salary. One cannot afford to offer him poor accommodation. But what are we doing now? We are mechanizing on a large scale. Farmers are using milking machines and weed-killers. The farmers are sowing grain sorghum from an aircraft.

This weekend I saw a man harvesting grain sorghum which had been sown by an aircraft. No tractor is ever used in that field. Diesel is too expensive. The soil is only harrowed once. Weed-killers and fertilizer are applied by aircraft. Then the combines harvest the sorghum and it is conveyed to the silos in bulk. The Black man stands there; he has no work. This is due to mechanization. In the Groblersdal area, 44 new cotton-pickers were used this year, where in the past thousands of people had harvested the crop by hand. In July, the picking of green peas was something to be seen. I have seen 700 singing Blacks picking green peas by hand. Now the peas are being cut off by machines. The whole plant is thrown into the threshing machine which separates the peas and puts them into cans at the Langeberg factory. Because of mechanization, we shall have to examine the whole situation. Banda of Malawi said that he was going to prohibit the importation of tractors. It is his economy for keeping his people employed. It is his primary industry. He has to let the people do the work by hand. There used to be such a wide field in which agriculture was the greatest employer, but today the profit margin is so small that the farmer is under pressure to mechanize, to the detriment of the masses who depend on labour.

There are so many other things I could discuss, but I want to conclude by thanking our new Director-General, Dr. Immerman, and all our officials who are retiring, Mr. Fanie van Schalkwyk, who is going to another department, Mr. Van Blommenstein and all our other top officials and Mr. Paul Nel, who is leaving me, and all the hon. members who have participated, and above all, all the farmers of our country; I want to thank them for having supported me. Let us keep our heads above water. Let us all move forward together and may the Good Lord grant us a good year and good rains.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The present calendar of public holidays was introduced 28 years ago after a thorough investigation by a commission of inquiry in the early ’fifties, under the chairmanship of the late Dr. S. H. Pellisier. The Public Holidays Act of 1952 was subsequently amended on a few occasions. Van Riebeeck Day and Family Day, inter alia, were abolished in 1973 and the Afrikaans name of Boxing Day was changed from “Tweede Kersdag” to “Gesinsdag”. The holidays of a nation are to some extent a reflection of that nation’s history and of its philosophy of life, and a calendar of public holidays is therefore liable to periodic alterations and revision.

Since 1973 there have been continual representations from interested members of the public and cultural and other bodies for the re-introduction of Van Riebeeck Day as a public holiday, and for other changes in the calendar of public holidays, as well as changes in the names of some of the holidays. The Government consequently decided to appoint a commission of inquiry to inquire into and report on the desirability of amending the Public Holidays Act of 1952 in order to provide for a better and more suitable calendar of public holidays in the Republic of South Africa. The recommendations of the commission are contained in the report that was laid upon the Table on 26 March 1980.

Before I elucidate the provisions of the Bill, I want to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the chairman, Dr. J. S. Gericke, and the members of the commission most sincerely for the excellent manner in which the commission performed its task. The commission was unable to reach unanimity on its recommendations and a minority report was also submitted. The Bill which I am now introducing embodies those recommendations contained in the majority report. Although the commission deals with all the public holidays in its report, I shall only deal with those recommendations that require amending the Act.

*The vast majority of representations made to the commission dealt with the reintroduction of 6 April as a public holiday. According to the commission, church denominations, cultural organizations and many other persons and bodies almost without exception declared themselves to be in favour of the reintroduction of 6 April as a public holiday. The commission gave serious consideration to the name of this day and decided to recommend the name “Founders’ Day” — “Stigtingsdag”—and I fully agree with the commission’s motivation concerning the reintroduction of 6 April as a public holiday and its name as explained in paragraph 6.3 of its report. However, the reintroduction of 6 April as a public holiday does not mean that the number of public holidays will be increased, since the commission recommended that Settlers’ Day be removed from the calendar.

The other recommendations of the commission, as contained in the Bill, are—

1. (a) that Family Day be moved to the Monday after Easter Sunday;
2. (b) that “Day of the Vow” be adopted as the English name for “Geloftedag”, because it is closer to the meaning of the “gelofte” than the term “Day of the Covenant”; and
3. (c) that Day of Goodwill—“Welwillendheidsdag”—be introduced in the place of Boxing Day—“Gesinsdag”.

Section 1 of the Public Holidays Act, 1952, provides that if any of the present public holidays falls on a Sunday, excluding Easter Sunday, the following Monday shall be a public holiday. In paragraph 7 of the report it is said that the commission finds no sound reason why a date-bound holiday, with the exception of New Year’s day, should be moved to the following Monday, when it falls on a Sunday in a particular year. This makes an absurdity of the fact that the holiday is tied to a particular date. All the public holidays recommended by the commission are of such a nature that in the opinion of the commission, they can just as well be celebrated on a Sunday every six or seven years by the holding of services of thanksgiving, dedication and prayer in churches. This recommendation, which has been accepted by the Government, means that the number of “holidays” will be reduced by one and sometimes two every year. The commission points out that the acceptance of this recommendation may have certain prejudicial consequences for workers, and the commission was in fact requested by employees’ organizations to recommend that all public holidays be declared to be paid statutory holidays as well.

It is not within the scope of the Public Holidays Act to provide which public holidays should be paid holidays. The remuneration of employees, except Government, provincial and similar employees, is regulated by other legislation. In this way, the Shops and Offices Act, 1964, and the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act, 1941, both provide for basic conditions of service, including paid public holidays. Amendments to the Public Holidays Act will not detract in any way from the bargaining power of industrial councils in negotiating for other days and even more days than are laid down in the said Act to be declared paid holidays. Industrial councils are only bound by the minimum number of paid public holidays laid down in terms of the Factories Act and the Shops and Offices Act. As far as Railway staff is concerned, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs announced on 28 March 1980 that he intended to negotiate about this matter with the Railway Staff Associations.

The amending Act will come into operation on 1 January 1981.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the opinion expressed by the commissioners in their majority report that the content of a public holiday should satisfy at least one of several criteria. The commission quoted the criteria a public holiday should satisfy. It should have a religious content, it must be of a cultural/historical significance, it must have a general traditional basis or it must serve a very special purpose.

I do, however, believe that there are perhaps one or two other considerations which should be taken into account when ordaining or observing national holidays, particularly those falling under the heading “cultural/historical”.

History actually belongs to all of us. It belongs to all South Africans, whether those South Africans are English speaking or Afrikaans speaking, whether they are Christian or Jewish, whether we live in Sandton or in Soweto and whether our forebears fought for the English, the Afrikaners or the Zulus at Rorke’s Drift or Blood River. History belongs to everybody. It is not a sectional thing at all. It is nothing more than a chronical of the issues, events, people, causes and effects which have gone into making up South Africa as we know it today. Commemoration of specific dates in the life of a country should therefore in my view be very circumspectly decided upon. I believe they should promote unity and not division. They should emphasize the whole community and not just a section of the community.

What about Christmas Day?

I shall come to Christmas Day. The hon. member is interrupting me because he must have been asleep at the beginning. I am talking about those holidays that fall under the heading of “historical/cultural”. I am talking under that heading and not about religious holidays. [Interjections.]

Such days, when they are ordained, should emphasize the whole community and not just one section. If possible the commemoration of days falling under this heading should be days which commemorate happy and joyous events and not events which revive bitterness and ill-feeling. Above all I think there is a consideration which should be observed when ordaining what days should be public holidays and that is they should be days which could be honoured with the goodwill and participation of all citizens.

In this vein, let us look quite dispassionately at Republic Day. I have no personal objection to the celebration of Republic Day. Many years ago, in 1960, many of us who were in Opposition at the time and still are, voted against a republic.

Not I.

Well, I voted against Republic. However, it is my view that over the years the Republic has had a unifying effect. It has brought White South Africans together. It has made South Africa far less dependent on other countries, which in turn has made us more resourceful and more aware of our country. I was probably wrong to vote against a republic in 1960. If such an occasion arose again I would probably not vote against a republic. [Interjections.] I read from page 5, paragraph 6.7, of the commissions report on the issue—

Having read the report, I agree with the hon. member for Durban Central, however, when he says the second half of the explanation on Republic Day exaggerates the historical meaning of the day. Let us look at the evidence. I refer to pages 24 and 25 of the record of the commission’s report, and I quote Dr. Bergins, who, as we know, was an elected leader in the CRC until some time ago. On page 24 he says the following—

That was the view of Dr. Bergins, who is no radical, no un-South African person. He is as South African as any one in this House.

I think it is correct to say that despite the way in which the commission has motivated Republic Day, this day, unfortunately, is not a day which is celebrated by Blacks or Coloureds in any great degree. We have had the example of the Labour Party not wishing to serve on committees. I do not think that any elected or other Coloured leaders in Soweto or any of the other major towns would take part in Republic Day. It is a matter of sorrow to all of us that that is so. We must understand, however, as Dr. Bergins pointed out, the origins of this attitude. The people of colour had no say in the coming of the Republic. In fact, if we look back to 1960 shortly after the referendum was announced, we remember that the Coloured people were specifically excluded from taking part in deciding whether a Republic should come about or not. This was made known by Dr. Verwoerd in an announcement at that time. Today, if we look in honesty to this Parliament, there is not a Black or a Coloured face in sight. There is no influence upon this Parliament by any Coloured, Black or Indian body. They have very little say in the running of our country as we know it today. Republic Day is a day of Black passivity; it is a White man’s holiday. I hope and pray that with the coming of the new constitution, when the new order will be brought about, a new day, a Constitution Day perhaps, will be found as a public holiday to include everyone.

The commission also decided to retain— this is embodied in the law and there is no change to the law in this respect—Kruger Day, and 16 December as the Day of the Vow which is, as has been explained, a better English translation. These recommendations are embodied in the Bill. While I do not begrudge these holidays, I think that we should understand that these two particular days should in fact be seen as purely sectional or group holidays. When I say “sectional” I do not mean it in a bad way, but they are group holidays. They are sectional even within the White community and of no consequence at all in so far as the Blacks are concerned.

That means you will never have a public holiday.

No, what I am saying is that these particular holidays must be seen in the context of the fact that; they are group holidays. They are holidays celebrated by a particular group in South Africa because they have a specific significance only for that particular group. I say that they are of no consequence at all in so far as the Black community is concerned.

Kruger Day, commemorating or celebrating as it does the birth of Pres. Kruger, is a day to honour the memory of that Afrikaner hero and is widely used, regrettably, as a platform for political statements from time to time. The commissioners, in stating their case on this matter, I believe were erroneous in their reasoning. I quote from paragraph 6.8, page 5—

1. (c) Your commission recommends the name Kruger Day, and wishes to stress again that the name should mean nothing more than to indicate the nature and quality of the South African heroes who should be honoured on 10 October.
2. (d) This day need not necessarily be a sectional or Afrikaner festival. Other population groups have produced their own heroes, and are in fact at the present time producing heroes in our country and on its borders.
3. (e) This holiday can therefore give the people of each population group an opportunity to honour great men and women from among themselves.

The very name “Kruger Day” I think will render that reasoning erroneous in that it is going to be celebrated as Kruger Day and not as a day of the heroes of all the communities of South Africa. [Interjections.] If this was to be a day—as reasoned by the commission— to be honoured by all South Africans, a day representing all the major heroes, it is erroneously named Kruger Day and is erroneously placed on the date of President Kruger’s birthday. I merely want to comment on the reasoning here. If we wish to have a day on which past heroes of South Africa, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, Black and White, are to be remembered, we should call it “Heroes’ Day”. One should not call it after one rather controversial leader whose memory may epitomize the aspirations of one group, but certainly does little for 22 million other South African people.

Almost the same can be said for the newly-named Day of the Vow. The date of 16 December is probably my favourite public holiday of the year, as I am sure it is for many of us. The reason why it is one of my favourite public holidays is because it heralds the start of the Christmas season. It is hot, the weather is wonderful …

Is that all you see in it?

I am trying to explain, and if the hon. member would listen carefully he would understand. I ask hon. members to place themselves in the positions of other people. I respect the Day of the Vow completely for those who celebrate it, but for me it signifies the start of the Christmas season. The school holidays are at hand and the children are at home. It is a time of happiness and of fun. It is a matter of great regret, however, that it is not used as either a fun day or as a day which is totally religious in context. It is a day on which politicians have, particularly in past years—and many of those politicians are sitting in this House, including the hon. the Minister of Public Works—donned the cloaks of ministers of religion and the day on which ministers of religion have become politicians. It is a day that commemorates a great military victory of White over Black. After the last few 16 December celebrations even leading Government members appeared to accept that the occasion was becoming increasingly disruptive of national unity. I feel that it is a pity that the commission has not appreciated the fact that it is a day that is misused politically, and has not moved to recharacterize that holiday. It is a day on which the majority of South Africans, Black and White, feel very left out and of no consequence in this country at all.

No respect for the things of others.

That hon. member says I have no respect. There is, however, something I want to tell him.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether his party, if ever it were to come into power, would abolish that day?

I would say that the answer to that is “no”. I would say that we would retain that holiday if we came to power. I do not say that there would not, in due course as the evolution of South Africa progressed, be a commission that would not make another decision. My view would be, however, that we would retain it because it is a day of special significance to the Afrikaans section of the South African community. [Interjections.] I am not pleading for its “afskaffing” at all. Regrettably, however, it is a day that has been misused politically. If we want it as a religious holiday, to commemorate a vow made on the eve of a great battle, it should be used as a religious holiday. It should not be used, as has been done by many people in politics, to propagate the politics of one section of a community. That is where the abuse has crept in and that is the reason why most South Africans—all except perhaps 3 million South Africans—do not take part in it, are never invited to speak on such occasions …

Have you ever participated?

Let me tell the hon. member that I have felt very left out, because on an occasion when I did attend, a speech was delivered which I considered to be a political speech. So, quite frankly, I resolved never to go again, and I shall not.

There can be no comment—and Christmas Day was mentioned earlier—or criticism in respect of the retention of New Year’s day, Good Friday, Christmas Day and Ascension Day. I shall therefore not deal with these. I would, however, like to mention Easter Monday, Boxing Day and the new Founders’ Day.

Easter Monday, which is now deemed to be called Family Day, is a day which means a great deal to South Africans of all colours and of all language groups. I want to say that we agree with its retention as a public holiday; that is to say, the retention of the Monday after Easter. I agree with the reasoning of the commission in deciding that the long weekend be retained. I regret that I do not agree with the change in the name of Easter Monday. I think it was “Paasmaandag” in Dutch, but as “Easter Monday” it has come to us from England from medieval times. It has always been linked to the agony of the crucifixion, to the joy of the resurrection.

That is not true. Ask the hon. member for Pinelands.

Not on Monday.

Hon. members disagree with me on this point. I should like to make it clear that I do not want to get involved in a religious argument, but I do want to say that it has a close religious connection. It is bound up with Easter which has come through Christianity and which over the last 200 years at least has consisted of this long weekend. To call it Family Day—it is Easter Monday; it will always be known as Easter Monday—is to waste its historical and largely English significance. All public holidays are family days. Every single time there is a public holiday, it has the effect of bringing families together. That is one of the wonderful things of public holidays. This particular holiday, “Family Day”, as it is being called, is no more significant than any other day as a day for the family. I believe that the change of name is an unnecessary one which whittles away yet another tradition which came to us, at least partly, from England.

I should like to mention Boxing Day. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to pay attention to this next point. Boxing Day goes back many centuries. The institution of Christmas boxes descended to us from the times of the ancient Romans who at the season of Saturn practised the custom of giving and receiving gifts. In the process of time the custom of Christmas boxes was taken over by the Christians and slowly achieved universality.

[Inaudible.]

In Britain, certainly since the 18th century, the 26th day of December, which is in fact St. Stephen’s Day and is also known as such, because known as Boxing Day. It became the customary day for servants of the public, who collected only salaries from municipalities, etc., but who served the public in different ways, to collect their annual presents from the public in recompense for the work they performed during the year.

Now they get it in the month of their birthday.

Sir, that hon. member keeps mumbling away and I cannot hear what he is saying. If he would like to ask a question, let him please stand up and ask it properly. It is the annual day when the servants of the public walk around the streets and collect their presents. Even in South Africa this has been carried forward. On Boxing Day the dustman comes. On that day also the postmen used to come—I am not sure whether he comes anymore. The milkman, too, comes around and is given some refreshment and a small gift. The street cleaners come to the homes and, in appreciation for the work they have done over the year, something is given to them. Boxing Day has been kept alive by this very thought of the little gift. It is a noble and happy thought. It is a thought which originated in Roman times and which grew up in England. It has significance to many of us and I think also to Blacks.

The day of goodwill.

It is a boxing day, not a day of goodwill, although both are included in the concept. The proposed change of name, while not being objectionable, does a disservice to the tradition which has sprung from its Christian, European and English origins. I am sorry that this name is to be changed. I cannot support it.

I want to say a few words about Settlers’ Day and Founders’ Day. I am sorry to see that Settlers’ Day is to be abolished. The commission has recommended that it be abolished. The hon. member for Rissik asked me if I would be in favour of banning the Day of the Vow. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central also made a few noises along those lines. Settlers’ Day is the only non-religious public holiday in South Africa which has any real significance for English-speakers in South Africa.

What about New Year’s Day?

No. Settlers’ Day has slowly come to be taken to commemorate the landing of the 1820 Settlers in the Eastern Cape.

When did they land?

Perhaps the date was wrong. I want to agree with the commissioners that historically speaking the date of Settlers’ Day was incorrectly placed, but the idea was good and the concept was appreciated. As an English-speaking South African I want to say that I am sorry and sad that the only date in the English-speaking calender which is not a religious date has been brushed aside by the commission, adopted in the Bill and will be eradicated from our calendar.

I am sorry that Van Riebeeck Day has not been reinstated in its proper form. At least Van Riebeeck Day had a meaning and significance in that it commemorated the landing of the Dutch on the shores of the Cape on 6 April 1652. It commemorated, and had a significance for, the planting of the European Afrikaner people in Africa and the starting of a new race in South Africa at that time. Yet it has not been reinstated in its proper form.

I wish hon. members would appreciate that by doing away with Settlers’ Day, by not reinstating Van Riebeeck Day and by creating a day which is to be called Founders’ Day, the Government is achieving the worst of all worlds. English-speakers no longer have a public holiday which is of special significance to them. The actual arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, and the societies, institutions and Church bodies who gave evidence that they want that day reinstated, is not being specifically commemorated, and the indigenous races of South Africa are again left out in the cold.

What do the Nats have against old Jan?

The commemoration of 6 April, while not fully recognizing Jan van Riebeeck’s achievement in coming here, will make the Black, Coloured and Indian races feel that they are non-participants. I want to quote from an editorial in The Cape Times of 7 April 1980. I want to quote it because I believe it is a very good editorial. It says—

I also want to quote what Dr. Bergins said in the commission on this very issue. On page 226 of the record of the proceedings of the commission he said the following about Founders’ Day—

I am not sure to which church he was referring, so it can remain anonymous. However, basically he is saying that when we are talking about the founding of a nation, which nation are we talking about? Are we talking about a nation of which he is a part?

Taking all the things which I have said this afternoon into consideration, I genuinely believe that the commission has missed the boat. I regret too, to say that the Bill has missed the boat as well. Perhaps the commission missed the boat because of its very composition, perhaps because of all the witnesses it heard. I looked carefully through this document, because all the witnesses appeared to be White witnesses or representatives of White associations or White bodies.

Some organizations and churches spoke on their behalf.

I still have to be persuaded that these were Black organizations. It appears to me that the evidence which was put before the commission was of a preponderantly White-based nature. I believe that the commission has certainly done a good job in constructing a calendar of public holidays suitable to the White Afrikaans-speaking 13% section of the South African nation, but it has regrettably done very little to bring our people together. The one decision which it has made which will be of consequence to all communities is in fact a negative decision, the decision to cancel the Monday holiday after a holiday which falls on a Sunday. Except in the one case, New Year’s Day, this will affect workers of all classes and colours, particularly those who are forced by the very laws of this country to live far from their families. This kind of people will miss some of those few opportunities which in the past were offered to them to go home to see their people.

I believe furthermore that the new calendar is unevenly distributed. From 31 May to 10 October there is no holiday—a 4½ month break. I think this evidences an imbalance, at least not a happy balance.

Finally, I believe this task will have to be undertaken again, perhaps when a new constitution is upon us, perhaps when a new constitution has been founded and finally agreed upon. But whenever that task is undertaken, I believe that it can only be properly undertaken if it is done in the closest consultation and with the closest goodwill of all the communities in South Africa. Until that date, I regret to say that it is my view and the view of my party that we should leave the existing calendar alone.

Mr. Speaker, after the speech which the hon. member for Sandton has just made, two things are very clear to me. One is that he did not have the faintest idea of what was happening on the commission. Did his party’s commissioners, who sat on the commission, not inform him that both of them had been in complete agreement with the commission’s findings for a whole year? To tell the truth, the hon. member for Johannesburg North himself proposed some of the holidays, which he now wants to denounce as one-sided and interest-group days, since he is after all still an Afrikaner at heart.

After all? Who are you?

I take it he still regards himself as an Afrikaner today. The second thing which became clear to me was the about-face that was made by the commissioners of that party at the very end, after the commission had been discussing this matter for a whole year. This illustrates to me that there are undercurrents in that party of which even those two commissioners were not aware and which ultimately compelled them to dissociate themselves from the findings of the commission.

The Mafia.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw the word “Mafia”.

Mr. Speaker, if it pleases you, I shall withdraw it, but I know … [Interjections.]

That hon. member maintains that when we examine these days we should not have group interests in mind, but that all the groups in this country that have an interest in them, should be consulted. He maintains that a decision ought to be taken on days which are dear to the Afrikaner people, such as Republic Day, Kruger Day and the Day of the Covenant, after consultation with other population groups. This is what he said. It is a good thing that the general public should know what the standpoint of that party to these days is.

The hon. member referred to Kruger Day and said that it was a controversial day. I want to tell that hon. member that he does not have the vaguest idea of the meaning of a day like Kruger Day. In the course of my speech I shall try to enlighten him or give him an understanding of what it means to an important section of the South African population.

When he refers to Easter Monday, I wonder what religious group he belongs to, because all the people of all denominations who came to give evidence, and who are experts in their field, agreed that Easter Monday had nothing whatsoever to do with the whole history of Easter. That is why the commission changed that day as well.

As regards the amending Bill before us and the commission’s work, I want to say that it is true that if we consider it superficially, the Commission of Inquiry into Public Holidays did not have an extremely comprehensive task. Nor did the commission publish a terribly thick report. They had to make provision for a sounder and more suitable calendar for public holidays, without increasing the number of days, and for the possible re-inclusion of 6 April against the background of sustained public demand for it. This demand was confirmed by many persons and bodies who advocated its reintroduction before the commission. To me this represents the most important amendment before us, viz. the amendment as contained in clause 2(a).

The idea of the name “Founders Day” has gained increasing acceptance, because it was the unequivocal finding that 6 April was the birthday of South Africa, as we know it today, and because few other countries are fortunate enough to know the day and date of their birth, thus enabling them to give it place of honour in their calendar. By using the name “Founders Day”, recognition is also being given to all the other population groups—and I want to emphasize this—each of which played a role in the development of our country, with its present population structure. The emphasis is specifically being shifted from “Van Riebeeck Day”, which contains only one element of the founding of a nation, to all the other European peoples involved in it, and even eventually the Indian population and Coloured population group that form part of the population structure of South Africa.

The hon. member for Sandton severely criticized our retention of Kruger Day, which he considers to be sectional, but in the same breath he agitated in this House that we had abolished Settler’s Day because it was sectional to the English-speaking people.

As long as it only affects us.

This decision caused the need for Settler’s Day, which includes a mere founding element, to fall away with the full consent—and I want to emphasize this—of the 1820 Settlers Association of South Africa. They had no objection to this. Nor did the 1820 Settlers National Monument Foundation have any objection to it. Besides, the 1820 Settlers landed in South Africa in April and not in September.

[Inaudible.]

Oh please, man, you belong to a section of a section.

The hon. member for Sandton had a chance to make his speech.

At the outset I said that the terms of reference of the commission appeared to be reasonably simple, but if one takes into account that 147 memorandums were received, that 39 persons and bodies gave oral evidence before the commission, that some of these days are fraught with much emotion, sentiment and traditions, that the commissioners were representative of Afrikaansspeaking as well as English-speaking White language groups, the Coloured population group and the Indian population group and that persons with different cultural and ethnic ties were involved in the commission, one sees that it was in fact no easy task, particularly for the chairman, Dr. J. S. Gericke, to effect a large measure of unanimity on the commission.

Where are the English-speaking people?

If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Constantia is considered to be an English-speaking person.

I think that the Government and all the people of this country are greatly indebted to Dr. Gericke, for he displayed brilliant diplomacy and negotiating ability in order to bring about this end result in the form of this commission report which has led to our amending the Act today. I think I am speaking on behalf of all the commissioners when I tell hon. members that to me, personally, it was an experience to be able to perform this task under such competent leadership.

For that reason I consider it to be even more deplorable that the two PFP members did not see their way clear, for political reasons or under the influence of the political undercurrents which are constantly running through that party, to counter-signing this report. In annexures A and B of the report they furnished absolutely ridiculous reasons for doing so. In paragraph 3 of annexure B on page 10 they said that questions and warnings by the two persons of another race group on the commission, viz. Dr. Bergins and Mr. Leon, had not been taken into consideration. To say that we did not take them into consideration, is a reprehensible insinuation against the chairman and the other commissioners. This allegation has been categorically denied by these two Coloured representatives. They went on to say that the viewpoints and the arguments on the interests of persons of other colour were simply put into their mouths by White witnesses. This allegation that the Coloured representatives allowed themselves to be misled and had evidence put into their mouths, is a reprehensible insinuation.

You are reading it incorrectly. That is not what we said.

That is what is recorded here in black and white. This is really a ridiculous situation, more so if we take into account the fact that one commissioner, the hon. member for Johannesburg North, not only agreed throughout, but even suggested the retention of certain days. I am referring to a day such as Kruger Day. Is this not true? If this is not true, my memory has played me false, but this is what I myself heard him say—and he cannot deny it. This is nothing but trying to score political points with a matter about which others in this country are in deadly earnest. I think that they should take cognizance today of the attitude of that party to matters which are of very great emotional importance to other people.

If we had to analyse some of these days and measure them against the requirements the commission set itself, viz. that the days must comply with certain requirements set by the commission, for example that they should be of cultural-historic interest, it is at once obvious that the recognition of the following days would be the most controversial: Republic Day, Kruger Day and to a lesser extent, Founders’ Day. What surprises one a little is, for example, the objection raised by the hon. member for Durban Central in respect of the words “Republic Day” or as the commission describes it “In the warm, affectionate language used in connection with the Republic.” However, I can understand this, because the hon. member, as member of the United Party, did everything he possibly could to prevent the formation of the Republic less than two decades ago. However, in a very short time he grew so fond of that word that he linked his present party’s name to it.

It is a new Republic, not this Republic.

That is why one is really surprised at his saying that he was opposed to the description and concept of the word Republic. [Interjections.]

If we consider a day such as Kruger Day, which the hon. member for Sandton finds so worrisome, I can understand that the name Kruger has no particular significance for the hon. member for Durban Central, who refers to himself, as I saw in the Volkstem, as an “Afrikaner met ’n liberale politieke uitkyk.” [Interjections.] I do not even want to talk to hon. members like the hon. member for Sandton. I talk to Afrikaners with a liberal political outlook. A while ago the hon. member for Rissik indicated in a brilliant way in this House how the liberal Afrikaner was becoming detached from his people, detached from their traditions, customs and their outlook on and philosophy of life, and was becoming divested of his national consciousness to become a person who was no longer inspired or gripped by his national history, national achievements, ideals or as in this case, national holidays. That is why it is necessary for us to tell these people, these so-called Afrikaners with a liberal outlook that since 1882 Kruger Day has become a deep-seated cultural-historical institution among their other compatriots and that it is still widely and gloriously celebrated by the Transvaal.

We must not lose sight of the fact that a long and emotional struggle was waged to have this day recognized as an official public holiday. The hon. member for Johannesburg North should know this. He was part of the struggle which was waged to have Kruger Day recognized as an official holiday. [Interjections.]

Koffiefontein, Kowie!

I want to draw the following comparison: While Founders’ Day, as we see it in future, will symbolize the growing consciousness of the ethnic diversity of South Africa, in the same way we should see Kruger Day today, not so much as a heroe’s day in the narrow sense of the word, but as one on which the Afrikaner nation became aware of its existence. We must not lose sight of the fact that the establishment of Kruger Day is closely linked to the process in which the Afrikaners became aware of their national existence, and took shape in particular when the freedom and right of self-determination of this nation was threatened 100 years ago by a world power and when the desire to survive manifested itself in national unity and in patriotism. Hon. members will then ask: Why then in this case, as the hon. member rightly asked, the name Kruger, while we are re-naming Van Riebeeck Day and calling it Founders’ Day? This is the case because President Kruger more than anyone else was the bearer of the concept of freedom and because he specifically was the focal point at that time of attacks and abuse by our enemies. That is why he became the symbol of the type of Afrikaner and hero we should like to commemorate on this day. That is why this day has become a symbol of the concept of freedom of the Afrikaner nation. It has become the symbol of a nationalization process. Let me illustrate what I have said on the basis of two examples from our history, two examples of two national leaders; one from the distant past and one from the very recent past. To me this is a fine illustration of the fact that this idea runs like a golden thread through our history. In Dr. G. D. Scholtz’ book on General Beyers, he describes a Kruger Day celebration on 10 October 1914, 10 years after the death of President Kruger. A turbulent Kruger Day celebration takes place in the Opera House in Pretoria, in the midst of tremendous provocation. Then the writer says—

That thread, I believe, can be followed all the way through until today. A person like Prof. Marius Swart says in Handhaaf of November 1978—

It is simply true that we have reached a situation today in which a day like Kruger Day has already become so firmly established and accepted that it can no longer be changed as long as the Afrikaner nation still has a part to play in the history of this country.

The hon. the Prime Minister made it very clear in this House a few days ago how important it was for the survival of all the peoples in South Africa that things should go well for the Afrikaner people in this country. This holiday is one of the things that will contribute to the welfare of these people. Consequently I want to express the hope that the establishment of Founders’ Day will once again make a contribution to placing the interrelationships of all the peoples in South Africa on such a basis that all of us will celebrate it, and that, just like Kruger Day, it will never disappear again, or like Van Riebeeck Day as well—which disappeared for a while—will not disappear again, but that it will continue to serve the interests of all the peoples in this country.

I also support all the other recommendations proposed by this commission, and which are now embodied in this amending Bill. That is why I support the hon. the Deputy Minister most sincerely in his motion that this Public Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, one learns a great many things in politics. I did not expect that the hon. member for Pietersburg, who was a member of the majority group in the commission with me, would attack me here today on certain statements I made and on certain ideas which I conveyed. The hon. member was referring to Kruger Day in particular. I do not mind being in the company of these good Afrikaners. The Dutch Reformed Church in Cape Town wanted this to be changed. The South African Teachers’ Union wanted this changed. Piet van der Schyff, now connected with the University of Potchefstroom, wanted it changed, as also Dr. C. H. de Waal, Prof. D. J. Kotzé of the University of Stellenbosch, and the Rev. Martin Blignaut. Then there was also the National Union of Distribution Workers. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that I am in fact standing firm on my objection. I wish to request him to have that name changed during the Committee Stage. I am not opposed to the commemoration of 10th October, but then it should not be a sectional day of commemoration. It should be a day on which everybody could participate. The commemoration of this day should not give offence to anybody. Consequently, I take pride in requesting—and I shall continue to do so—that for everybody’s sake, the name of that day should be changed to “Heroes’ Day”. Everybody in South Africa could only gain by that.

f I shall perhaps have to come back to some of the matters raised by the hon. member for Sandton. I know he criticized the composition of the commission and asked where the English-speaking people were. I do not know whether Mr. Leon regards himself as an Afrikaans-speaking member. Be that as it may, the hon. member for Sandton was a member of the commission, but he resigned. Apparently he had other important work to do.

I was asked to resign to sit on the Schlebusch Commission.

The fact remains that when he resigned another English-speaking member could have been appointed. I think the hon. member for Constantia would qualify as an English-speaking member. I do not know. [Interjections.] I am very sorry about this. I think I must say it here. I think all the other hon. members who served as commissioners will bear me out when I say that I was the only commissioner, from opposition amongst all the hon. members who served as commissioners, who put forward ideas and asked questions, but I never even had a seconder. The hon. member for Johannesburg North was present at one of the meetings. When I tried to put forward an amendment in regard to the name “Kruger Day” there was not even anyone to second my proposal. [Interjections.]

He argued against it.

This is the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in. Opposition parties must surely also play a full part in the workings of a commission. They are not there merely as spectators. We can be very grateful that we had people like Dr. Bergins and Mr. Leon who could ask penetrating questions and try to draw out information, from the witnesses, on questions they considered to be important. For the rest, however, what did we have? Only spectators!

Read the record.

The hon. member says: “Read the record.” I agree, it is all in the record! This is why I have used this opportunity to describe the difficult position one finds oneself in when one has to try to get fellow Opposition members to ask questions, put forward viewpoints, etc. It is very difficult when there is no one to follow one up. I think I have said enough about that matter.

I should now like to pay tribute to the chairman of the commission, Dr. Gericke. The fact that the commission has now ended its deliberations on a controversial issue, and that legislation now before the House is being disputed, must in no way detract from the fact that Dr. Gericke performed his task as chairman in a very competent manner and carried out his duties very excellently. He is a friendly and endearing person. I regard it as a pleasure and a privilege to have been able to serve under him on that commission. I should also like to thank the other members for their co-operation. We must remember that this was a very historic occasion. It was an historic commission because, although we have had a number of multiracial commissions in South Africa, this was the first time we had a multiracial commission consisting entirely of politicians. There were members of Parliament, two Coloured persons who are seasoned political leaders and also two Indian persons who are members of the Indian Council. Mr. Leon and Dr. Bergins, in particular, played a very active role in the deliberations of the commission, as I have already said. Mr. Munsook and Mr. Ebrahim served for a relatively shorter period and therefore naturally could not contribute to the same extent, but what we heard of them also showed that they were willing to play an active part in the commission. It proved one thing, namely that the time is ripe in South Africa for far greater mutual co-operation among the various race groups. I was impressed by the sincerity of all the members and in particular the Coloured and Indian members. It is indeed a great pity, and it makes me very sad, that this very first experiment in real racial co-operation should have become a controversial issue.

*What was particularly significant to me, was the fearless way in which people such as Mr. Leon and Dr. Bergins put questions and stated their ideas. In this regard, hon. members such as the hon. member for Sandton did a person such as Dr. Bergins an injustice. In a fearless way Dr. Bergins brought home the fact by means of questions that there were people in South Africa for whom Republic Day had no specific significance. He did his duty in this respect, but like a responsible commissioner he evaluated the information given to him in a balanced way and came to the conclusion that in spite of the fact that there were people for whom it had no significance, it was nevertheless a very important day in the history of South Africa and a day that should be commemorated. [Interjections.] That was why they supported the majority report. Now the hon. members come here and play petty politics with those people. I wish to tell the Prime Minister that this indicates that there are members of other racial groups who have the necessary experience to be able to make a responsible and balanced contribution. I am convinced of that, but I find it a great pity that there are such wide-spread efforts to make cheap political capital out of this matter.

†I must also stress that I really regard it as a kind of senseless controversy which should not distract from the fact that this first instance of political co-operation between White and non-White and, what is more, the acceptance of mutual responsibility was a great success and should in fact be encouraged. I hope this will in future become the rule, rather than the exception.

When the commission commenced with its work and received its memoranda it became clear to me that the long Easter weekend was in jeopardy as a result of the possible abolition of Easter Monday. I am very glad that this did not happen. One of the most positive aspects of the commission and of the Bill is, I believe, the fact that in the end a four-day weekend was retained over the traditional Easter period in South Africa. I was rather surprised to see the tremendous lobby that existed in South Africa for the abolition of Easter Monday. For two reasons I am pleased that a compromise could be reached—and let us accept that changing the name of the day from Easter Monday to Family Day was a compromise.

First and foremost I was very pleased for the sake of those religious organizations who fought for the retention of Easter Monday. To my mind they made out an excellent case for the retention of a public holiday following Easter Sunday to enable them to complete a meaningful Easter religious programme. I was struck by the sincerity of the people who championed that particular cause and I hope that they need never again fear that that day will be taken away from them, that its continued existence is ever going to be placed in jeopardy. It is necessary for this weekend to be retained, and I am aware of the fact that in the end the commission was convinced about the retention of this public holiday also because of social reasons, perhaps even more so than on religious grounds. Personally I still look upon this particular long weekend as serving a very special religious purpose, despite the fact that the name of Easter Monday is being changed to that of Family Day. This holiday serves a special social purpose, and I want to make it clear that I personally will continue to regard this day as having a special religious connotation. I was not impressed with some of the organizations which advocated the abolition of Easter Monday and even went so far as to try to deprive the retail trade of the right of closing their businesses on the Saturday of the Easter weekend. I was surprised to find that in some cases this agitation emanated from organizations that worked a five-day week and had 52 Saturdays off during the year. Despite this, however, they objected to the fact that retail businesses chose to close that one Saturday during the year.

There is a second reason as well why I am pleased that the length of the Easter weekend is to be retained in its present form. From the evidence of witnesses before the co<u>mm</u>ission and from memoranda submitted to the commission by people who asked for the retention of Easter Monday, one gained the impression that they were mainly English-orientated religious organizations. I was pleased about this, because as a rule one finds that the English-speaking establishment in South Africa tends to remain on the sidelines and to make their views heard only after the event. In this particular instance one found that for once English-orientated organizations, i.e. evangelic movements, Youth for Christ, etc., demonstrated that they held something very dear.

Some of the criticism that one might hear is the question who really won the battle in the commission: The Afrikaners or the English. Here we have an example of where the commission did not yield to the very strong representation which came from the Afrikaner establishment through the Afrikaner churches advocating a three-day weekend. They asked for the abolition of Easter Monday and advanced special reasons for their request, which I do not want to elaborate on now. After having listened to the arguments on both sides, the commission came out in favour of something the English-speaking community holds very dear, namely the retention of Easter Monday as a public holiday.

Why then did they not call it Easter Monday?

If the hon. member had stayed on as a member of the commission, he would have heard the arguments of witnesses why there is no such thing as an Easter Monday. In their evidence the English churches agreed that there was no such thing as Easter Monday. The only purpose of having a public holiday on the Monday following that weekend is to allow them to complete a very special religious programme.

The argument was also raised that nobody spoke to the commission on behalf of the Blacks. However, it must be borne in mind that some of those organizations have Black members. When Mr. Leon thanked some of the English churches for their evidence he made the point that he was thanking the witness for expressing not only the view of the White members of the organization, but also of its Black members. On that particular point there were organizations which submitted memoranda, for example, Tucsa and the Garment Workers’ Union. Surely we have not reached the stage where those people must have their own organizations? So it would be incorrect to say that the other side was never heard. I do not like saying this, but if all the commissioners who served on that commission had pulled their weight and really acquainted themselves with what was going on perhaps we could have avoided this unnecessary controversy which manifests itself here today.

I now wish to deal with the question of Settlers’ Day. All the evidence is in the record. The Commissioner who asked the most penetrating questions of the 1820 Settlers’ Association happened to be myself. I wanted them to give the commission their real preferences. Let me quote some of the evidence. I myself said to the commissioners—

In another place I said—

It therefore became quite clear that if the 1820 Settlers’ Association did what some of the evangelic movements and some of the English-orientated church organizations did who said that they did not want the four-day long weekend during the Easter period to disappear, their day would not have disappeared. That was the spirit that prevailed in the commission. However, in their memorandum they made it quite clear in the first place that they would support the introduction of April 6 as a public holiday to commemorate the landing of Jan van Riebeeck. Secondly, they also made it clear that they would raise no objection if the first Monday in September, presently known as Settlers’ Day, were to be abolished. But as a quid pro quo it recommended that April 6 be known as Settlers’ Day to commemorate all the settlers who came to South Africa. They said, very specifically that April 6 should be a public holiday to commemorate the landing of the 1820 settlers. This date, if coupled with the landing of Jan van Riebeeck, is a far more appropriate date and could suitably be known as Settlers’ Day, they stated. Say, for in stance, that the majority of the commissioners came back and said: “No, in spite of being the only organization with an interest in Settlers’ Day, we want you to keep on having it in September”. Then I believe the hon. member could have said that we did not apply our minds to the problem.

Further on this particular issue, let me point out that a compromise was reached between the Afrikaans-speaking people and the English-speaking people as to on Easter Monday. Why now the description “Stigtingsdag”? I am the first to concede that “Founders’ Day” led to some difficulty, but here again I should like to quote what a commissioner said. Mr. Leon, talking about the possibility of a Settlers’ Day on April 6, said—

This is quite right. The Afrikaner establishment wanted April 6 and they also wanted it to be called “Jan van Riebeeck Day”. In the end the commission did not grant them that. Why was there a compromise? Hon. members must now listen to a question from an active commissioner—

The chairman then asked—

Mr. Leon said—

The hon. member for Sandton specifically mentioned that one now had Founders’ Day which meant nothing to the Indians or the Coloureds. That is what he said. Here again one finds that the commission was now no longer going to give in to this strong lobby which only wants 6 April for themselves and for nobody else, who want it to be called Van Riebeeck Day and nothing else. The commission now felt that it should find a word in order to move away from the aspect of just a “stigter”, Jan van Riebeeck, and it so happened that a compromise was reached by the name “Stigtingsdag”. This is not specifically tied to any “stigter”.

In English it has that connotation.

I am the first to concede that here we have a situation in terms of which a problem does exist. In English it is called “Founders’ Day” and that might cause it to be tied to one particular person. There are English-speaking persons who feel that, in spite of having decided on a mutual day, they have been left out of this and I do not blame the English-speaking section for feeling that way. If they feel very strongly about it, I believe that now is the time for them to do what everybody else does in a democracy, viz. to make their feelings known through their cultural organizations. First of all they must decide amongst themselves what day they want to celebrate and then they must come forward and let us know about it. We cannot just guess. I was one of the commissioners who tried my best to prevent a change in Settlers’ Day until such time as I realized that there were really greater issues at stake, viz. that we were seeking a day in which all populations groups could participate. Although I have no particular fight with them, I know that there is an organization called the “Forty Percenters” which speak on behalf of English-speaking South Africans. They never gave evidence and they never submitted any memorandum. This was one of our major problems. Another point is that I realized, and I, as an Opposition member, will be the first to concede, that many people have been offended, by speeches made on the Day of the Covenant, now to be called the “Day of the Vow”. Let us see, however, what the commission has to say about it. I would say that it is a great achievement for a commission which consists mostly of Afrikaans-speaking people to say to their people that this is not a holiday to commemorate a military victory, that this is not a holiday which is directed against a particular people or group and that this is not a holiday that should be used for party-political speeches. The commission says so specifically. [Interjections.]

I say that everybody should take heed of what the majority of the commissioners have to say, namely that this day should, because of its religious nature, be regarded as a religious holiday and that if it should fall on a Sunday, it should be celebrated on that Sunday and not on the Monday. The same applies to all the other days which could possibly be abused—and I know they are abused. I want to submit that this is the first time a commission with this composition has come to this sort of conclusion. I cannot understand the objections that have been made in this regard. I personally would have loved to have had some Blacks on the commission as well. At the same time I believe that to say afterwards that one did not want to serve on that commission because no Blacks were appointed to it, is to place oneself as a member of this House in a very difficult position as far as the workings of the House are concerned. I do not know how many commissions are today investigating matters which affect members of all types of communities, for example the Coloured fishing community. I do not know whether there are any Coloured representatives on the Fisheries Commission, but I take it that there are hon. members of the official Opposition who serve on it. This is the sort of thing one must take into account. One must adopt certain principles and apply them throughout.

I now want to deal with the question of Republic Day. It is true that I raised an objection in this regard. I did not object to the fact that this day is to be celebrated, but I objected to its historical justification. This I thought was exaggerated. However, no one can deny that 31 May, whether it be celebrated as Union Day or as Republic Day, is the most important day in the constitutional development of South Africa and that it should be celebrated as such. I am therefore sorry that the hon. member for Pietersburg has tried to use my objection in an attack on me. At the time I felt it was necessary for me to say that. However, in no way did I imply, or can it be construed, that I am anti-Republican or against the celebration of that particular day.

On balance there is perhaps only one day at which one could point a finger and say that it could be abused, and that is 10 October. Since we have compromised all along, I believe that the hon. the Minister can even in that case issue an instruction to change this position.

The question of Boxing Day was also mentioned. As far as I know, I was the only commissioner who tried to canvass English-speaking people on their feelings concerning Boxing Day. It became clear to me that some of them quite clearly did not even realize that the reason behind Boxing Day went far back into history. As far as I recall—there may have been others after me—I was the only commissioner who put forward ideas about this and who asked English-speaking persons whether Boxing Day had any particular significance for them.

Your memory is very short.

If the hon. member can tell me about others who have done the same, I shall be only too pleased to know. However, no evidence was led to indicate that they felt very strongly about it.

As far as the majority of the commissioners is concerned, I want to say that in cases of doubt they compromised. The idea of Goodwill Day in fact incorporates the principle of the giving of presents as an act of goodwill on the day after Christmas Day. It is of course, by way of compromise, appropriate to call it Goodwill Day instead of Gesinsdag or Boxing Day. Here again a compromise was reached. I can say that throughout there was a spirit of compromise in this commission. This is very encouraging, and I largely attribute it to the attitude of the chairman and of the non-White members who served with us on the commission.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central delivered a particularly balanced speech. He tried to give a very clear impression of the atmosphere in the commission, of which I was a member, and for which I am very grateful. He also went into detail. There are some things that he said that we do not agree with, and others that we can agree with.

However, I am particularly delighted that he depicted Dr. Bergins and Mr. Sonny Leon as people who built relationships. We who were members of that commission, really became friends with Dr. Bergins and Mr. Sonny Leon. Although we may not have agreed on some points, it was an experience that I shall never forget. We are also grateful for the spirit and disposition, of which the hon. member for Durban Central recounted details here.

To begin with, I want to say that it was a privilege for me, as it was on other occasions, to be able to hear, listen and learn under the chairmanship of Dr. Kosie Gericke. He has a great sense of humour, lead us in a diplomatic way and is a very learned man, and I want to congratulate the Government on having appointed a man of that calm temperament as chairman of the commission. Dr. Gericke is well-known in clerical and cultural circles and as a man of the people and as a builder of bridges, as a man who will always put others first under all circumstances and as a God-fearing citizen of whom we may be proud. We want to say thank you very, very much to him for his report that he produced in conjunction with us. We also say thank you very much to Mr. Greyling, our secretary, who I believe has now gone to London, for the way in which he did everything.

We know that since 1910 five commissions have been appointed to decide on holidays. There were not many holidays as such that had to be taken into account, but there was in fact a great deal to discuss. We began with the Public Holidays Act, which came into operation on 1 January 1911. Eleven holidays were decided on. After that there was a Select Committee in 1925 and another one in 1936. Reports were produced, but nothing happened to follow them up. In 1949, a public commission of inquiry was elected which culminated in the Public Holidays Act of 1952. At that time we gained an extra holiday and therefore provision was made for 12 holidays.

If we look at holidays in other countries, we see that at the time Australia had only eight, Canada ten, the USA 11 and Southern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, 12 holidays. Of course, there are strong historical claims with regard to holidays, but the main premise that the commission adopted was that the content and meaning of a public holiday must be laid down in very clear terms, perhaps much more so than in the case of any of the countries that I have quoted. In the first place, the commission said that it must have a religious content; in the second place a cultural/ historical significance; in the third place a general traditional basis and in the fourth place it must serve a very special social purpose. Then it placed the holidays in the various categories as follows: In the first place, Good Friday, Ascension Day, the Day of the Covenant and Christmas Day were placed under the religious umbrella; in the second place Republic Day, Settlers’ Day and Kruger Day were considered as cultural/ historical days. Obviously, the Day of the Covenant also has an historical element.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was interrupted for supper, I was referring to the individual holidays which the commission in question investigated. I also pointed out that some of these holidays have a religious content, whilst others have a cultural/ historical significance.

Some of these days have already become traditional. Last but not least, there is also one holiday, viz. Family Day, which was introduced for social reasons. The commission investigated the question of which holidays should remain unchanged and remain tied to a specific date. The commission also tried to determine which new holidays could be introduced, and also investigated the question of which of the existing holidays can be eliminated.

A very important question that the commission investigated was whether all public holidays should be determined by statute and whether, when a holiday that is tied to a specific date, falls on a Sunday, it should be followed by a holiday on Monday. The commission made an in-depth investigation of all these matters.

As we all know, previously there were certain holidays in South Africa such as Empire Day and the Queen’s Birthday, etc. However, it is very interesting to note that formerly, all the Commonwealth countries celebrated these holidays, but that it was only Canada that celebrated Victoria Day. England and Scotland did not even celebrate the King’s birthday, although it was commemorated as a public holiday here in South Africa.

The Public Holidays Amendment Act came into operation on 5 July 1961. In terms of that Act, the 31st of May, which was formerly known as Union Day, became known as Republic Day. Of course, in this entire set-up the whole question of the workers in this country remains very important. The workers are still the cream of the country.

The commission heard evidence from the Confederation of Labour amongst others, a body representing 200 000 White workers and including 20 registered trade unions. The Confederation of Labour argued that in order to build and maintain healthy labour relations, it is essential for us to maintain a unique dispensation.

In both their memorandum and their evidence they stated clearly that every worker is just as entitled to share a public holiday as any other person in the country. According to them, every worker is entitled to be remunerated for every public holiday, a day which must not be considered as part of a worker’s annual vacation or sick leave either. Nor must it be included as part of his gratification. Everyone ought to share it, factory workers, artisans, operators, etc. These are the people who have to work very long hours, and who in most cases do not have a five-day working week. It was argued that they should rest on holidays in order to renew their energy so that they can maintain their productivity. According to them, there should be no second-class workers either.

The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the Shops and Offices Act, 1964. That Act determines that paid leave must be granted to employees for all ten public holidays. Then there is also the Factories, Machinery and Building Works Act, 1941, an Act that provides that employees must be remunerated for six of the public holidays. These are Good Friday, Ascension Day, Republic Day—still Union Day at the time—the Day of the Covenant—still Dingaan’s Day at the time— Christmas Day and New Year’s Day.

Conditions of service in the private sector of the economy are often determined by means of wage determinations in terms of the Wage Act, 1957, as well as by means of industrial agreements according to the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956. Negotiation does in fact take place between the parties in terms of which these holidays can be considered as paid working days or not.

However, tonight I want to make a very earnest plea, and this appears in our recommendations too—that very serious attention be given to all these facets in order to establish a full salary basis for statutory holidays for all these employees. This is a matter that should enjoy our serious attention. There must be no discrimination against the day labourer, against the man who works very hard to keep our economy and our industries running, nor against the ordinary office worker. They are the hard working people. Although supplementary legislation must be introduced by other hon. Ministers, we feel that this matter should enjoy their very serious attention. This is the matter that I want to put to the hon. the Minister at once. Their holidays must be days of rest so that, after their rest, they will be able to maintain a greater level of productivity.

The hon. member for Sandton said that we did not take all people into account, particularly people of colour. However, I refer the hon. member to the Trade Union Council of South Africa, or Tucsa, as it is more commonly known, which represented 65 trade unions with a quarter of a million workers. They put it to us that they include all races when they request the number of holidays not to be reduced and that all workers must have the right to enjoy all holidays.

In this regard I should also like to refer hon. members to a report that appeared on 4 November 1949. It was a report of a commission that also investigated holidays. The members of that commission were not predominantly Afrikaans-speaking. The chairman was the then Governor-General Gideon Brand van Zyl, and there were men like William Alfred Campbell, a justice of the peace, the Hon. Charles Lowe Henderson and Col. Anthony George St. Leger on the commission. Consequently, the English-speaking people were in the majority.

The hon. member for Sandton was not sure whether we should recognize certain holidays or not. However, that commission adopted a very definite stand on Kruger Day, and this is a commission of 1949 with English-speaking people in the majority! I quote—

This is what the English-speaking people said about Kruger Day. I quote further—

They built relationships, not like the PFP who are in the process of destroying relationships between Afrikaans- and English-speaking people.

Tell them, Sporie!

Those hon. members are continually trying to drive a wedge between us. What do they say about the Day of the Covenant? I quote—

Their recommendation was the following—

Governor-General Van Zyl, the chairman, who was not a Nationalist, and the members of his commission who were not Nationalists either, did this for the sake of the traditions and the history of the South African. The following was also said—

This is what that commission said, and this is what is important.

The hon. member spoke about Easter Monday. He asked why we no longer want to have Easter Monday called by that name. It is one of those holidays that has developed over the centuries and connected to some church and religious holidays, but which in actual fact deteriorated to such an extent later on that during the Reformation, the church said that it was no longer strictly spiritual. No date could be found in history for the introduction of Easter Monday as a holiday. No Scriptural evidence of it has been found.

Perhaps I should tell the hon. member what English-speaking people said about Easter Monday. I quote—

How long ago was he bishop?

And so it goes on. Even the English people in Natal, who are represented by the NRP, said that there are no Christian considerations for maintaining it. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the religious character before the commission was evident not only amongst the Afrikaans-speaking people, but the English-speaking people too. I am referring to the evidence that was submitted by the National Union of Distributive workers. They submitted a memorandum in English, in which they say that they represent all races. They represented Black, Brown, White, Yellow, Orange and any other colour under the sun; and what do they say about every day each time? I quote—

They continue to rectify the matter in this way.

Approximately 20 trade unions—I drew up a list of them—stated their case, and they included many Coloureds, Blacks, Indians and others. There were 15 churches that put their standpoint to the commission. They all spoke to us and told us what they wanted.

Now I come to the PFP. They said that, due to the composition and the limiting terms of reference, the commission was not in a position to bring the calendar of public holidays into line with the present social, economic and political reform of race relations and the great expectations that accompany them.

I want to put a question to them tonight and they must give a very clear reply to it. It has been said that they never lodged their objections at any meeting before the final report of the commission had been approved and signed. Why then did they accept membership of the commission? From the outset they were aware of the composition of the commission, as well as of the terms of reference of the commission. Why then did they not refuse their appointment? Why did they not question the content of this matter? They say they want political reform and that in their opinion the commission was incapable of bringing about political reform. In saying that, they have called the integrity of the members into question, even the integrity of the Coloured people like Mr. Leon and Dr. Bergins, and that of the Indian member.

That is not true.

They did call them into question. Why did they not come up with concrete proposals? They had the opportunity of coming up with concrete proposals. In any event, what do they mean by “social reform”? Is it integration? Did they want there to be full integration? What do they mean by “economic and political reform of all race relations”? They must reply to this tonight. It has been said that we want to generate goodwill, particularly with regard to the Day of the Vow. We want to generate goodwill on the Day of Goodwill, being the 26th of December.

Let me say what the PFP is doing. They ran to the newspapers, specifically to the Sunday Times. Not only did they want to bedevil relationships between the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people, but also relationships between the Blacks, the Coloureds and we Whites. I have here the Sunday Times of 30 March. This proves it. The headline reads: “Black anger at new holiday date changes.” [Interjections.] What do they say? These are interviews that they conducted with the Sunday Times. I quote—

Did you consult them?

The objection is that we did not consult them. In this regard I want to refer to the memorandum that we received from a certain Lucy Mvubelo. She is the general secretary of the National Union of Clothing Workers. She says, amongst other things—

The hon. member for Sandton must listen now—

On the question of Soweto, that we raised, she said the following—

She then goes on to comment on what we have done with regard to Black people. We did consult them. Why did hon. members not notice it? Surely they must have done so. In the words of the two PFP members, the following allegation is also made—

Here we have proof that it was done. Now hon. members are alleging that we did not do so. In the same edition of the Sunday Times the entire matter is clearly solved with the question—

This was done in order to create certain expectations. In the same report the following is said, amongst other things—

They can do so on Kruger Day and we have no objection to that. The report continues—

What is interesting, however, is that he also said the following, amongst other things—

Did they want to celebrate Heroes’ Day in this way? Then we say that we are not prepared to put up with it. However, hon. members of the PFP must reply to us on that. Would they want it to lead to a confrontation of this kind with the Whites? The commission simply did not see its way clear for anything of this kind.

I want to conclude by saying that no matter how the question of holidays is attacked and what hon. members opposite may think about it, certain days have already become traditional in South Africa. Since Union these holidays have stood the test of time and they have been recommended by previous commissions. This tradition will be maintained. If Christmas day is celebrated in 119 countries in the world, if Good Friday is commemorated in 80 countries and if Ascension Day is commemorated in 44 countries, South Africa too will maintain its traditions in this regard.

In this respect I want to refer to the Day of the Vow. This day was a public holiday before 1910. This day is considered to be an arrangement with God and it is recognized by a Christian government as such today. It is celebrated in the same way as a Sunday, and the promise that was made by our forefathers on that day, sets our mind at rest for the future. We will not allow the soul of the South African nation to be destroyed by the Progressive Party.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak for as long as the previous speaker, but in the course of my speech I shall indeed reply to what has upset the hon. member for Rosettenville so much. However, before I come to that, I want to express my regret that I gave the brilliant chairman of the commission of inquiry reason to upbraid me. I think he is wrong, but I am sorry that he thought fit to use those words about me under the circumstances. Of course, the chairman of the commission was very keen to submit a unanimous report. Any chairman of such a commission would be very keen for this to happen and therefore he was disappointed that it did not eventually happen. Nevertheless, I want to associate myself with the favourable words of tribute paid to the chairman by other speakers.

As far as the hon. member for Rosettenville is concerned, he wants to try to gloss over the fact that the Government has slipped up here by means of all sorts of smokescreens and by obscuring obvious facts. [Interjections.] He alleges that the fact that there were witnesses who were Black or who professed to speak on behalf of the Black people, like the hon. member for Durban Point professes to speak on behalf of the English-speaking people, justifiably counteracts our argument that this was a one-sided, sectional committee with one-sided, sectional terms of reference.

But why did you not vote against the proposals?

The hon. member for Durban Central understands practically nothing about the whole situation. I am talking here about the composition and the terms of reference, and now the hon. member for Durban Central says that I should have objected. To whom? To the State President?

Yes.

Hon. members must not talk nonsense. Let us now take a look at the composition of the commission. There were 11 Afrikaans-speaking members …

But why …

Order! The hon. member for Durban Central must contain himself.

It is after supper, Mr. Speaker.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by that?

The hon. member feels jovial after supper, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member should rather refrain from making that type of statement.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

There were 11 Afrikaans-speaking members on the commission. I am now referring to the people who signed the report. There were also two Coloured people and one Asian on the commission. If hon. members tell me that I should have signed the report, then I ask them where the members were who represent the cultural interests of the English-speaking people in the first place.

He is sitting over there; he has resigned.

I am talking about the people who signed the report. The hon. the Deputy Minister must not produce smokescreens again. I was asked to sign this report.

But why did you not?

What is your objection to it?

There was no representative of any Black worker in South Africa on this commission. Do hon. members know what their requirements amount to? They wanted me to stand up in the commission and say: Fellows, have you not forgotten that there are millions of Black workers who are not represented here? [Interjections.] Were they not aware of this themselves? Must I now say: Look, the day after tomorrow is Wednesday, 7 May? Must I say it or does everyone know that it is true? Everyone knows, or ought to know that there should have been such representation. [Interjections.] If I were in the shoes of the Government or of the NP with regard to this report, I would have kept dead quiet about the fact that the two PFP members did not sign the one-sided report, and would not have raised it, because if one has disgraced oneself to such an extent, one ought not to broadcast it. [Interjections.]

I have been accused and that is why I am speaking. It has been said that it was my duty to tell the 11 Afrikaans-speaking members that they forgot that there are millions of Black workers who have a direct interest in all the holidays that are going to be created here. [Interjections.] I participated in the deliberations of the commission, as an Afrikaans-speaking person only and that is why I gave my personal approval to Founders’ Day, Kruger Day and the Day of the Vow. These are the three that have a specific bearing on the Afrikaans culture and history.

You are not even an apology for an Afrikaner.

Order! What did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North say?

I said he is not even an apology for an Afrikaner.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it and watch what he says.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Should the hon. member not apologize for making that remark?

Order! I told the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North to watch what he says. He will get into trouble. The hon. member for Johannesburg North may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not at all necessary to ask for an apology when an hon. member acts like a certain Scots reformist.

Order! I think that the hon. member is actually commenting on my ruling. He should rather continue with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I am not making any comment at all. I am simply saying that the hon. members who profess to be the only exponents of the Afrikaans culture and the Afrikaans idea and assume the right, as the hon. member for Pietersburg does, to take me to task with regard to my Afrikanerhood, are like this Scots reformist who said that he and his brother are the only two people who profess the true faith.

Hallo, brother!

He added: “Sometimes I am not even sure of my brother.” It is an exclusive club, and it does not matter to me whether that club is called the Broederbond or anything else, but it remains a sectional, exclusive group that looks after the cultural and historical interests of a single group of people only, as was very clear from the speech of the hon. member for Rosettenville. In actual fact they have no idea of, and not the least sympathy with or interest in the Black workers nor any other workers of Colour in the country. It is nonsense to say in this case that the commission was not aware of it. It was clearly stated by Mr. Leon and Dr. Bergins that it was a one-sided action that was taking place. On page 161 of the evidence Mr. Leon says—

Is this not an immediate warning to ensure that there should be representation on the commission for these people who will not be inclined to celebrate these holidays together with the Whites? Is this not a clear indication? Therefore, the commission was fully aware of the fact that there was a deficiency in its composition and terms of reference here. The chairman of the commission said in his report that the terms of reference were very wide, but I think the report of the commission itself indicates that this was not the case.

Originally, only 6 April was at issue. In paragraph 1 on page 1 of the report we see that 6 April only was at issue. I quote paragraph 1.5—

This is after the FAK and other bodies addressed requests concerning Van Riebeeck Day, 6 April—

The “you” refers to the State President—

This matter centres around 6 April. The terms of reference themselves concern 6 April and which days could possibly be eliminated in order to make space for 6 April as a holiday. The terms of reference are as narrow as that and are not at all concerned with the interests of the workers that are going to be directly affected by it, and definitely not with the interests of the millions of Black workers who have not been represented in this connection, either directly or indirectly. That is why, when the report was drawn up and the provisional report, the draft report, was presented to us, we said that we were sorry, but that we could not sign it because it was a one-sided, sectional attempt.

You participated enthusiastically.

If we were to place our signature at the foot of this report on public holidays, on behalf of the official Opposition, a report that affects every worker in the country, we would not have been able to justify it to the entire nation. The interests of the Afrikaner nation have been properly covered. I agreed on this, but of course the hon. the Chief Whip is not listening to me now. I agreed with this, but nevertheless I could not sign this report on behalf of the entire population of South Africa. That is why we shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North who has just resumed his seat made certain proposals in the commission which he was not prepared to sign. If I remember correctly, in the past he also worked out certain proposals either for the United Party or for the PFP—I am not sure which—that I think were known as the 14-point plan, but those he did not sign either.

Your facts are always confused.

Therefore it seems to me as if this is a habit of the hon. member’s.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North remarked in passing to the hon. member for Durban Central that he had not the slightest idea what this whole matter was about. I want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that there is something which we other members of the commission do not understand. At a meeting of the commission at which he alone had represented his party and at which specific motions were voted on and resolutions adopted, he agreed and even proposed certain things himself, but at a subsequent meeting at which the other hon. member of the PFP who was also a member of the commission was present, he refused to sign the resolutions. This is the kind of conduct that we cannot understand, but the work and the recommendations of the commission we understand very well.

We have sympathy for you, Kowie.

I do not need your sympathy.

Hon. members keep coming back to the argument that this was a commission which contained no English-speaking members. The hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens were originally nominated as members of the commission but for reasons of their own or due to many other activities they asked to be discharged, as a result of which other members took their place. Surely, then, one cannot say that the English-speaking people were not consulted in this matter. However, the composition of the commission is not necessarily the most important factor in this regard. When we consider this list of witnesses who appeared before the commission and the other evidence submitted to the commission, it is surely clear that the English-speaking section of the population made a substantial contribution to the commission’s activities. Many memoranda were received from English-speaking groups and individuals and oral evidence was also submitted by them.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Johannesburg North is not labouring under a misapprehension, because I do not think he was appointed to the commission in order to come and negotiate holidays for the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population as an Afrikaans-speaking person, but in order to represent his party in a commission appointed to decide on holidays for the entire population.

Before coming back to what other hon. members have said, I want to begin by saying it was a very great privilege for me to be a member of the commission. We learnt a great deal. Right at the outset I wish to refer to our outstanding chairman. This has already been referred to this afternoon, but for the sake of the record I should like to add my humble tribute. He is a man of experience and refinement and he couples this with a very good sense of humour. I think that the composition and the terms of reference of the commission were such that one might have expected fireworks. The chairman’s leadership was so positive, Christian and firm, however, that friction was prevented. Indeed, the only dispute that did crop up occurred at the second last meeting of the commission when the members of the PFP no longer saw their way clear to going along with the rest of the commission. The fact that those members did not sign the report must surely be a very major disappointment for the chairman of the commission, because he really went out of his way and leant over backwards as much as he could to accommodate the standpoints and points of view of all involved. The fact that the report is not unanimous is certainly not his fault.

In passing, I should also like to convey my sincere thanks to the secretary of the commission, Mr. Denzil Greyling, who showed himself to be a very able official. I understand that he is somewhere abroad in the service of the State. We wish him all of the best.

It is also an experience to serve on such a commission with non-White members, and it was very interesting and a great privilege to hear their standpoints in this regard.

The hon. member for Sandton also made a few remarks to which I wish to come back. One of the first statements he made was that holidays should be days of happiness and peace that should not involve tragic memories. That is really a strange principle or norm for a holiday. Many nations’ holidays are born of the suffering of the nation, and with the best will in the world they cannot be joyful days or days of great happiness, except that one is pleased that the tragedy it recalls is past and has been survived, and that it has been possible to go on from there. What about a day like Good Friday? If joy is to be one’s norm and yardstick, then surely one cannot have a holiday like Good Friday. Holidays bespeak not only happiness and joy, but also suffering, humiliation, dedication and gratitude.

The hon. member also discussed Republic day, which could not be celebrated by everyone. He and the hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted Dr. Bergins in this regard. The point is that these standpoints were put to the commission and they were then discussed and argued about, but eventually those members voted for the proposals and signed the report of the commission.

Precisely. That is the truth. Why is the PFP not telling the truth?

Why pick out brief quotations now? Of course the non-White members are entitled to state standpoints and provide information. After all, they acted on behalf of their people and it was expected of them to give their peoples’ views and standpoints about these matters. We appreciate that. They showed that they could act responsibly and they based their judgement on the best interests of the South African nation as a whole.

The hon. member said that Kruger Day and the Day of the Covenant were sectional days and that they were misused by speakers. How many witnesses who testified before the commission asked for the Day of the Covenant to be abolished? The hon. member for Sandton proclaimed loudly that he had made a study of the evidence, although in fact he was not a member of the commission after one or two meetings. However, he did not look very carefully, because there was virtually no evidence from witnesses asking that a day like the Day of the Covenant should be abolished.

I did not ask for it to be cut out at all.

The hon. member has probably forgotten it. I want to point out that although these are emotional matters, we need not discuss them in an emotional way here. For example, only recently a learned gentleman was tarred and feathered due to his standpoints concerning the Day of the Covenant [Interjections.] In spite of the fact that this is still fresh in our memories, we have not had representations from anybody asking that the Day of the Covenant be abolished.

The hon. member for Sandton also discussed Easter Monday. He opposed the change of name. He wanted to keep it as Easter Monday. He advocates the retention of the name because it is linked to the crucifixion of Christ, if I understood him correctly, while it was after all he who laid down the norm that a holiday should reflect happiness and joy. He wants an extra holiday which need not necessarily be linked to it, to be linked to a tragic event like the crucifixion of Christ. Theologically this is wrong, and the change is a very good one. If he were to take another look at the evidence submitted to the commission he would see that even many English-speaking witnesses by no means regard it as a religious day, nor do they have any objection to the name of the day being changed. They want to regard it purely as a holiday on which to return from their religious camps or whatever they might have arranged for that weekend.

As far as Settlers’ Day is concerned, it is the standpoint of the hon. member for Sandton that the commission had pushed the day aside and by doing so, had given offence to the English-speaking section of the population. Surely that statement by the hon. member is not based on the evidence, and he invoked the evidence time and again. However, there is no evidence to support his standpoint.

He read the wrong report.

What about the evidence submitted by the two Settler organizations which testified before the commission? They adopted a totally different standpoint to that of the hon. member. The hon. member went on to say that non-Whites had no part in that day. He would do well to consult the evidence again. Even the PFP’s commissioners did at least say that the recommendations of the commission corresponded reasonably with the evidence. Now the hon. member for Sandton ignores that as well.

I am entitled to my own opinion.

Let us rather leave aside for a moment the question of the Mondays following on public holidays that fall on a Sunday. Let us rather look at the five objections which, according to the two commissioners of the PFP, prevented them from signing the report. The first concerns the composition and the terms of reference of the commission. I am not going to dwell on that at length. It has been said repeatedly that they had the opportunity to object to the composition and terms of reference of the commission. Indeed, they could also have signed the commission’s report conditionally or done something of that nature. However, they flatly refused to sign it. Since the two hon. gentlemen are now saying that the recommendations of the commission in this regard correspond reasonably with the evidence given, that is not correct either. It corresponds with the evidence. To adopt the standpoint they are adopting now is tantamount casting an aspersion on the commission, and that is totally undeserved. The majority of the members of the commission were members of Parliament. This means that those two hon. gentlemen have no appreciation for the judgment of their parliamentary colleagues nor, by the same token, for their own.

The other members of the commission are prominent non-Whites, and then, of course, there is the chairman of the commission. Looking at a summary of the evidence we see for example that as regards the reintroduction of 6 April as a public holiday, 57 witnesses were in favour of it while only two were opposed to it.

Since those two hon. gentlemen are apparently so concerned about the workers of South Africa, I want to point out to them that the representatives of six trade unions asked for the reintroduction of 6 April as a public holiday, while only one was opposed to it.

Three bodies were in favour of the retention of Settlers’ Day and six were opposed to it. Does that constitute sufficient reason to argue that the commission did give effect to the evidence to a reasonable extent or does it not? The commission duly took the evidence into account before formulating its recommendations. There were 31 witnesses in favour of the retention of Easter Monday as a holiday, among which were four trade unions. 22 were opposed to it. As regards the retention of the name of the day, there was no insistence on its remaining unchanged. Everyone conceded that the day had nothing to do with Easter. Indeed, there were strong representations to the effect that the name be changed. In this connection, too, the wishes of the witnesses were given effect to. The same applies to Ascension Day, Good Friday, Family Day and New Year’s Day and to all the other days. The insinuation that the commission was unsympathetic towards the evidence or would only take it into account partially, is objectionable.

Unfortunately I have to cut my speech short. I still just wish to refer to the fourth objection, the objection in paragraph 4, which amounts to a gross insult to the witnesses. In paragraph 4 of the minority report—that is annexure B, on page 10—the following is stated—

That is a scandalous statement, the more so when we consider the list of people and bodies that gave oral evidence before the commission. I am not going to quote them. Hon. members will find them on page 16 of the commission’s report in annexure E.

When we look at annexure E, in which the names are provided of bodies and persons who submitted memoranda, it is in my opinion clear that these people and bodies represent the South African community. They are people who take an interest in those things that affect the soul of a nation; decent, honourable people who, according to the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, are the kind of people who do not move. Who, then, did those hon. members want in the commission? Whom did they want there as witnesses?

Probably Mandela.

Perhaps they wanted Mandela, but I do not think they would have decided on that unanimously. I want to repeat what I have already said. There was an open invitation to all South African citizens to submit evidence. Even the circumstances and needs of those who were not interested in submitting evidence, whether written or oral, were anticipated and considered, and decisions were taken in the best interests of all those groups. Those hon. members ought to be ashamed of the specific objection which is insulting and hurtful to people who submitted evidence before the commission.

If everything is taken into account, the proposed series of holidays as contained in this Bill represent a well-balanced effort. They have been well-motivated and are acceptable to all reasonable South Africans. I therefore have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for False Bay on his clear exposition of what happened in the commission, and also for the fact that he took the hon. member for Johannesburg North to task for having performed somersaults. We should really show that hon. member some mercy. That hon. member had a great deal to say here this evening about smokescreens. I still remember the story of Van Hunks who smoked his pipe until Table Mountain disappeared in the fumes. This evening the hon. member for Johannesburg North, with his pipe and his smokescreens, would have put Van Hunks to shame.

Very constructive!

I should like to associate myself with hon. members who have expressed their thanks and appreciation towards the chairman of the commission. It was really a pleasure to co-operate with Dr. Gericke. What I really appreciated was his friendly conduct, not only towards the members of the commission but also towards every person who submitted evidence before the commission. He certainly succeeded in creating a spirit of togetherness among the members of that committee, and all this contributed to the fact that there was a high degree of unanimity up to a very important point. To tell the truth, there was absolute unanimity. I also wish to convey my thanks to the members of the commission for their co-operation. I can give the assurance that it was a pleasure to co-operate with them. In particular I wish to convey my appreciation to the two hon. members, Mr. Sonny Leon and Dr. Bergins. They stated their case frankly. Some hon. members have already referred to that today. They put their questions without hesitation, but they acted at all times in the interests of all the people of this country. At no stage did they single out one group and speak only on behalf of that group. When this commission had to appoint a subcommittee to deal with certain activities between two sessions, I found it striking that the commission selected three people to serve as a subcommittee, viz. the hon. member for False Bay, the chairman, Dr. Gericke, and then Mr. Sonny Leon. To me this was a very fine gesture. I can give the assurance that Mr. Leon appreciated serving with those gentlemen. These two Coloured members of the commission displayed penetrating insight with regard to the traditional holidays of our country. They did not need the PFP, with their paternalistic attitude, to protect the Coloureds and the Blacks in this country. It was the point of view of Dr. Bergins and Mr. Leon that it should be possible for everyone to celebrate holidays in South Africa within the limits of their own points of view. I also wish to thank the secretariat for their untiring work.

Something very strange happened in this debate this evening. When the commission was appointed, the hon. member for Sandton was appointed as a representative of the official Opposition. He explained here this evening that because there was certain more important work to be done, he had to resign. His party then saw fit to appoint the hon. members for Constantia and Johannesburg North. That is to say, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was a member, but the hon. member for Constantia came in the place of the hon. member for Sandton. Those two gentlemen concurred with what happened at the sittings of the commission. However, when the report had to be signed, they had difficulties. I take it—it is just possible—that somewhere a whip cracked and then there were problems.

It is a fact.

It is obvious.

Now we have to conduct a debate this evening about what happened, and what gave rise to this Bill. Who is in a better position to state the standpoint of the official Opposition than those two very hon. members who served on this commission? However, what do we find? The hon. member who had been a member of the commission and then resigned, and who was in fact intended to state the standpoint of the official Opposition and then did not do so, is now the chief spokesman in this debate, to enable him to rectify the matter in case the two hon. members who were commissioners perhaps failed to do their bit.

It is not obvious: it is suspicious.

It is stupid.

I want to add that judging by the conduct here this evening of the hon. member for Johannesburg North—I almost said “the stupid hon. member”—I am by no means surprised that the caucus of the official Opposition decided that the hon. member for Sandton should be the chief spokesman on that side.

I want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North that like him, I, too, am an Afrikaans-speaking person. However, I did not serve on that commission as an Afrikaans-speaking person but as a representative of my voters.

As a “Sap”.

Yes, and as a very good “Sap” too. I am not one of the “Sappe” who ran away, like that hon. member. I served as a representative of my voters, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. I do not only represent the Afrikaans-speaking people in my constituency. I represent everyone. I am sure that in the future the PFP will probably take a look at the people it appoints to commissions.

The question has been asked: Where were the English-speaking people? If the official Opposition is so insistent that English-speaking people should have served on the commission, why did they not appoint the hon. member for Pinelands, for example.

We did not appoint the commission.

After all, he is an English-speaking person. Perhaps he would have succeeded in getting us a “Mandela Day.” One never knows.

†The hon. member for Sandton said, amongst other things, that history belongs to all of us. That is quite correct History does belong to all of us. It belongs to all the races in this country.

Except the Black workers.

He also said that public holidays must promote unity. That is quite correct. I agree that they must promote unity. He went on to say that all citizens must participate in the celebration of public holidays. Once again, I agree. However, I want to say that, if we continue in the way the hon. member for Sandton did this afternoon, we will have no unity; and they are certainly making sure that all the citizens of this country do not partake of our public holidays.

Do you agree with what he said?

In that respect I certainly do, but in the other respects I do not.

*The commission’s report is a very fine one. Notwithstanding the attitude of the PFP it will satisfy the vast majority of people in South Africa. I have no doubt on that score. When one reads the report one sees that the commission itself said that it is virtually attempting the impossible in trying to satisfy everyone when it is a matter of compiling a calendar of holidays. Bearing that in mind, the commission attempted to satisfy everyone. One characteristic of this commission was that it carried out its investigation with thoroughness. The hon. member for Rosettenville gave us a good exposition of the number of bodies submitted that evidence before the commission and the number that submitted memoranda. I am convinced that everyone who reads the report will draw the conclusion that a thorough investigation was carried out and that everyone had the opportunity to state their case. I do not doubt that everyone who gave evidence felt that the chairman and members of the committee made them feel welcome and that they had made a positive contribution to the investigation. During the period of almost a year in which the commission conducted its activities, nothing was further from my thoughts than that towards the end members of the official Opposition would put a spanner in the works of the commission. I say in all sincerity that the two commissioners representing the PFP gave the commission their wholehearted co-operation. I do not believe it has ever happened before in history that commissioners have agreed with the proceedings of a commission virtually until the end and then suddenly refused to sign the commission’s report. What has happened here is a tragic spectacle. It only occurs among people who are out of touch with the realities of the country.

I regret that the commission was unable to submit a unanimous report. The hon. member for False Bay said that the chairman of the commission had very much wanted to submit it as such. There is a reason why the chairman would have liked to submit a unanimous report to this House; it was that holidays are something which belong to the nation and because, as the hon. member for Sandton said, the nation consists of everyone living in the country. That is why it was so desirable to submit a unanimous report to this House. However, there was once again a fly in the ointment, viz. the official Opposition’s obsession with colour. In everything they do, colour sets the tone. Here the official Opposition had a golden opportunity to tell all South Africans: “These are holidays belonging to all of us. All of us must celebrate together in future.” However, they preferred to tell the coloured races in South Africa: “Watch out, these are the White people’s holidays and you must not share them. Boycott them, because they are not your holidays.” [Interjections.]

They are agitators.

I feel very sorry for the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for an hon. member to describe this party as “a lot of agitators”?

Which hon. member said that?

Mr. Speaker, I said they were agitators. [Interjections.]

And I confirmed it, Sir.

What did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central say which gave rise to that?

Mr. Speaker, I said that the conduct of the official Opposition in telling the Coloured races in South Africa: “Beware: These are the Whites’ holidays. You must boycott those holidays.”

I shall consider the point. The hon. member may proceed for the time being.

If it would facilitate matters …

No!

Before I was interrupted, I was saying that I felt sorry for the hon. member for Johannesburg North, because it is quite clear to me that he was taken in tow by the hon. member for Constantia. I do not want there to be misunderstanding. I concede that the hon. member for Constantia was not present at the final meeting of the commission, but up to that stage he was still in agreement with the other members of the commission. However, the hon. member for Johannesburg North was present. Up to that stage they were satisfied with the recommendations of the commission. Then, however, a report appeared in the newspaper to the effect that the Rev. Hendrickse of the Labour Party had announced that the Coloureds would not take part in the Republic festival. When that happened, the official Opposition was almost paralysed with fright.

†If they signed this report they would have been out of step with the Labour Party, and that they cannot afford.

That is rubbish, utter rubbish.

If it is rubbish, then the conduct of hon. members is very sinister.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is constantly casting aspersions on members of this party. Now he is suggesting that our approach was sinister.

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point of order? This Bill deals with public holidays and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is merely commenting in so far as the approach to public holidays is concerned. Surely to goodness, that is no reason for taking a point of order? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When one reads schedule A, one sees that the two commissioners were concerned when they had to sign—not when they took part in the discussions, but when they had to sign. Only then they were concerned about the interests of the people of colour. In annexure A of the report they write as follows—

If they had taken the trouble to read the report which they already had in a provisional form, they would have seen that the commission had motivated its attitude to Family Day by saying that Good Friday and so on should be retained because hundreds of thousands of migrant workers would otherwise be deprived of this one opportunity to be united with their families in Black States and other areas. Then they were so concerned about these people who would supposedly not have an opportunity to be united with their families; but here an opportunity to do just that is being provided. The commission states very clearly that that day after Easter Sunday should be retained so that the migrant labourers in particular could have an opportunity to get to their families.

One of the complaints advanced by the two commissioners was that certain race groups had supposedly not given evidence. The commissioners who served on the commission know that this matter was discussed very thoroughly right at the outset and that the widest possible publicity was given to it. To ensure that the widest possible evidence would be submitted, it was even decided that certain people would be approached personally—and hon. members can see this for themselves in the report. I recall that one of the hon. members of the commission specifically suggested that an advertisement be placed in one of the newspapers of Natal so that the Indians in Natal who perhaps do not see the Cape newspapers would also have an opportunity to submit evidence. The chairman of the commission himself invited people— and hon. members will encounter this in the report too—to submit evidence to the commission.

On a previous occasion in a debate in this House I said that we as Whites should never act as a mouthpiece for activists and that we should never create the impression that there was justification for the conduct of people who did not want to co-operate, for example activists, strikers, demonstrators and so on. However, what did we find here this afternoon? We found exactly that in the words of the hon. member for Sandton. What he did here today was to the detriment of South Africa. He spoke about “days that will be misused politically”.

They have been.

Yes, I agree with the hon. member. But just give me a chance. I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands: There have been times when public holidays have been misused for political purposes.

Which one?

That you can work out for yourself.

Come on. You do not have the guts to tell us which one.

If the hon. member reads the report, he will see that this was one of the things which the commission attempted to say to everyone in this country in this report…

Mothers’ Day.

Yes, of course, you want attention from your mother, a baby like you. That is why you want a Mothers’ Day.

*In this report the people of South Africa are asked not to abuse the holidays but to use them for the purpose for which they were introduced. Specific reference is also made to the fact that some of these days are certainly not the time for politics. If this has been so in the past, then I ask whether we cannot draw the line somewhere, and is this report not an effort to draw that line? We must do everything in our power to create unanimity among all races. What better opportunity has there been for this than to use these holidays to arouse loyalty among everyone, holidays as the commission sincerely intended them to be, which every person can celebrate within the limits of his own tradition, his own language, his own descent and customs. The commission did not deem it necessary to invite the Jewish community, the Greek community, the Portuguese community, the Germany community, the Dutch community and the French community individually to come and submit evidence. Similarly the commission did not deem it necessary to invite Indians, Coloureds and Blacks individually to submit evidence. Everyone was invited. Everyone had the opportunity. What the commission had in mind, as Prof. Thom of Stellenbosch attested before the commission, was that holidays should be South African, national holidays. That is important. That is what the commission had in mind. The commission tried to give all the holidays which were not of a religious nature, the character of national celebrations.

†It takes two of the hon. members of the Progressive Federal Party—we have heard tonight that they are Afrikaans-speaking members of that party—to come and upset the attempts of this commission. The hon. member for Sandton referred to Settlers’ Day. He had a lot to say in favour of the retention of Settlers’ Day. I should like to tell hon. members briefly that in the Eastern Cape, which is the seat of the settlers, the celebrations on Settlers’ Day have come to virtually nothing. It started off, many years ago, with military parades, functions, guest speakers, etc., and it really was a worthwhile day. However, interest started waning, to such an extent that in the end the committee concerned found that September was the worst time for it and that the weather was to blame for the poor attendance at these functions. The last few years they have celebrated Settlers’ Day in April. Do hon. members know what the celebrations have come to? Two or three weeks ago they once again had celebrations which now consist of a church service on a Sunday morning, and if the organizers did not tell certain organizations such as the Defence Force to please send ten people to the service, the attendance would be very poor indeed. I had the privilege of attending those services, and I want to tell hon. members that if that is the interest shown, there certainly is reason why Settlers’ Day is not being celebrated. Therefore there is no point in keeping a special day as Settlers’ Day if it can be combined with another day. The hon. member for Sandton had such a lot to say. Why does he not look at what somebody from the 1820 Settlers’ Association had to say? I should like to quote from the minutes. Mr. Leon asked the following—

Then Mr. Kemsley of the 1820 Settlers’ Association said—

*The commission took note of what the representative of the 1820 Settlers’ Association said, but definitely did not take note of the opinion of the hon. member for Sandton.

†The hon. member for Sandton spoke about an “imbalance” in the calendar, about the holidays not being properly spaced out in the calendar. I say a festival day is not intended to be a public holiday, but a day on which to celebrate a specific occurrence.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville said that religious and historic events should be commemorated on such days. The idea of holidays is not to give everyone a day’s holiday, but to celebrate something. If during a certain period there is nothing that can be commemorated which justifies celebration, why should a holiday be introduced during that period? The hon. member had a great deal to say about Easter Monday, but Easter Monday has never been a day to celebrate as such. It is not a religious day, but merely a holiday which is result of the tradition in South Africa that where a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following day should be regarded as a holiday. That is why the Monday after Easter Sunday is a holiday. But that certainly cannot be called Easter Monday. That is an incorrect name.

Every Sunday is an Easter Sunday.

I am now speaking about the Easter weekend as such.

†I want to conclude by saying that the two members of the commission who refused to sign its report were not prepared to sanction a day like Founders’ Day in memory of Jan van Riebeeck and our other pioneers. In their first submission they said that they were not going to draw up a minority report, but in the end they did draw up a minority report. Initially they could not make up their minds. However, by not signing the report and by not referring to these facts, they did not sanction Founders’ Day, nor Republic Day, a day to give thanks for the wonderful history of a great country. Neither did they sanction Family Day, on which all families can get the opportunity to get together, nor Goodwill Day to encourage goodwill amongst all people, Black and White, in South Africa, and obviously also not Kruger’s Day, a day— whatever one may call it in the future—on which it is intended to remember the heroes of the past and the present and, most important of all, to remember our boys who are making the supreme sacrifice on the borders of South Africa for our and their safety.

I cannot believe that when the hon. member for Johannesburg North was a judge, he ever gave a verdict and then refused to sign the relevant documentation afterwards. This is what has happened here. Up to a point he was quite prepared to give his verdict, but when the chairman and others drafted a correctly worded report, he refused to sign it.

*It is an exceptional privilege for me to support the Second Reading of the Bill on behalf of my colleagues. We support it in the hope that in the future, holidays will contribute towards greater loyalty towards and pride in South Africa. May it also contribute towards greater loyalty and greater pride in the ranks of the official Opposition.

Order! Two points of order have been raised. The first was raised about the word “sinister”. I cannot permit a member to be described as “sinister”, but I do think that I shall permit expressions such as “sinister word” or “sinister statement”. As far as the word “agitate” (“opsweep”) is concerned, I want to say that it is a little more difficult to decide about that. When one talks about encouraging people to boycott a holiday, I think the word “agitate” can be interpreted to mean “to encourage vehemently”. In this sense I do not think I can rule it out of order.

Mr. Speaker, may I raise further a point of order?

On my ruling?

No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member sat down, his very last words were that he hoped the public holidays would instill in the members of this party a greater loyalty towards South Africa than they had in the past. [Interjections.] I submit that the insinuation should not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point of order? The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was speaking of a greater loyalty towards public holidays. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately I did not hear what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said.

Mr. Speaker, I told you what the hon. gentleman said. If one implies that one should have greater loyalty what one is saying is that in the past one has had less loyalty or was lacking in loyalty. That, I submit, is out of order.

Is that what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said?

Mr. Speaker, I said that I hoped that holidays would contribute towards greater loyalty towards and pride in South Africa, on the part of the official Opposition as well. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate which concerns a matter of deep emotional feeling, namely the whole question of religious holidays and cultural and historical traditions, because these are matters which evoke deep feelings in people and I do not want it to stand on record that the only contribution in this debate from a person of English-speaking origin should be seen to be reflected by the views of the PFP. I speak not as an Englishman or as an English South African, but as a South African of English-speaking origin. I would like to have seen, and I hope we will one day still see, no differences of opinion on matters of public holidays. Therefore I want to express a different view from that of the official Opposition. I repeat that I do it as a South African of English origin generations back.

You have said it four times now.

Yes, I am emphasizing the difference.

Can you not just say it once only?

No. I am saying it because … [Interjections.]

You are getting very boring.

The Press has given a preview of that party’s standpoint and the hon. member for Sandton’s speech. Over a period of time that has been splashed. So I am doing this in the hope that perhaps something of a different point of view may get through to those who read the English Press.

The hon. member for Sandton criticized Kruger Day and the way it has been exploited. I would like to see, and here I support the view of the hon. member for Durban Central, the name of this holiday changed to Heroes’ Day.

That is what I suggested.

It could then be meaningful for all South Africans of all colours and all origins.

That is exactly what I suggested.

Yes, that is what he now suggests, but when the hon. member for Durban Central proposed this in the commission, and it stands recorded in the report, where were the two representatives of the official Opposition? Where were the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Constantia? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Johannesburg North was present when the hon. member for Durban Central recorded his objection. Why could he then not get support from the official Opposition? [Interjections.] I believe that this is a transparent manoeuvre on the part of the official Opposition to exploit the remnants of sectionalism which still exist in the hearts of some South Africans. [Interjections.] Thank goodness, it is disappearing, but I believe jingoism— although it is disappearing—is still to be found … [Interjections.] There are still remnants of jingoism in the … [Interjections.]

And you are the leader of the biggest jingo party in South Africa. [Interjections.]

This is a transparent attempt to exploit those feelings which flow from an English background and from English traditions. And I deplore it. I deplore it, because the time to object was when the commission was taking evidence. When the commission was making its recommendations, that was the time for those hon. members to lodge their objections. Now there is objection to the changing of the name of Easter Monday. There is also an objection to changing the name of Boxing Day. Then there is also an objection against doing away with Settlers’ Day, as well as an objection to the name of Founders’ Day. Let me emphasize in passing that “Founders’ Day” is in the plural form. The apostrophe follows after the “s”; it does not come before it. In other words, it does not refer to one person only, but to all the founders in the history of South Africa. I want to know from the hon. member for Johannesburg North to which of these holidays he objects. Which of these holidays does he not support?

He has said that already.

He can answer me. [Interjections.] The hon. member can answer me by way of an interjection. To which of these holidays does he object? [Interjections.] Does he object to Geloftedag? [Interjections.]

Order!

I said it three times in my speech. I am not repeating anything.

Does he object to Family Day? Does he object to Goodwill Day? To which day does he object? [Interjections.] Well, Mr. Speaker, one can talk about mother love being good, and the hon. member for Sandton says Mothers’ Day is the day to which he objects. [Interjections.] Those hon. members make a political bohaai here in order to sweep up feelings or to exploit feelings but when they are asked to state what holidays they object to, it is tjoepstil; it is zip. [Interjections.]

The reason is, of course, that the hon. member for Johannesburg North recorded his vote for each and every one of these holidays. He voted in favour of them. Now, however, his party has said to him: “Nee, jy kan nie ’n goeie Afrikaner wees nie. Dan kan ons hierdie gevoelens nie uitbuit nie. Ons moet dit doen. Hier het ons nou die kans om ’n bietjie politiek te speel.” [Interjections.]

There sits the hon. member for Johannesburg North.

And just look at him now.

Does he object to any of these holidays? I ask that because his hon. colleague objects to six or seven of them. [Interjections.]

You either did not listen or you were not here.

I listened very carefully, and I also read the report. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, this is a delayed action in an attempt to try to score some political benefit. I think it is sad for South Africa. It is also sad in view of what is attempted in this report. A commission is bound to go by the evidence it receives, and the evidence presented to this commission in regard to Settlers’ Day—which is the key issue—was that the two organizations most closely concerned accepted the proposals. They would have preferred it to be called “Settlers’ Day”, but they accepted that 6 April should be called “Founders’ Day”.

I would personally have preferred that it was not attached to the day 6 April. I would have liked it to have been the first Monday in April, but that is a minor detail.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Orange Grove would stop muttering, I could perhaps give more attention to what I am saying. This was the crucial day about which the argument arose. I have had two representations, one from an individual and one from an organization. These are the only two representations I have had requesting me to try to save Settlers’ Day. That is the extent of the public reaction, from the whole of South Africa, which has come to me or to us as a party, a total of one organization and one person asking us please to save Settlers’ Day. Surely when the organizations linked to Settlers’ Day, the 1820 Settlers’ Association and the 1820 Settlers’ National Monument Foundation, give evidence to the effect that the correct date should be in April, and do not object to a neutral holiday for all South Africans called Founders’ Day, we should take notice of that Surely they speak for the organization and group they represent. It is therefore not for us, as a political party, to tell them that they do not know what they are talking about, that their evidence is meaningless, that they are talking through their hats, that we know better than they do and are therefore not going to accept their recommendation and their evidence. I therefore believe that the commission was correct, and I support the hon. member for Durban Central in accepting the overwhelming evidence placed before the commission.

I do not want to repeat the discussion on the insult to the Coloured and Indian members of the commission implicit in the minority report.

That is nonsense too.

It is not nonsense. It is a direct reflection on those members to tell them that they were merely voicing words put into their mouths by Whites.

We did not say that.

Well, I do not know what words mean …

That is true.

… when they say that … [Interjections.]

Order!

I quote (annexure B)—

Full stop.

That is right. I quote further—

And they quote the relevant paragraphs—

Of other groups.

It says “… their mouths by White witnesses”. [Interjections.]

Order!

So what does that mean?

I do not know, but when two names are mentioned, and then reference is made to words being put into “their” mouths, to me the word “their” refers to the last reference to any persons before the use of the word “their”. If those hon. members speak another kind of English, however, we better have an English grammar day as a public holiday in order to sort that one out. [Interjections.]

Order!

The other aspect I want to emphasize is the question of refusing to sign its report because one objects to the composition of a composition, yet serving on it despite one’s objection to its commission. Either one serves on a commission and says one will record one’s disagreement and one’s reasons for it, or one does not accept a commission as a fair one and one therefore says that one will not serve on it. Those are the two choices open to one. One does not, however, participate and vote for every recommendation and then, having voted for every recommendation, having participated, refuse to sign because one thinks the commission was not a true and representative commission. It does not make sense to me.

Vause, it is becoming a habit with them.

Well, there may be other occasions. I do not know. This is, I think, clear evidence of the fact that this was a belated decision with one object only, and that was to try to exploit feelings in order to gain some political benefit. It was a complete about-face. Why does somebody do an about-face? Why does one vote for something and then do an about-face and reject not only the recommendations, but also the whole mechanism which made the representations? If I am not given a reason for this sudden about-face, I must assume that the motive was to try to get some new benefit out of submitting a minority report. So I was not prepared to let this debate pass with my colleague, the hon. member for Durban Central, being attacked and the impression being created that the official Opposition is speaking for English South Africa. I want to place on record the South African view, what I believe to be the view of South Africans of English origin.

Order! I have given further serious thought to the point of order concerning the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and I now rule that he must withdraw his words to the effect that certain hon. members should show greater loyalty towards South Africa.

I withdraw them, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to become involved in a long debate at this late hour of the night. However, after having listened to this debate during the course of the afternoon and after having had the privilege of serving on this commission where the public holidays of South Africa were considered in depth, it is truly heartbreaking tonight to see representatives of the official Opposition, who have to pose an alternative Government, being placed in the humiliating situation in which they find themselves tonight.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has just proffered a kind of excuse. Let me say at once that there was great appreciation throughout for the contribution he made on the commission. I got the impression that the hon. member for Johannesburg North for a short while had an opportunity of re-living and giving expression to the little which still remained alive in him in this connection.

I think you are being impudent.

For a moment he felt at home, even though he is now saying: “I think you are being impudent”. I shall try to be more courteous to the hon. member than that, in deference to his grey hairs.

What is your insinuation?

Order! The hon. member has now made many interjections.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North proffered the very slender excuse of the composition of the commission that was ostensibly to restricted. You know, Mr. Speaker, that with the constitution of a commission or a committee, it is the practice to consult with parties on their representatives. Apparently there was such consultation in this case as well. Consequently that party was fully acquainted with the terms of reference of the commission. So, although they were fully informed, they nevertheless participated in the commission.

One wonders what the real motivation is for a party’s conduct in a situation such as the one in which the official Opposition found itself right at the end. It is quite simple, and I think that their extra-parliamentary arm, the Coloured Labour Party, has already set a pattern for them of how one acts in this connection.

The Labour Party has no connection with our party.

The position is that the Coloured Labour Party has already given them an indication of how one is supposed to act. If one is dissatisfied with the terms of reference of a commission, one simply refuses to serve on it. However, the hon. members opposite did serve on the commission, and, as I have said, the hon. member for Johannesburg North served cheerfully and made a wonderful contribution.

What inference should we now draw from the conduct of the official Opposition? As in recent weeks, the official Opposition once again confirmed that, even when we are concerned with a cultural matter, they have ceased to believe that they can, by means of internal parliamentary action, become an alternative Government. That is why they went out of their way, by means of their statement as to why they could not countersign the report, to try to create a further grievance among the people among whom they believe a measure of grievance could exist, and in particular among the Blacks, by saying: “You were not represented on this commission, your interests were not served on this commission, and therefore, with due regard for your aspirations, we refuse to associate ourselves with the findings of the commission.” I think that the inference drawn by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central in this connection was quite relevant. I want to endorse that inference. There was cordial co-operation on the commission. If we had decided to sign at the first resolutions meeting, the hon. member for Johannesburg North would have signed.

Omniscient!

What happened between that meeting and the final meeting? The Coloured Labour Party expressed itself strongly opposed to Republic Day and to various other public holidays under consideration. This action on the part of the Rev. Hendrickse determined the way the official Opposition would act. The hon. member for Johannesburg North came to the final meeting of the commission with an open mind. After that meeting the hon. member for Constantia produced a document which he had compiled here in the Cape and thrust it under the nose of the hon. member for Johannesburg North as a fait accompli. The hon. member can cavort like a monkey on the opposite side, but it will not rescue him from his predicament.

If I am a monkey, you are a baboon.

If an hon. member sits there, pulling faces and clapping his hands, then I do not know of a better description.

Order! The hon. member cannot describe another hon. member in those terms.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, then the hon. member for Johannesburg North must also withdraw what he said, viz. that the hon. member for Tygevallei is a baboon.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

One cannot refer to the hon. member with good results, because his embarrassment causes him to make utterances which are not normal for an hon. member.

What did these hon. members try to do at the final meeting of that commission? When this document was thrust under the nose of the hon. member for Johannesburg North he submitted it to the commission, so naïve is he. What did he try to achieve with it? Because they read certain discussions in the evidence in which Dr. Bergins and Mr. Leon expressed reservations on specific public holidays in which the Coloured community would not participate, they tried to use this as a starting point with which they believed that they would be able to take those coloured members of the commission in tow. In other words, they tried to make common cause with the coloured members of the commission, in opposition to the majority standpoint. Referring to the warnings issued by Dr. Bergins and Mr. Leon I need only refer to page 12 of the commission’s report, where they, as coloured members, specifically requested us as the majority on that commission, which did not consist only of Nationalists, to place on record that they did not in any way associate themselves with the comments of the two hon. members, since they as coloured members would not have the opportunity to participate in this debate.

It is typical of the official Opposition that even in regard to these matters they are controlled by forces outside this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. Chief Whip to say that this party is controlled by forces outside this Parliament?

I do not think those words are per se derogatory. However, I must tell the hon. member for Tygervallei that it must be accepted that hon. members in this House are free of any outside influences and take decisions as full-fledged members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, if you interpret what I said as having meant that they do not have free decision-making powers here, I withdraw it. However, the position remains that these two hon. gentlemen’s conduct on a commission outside this Parliament was such that no other inference could be drawn but that they were led by outside influences.

I want to conclude by saying that there are two things which are of special significance to the Afrikaner. I think even in those ranks there ought to be appreciation for this. Firstly his religion has special significance for the Afrikaner and, secondly, his cultural heritage has special significance for him. That is why it was such a tragic afternoon, because the hon. member for Sandton demonstrated so obviously here why their party as such will remain a parasitical party. It is because it flourishes on prejudices and will never be able to make any progress. It is because it insults the Afrikaner in his most sacred convictions. I want to ask the hon. member how many Settlers’ festivals he has attended in his time.

Two.

He said he has attended two Settlers festivals in his time. And then he still has the temerity to say here with a broad smile, referring to the day of the Covenant: “This is my favourite public holiday”; that day which has the most sacred significance for the Afrikaner and which was recognized by the coloured members of the commission. [Interjections.] The coloured members on the commission admitted that the Afrikaner has the right to consider the Day of the Covenant to be a sacred day. The hon. member, however, says: “This is my favourite public holiday.” How can one be so insensitive to the sentiment which has such great significance to other people? [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Orange Grove need not even mumble, for what does he know about what is sacred? [Interjections.]

This report will become a valuable document in the hands of those people who will, in the course of history, give significance to cultural matters. History, which will have this report at its disposal, will curse the official Opposition for its derogatory remarks and its attitude to this evidence.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying at once and without any equivocation that the allegation by the hon. member for Tygervallei that this side of the House was in fact led or influenced by the Coloured Labour Party to take the actions it did inside this commission is devoid of any truth. I say this categorically and without any equivocation at all. So I hope the hon. member will accept my word for it.

Do you accept his word for it?

You would not know; you are part of the clique.

Dead quiet!

It was my intention, when I prepared to take part in this debate, to ignore any personal attacks, because I expected a few, and as far as possible that is still my intention. I think I can honestly say that in the ten years or more that I have been in this House I have never ever attacked any of the sacred institutions or the sensitive sentiments of Afrikaans-speaking people on that side of the House, nor of the English-speaking people on this side of the House. I have never done so and I did not do so in the commission either, nor did the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I think any kind of insinuation to that effect is also devoid of truth. I think these things need to be said.

The Bill before us this evening has little if anything to do with the alleged sins of commission or of omission by the two commissioners from this party. Even if these accusations had substance—and I shall presently show that they have none—they are an irrelevance and can do nothing to hide the fundamental defects in the commission’s report and the Bill which is before us this evening. One can understand the embarrassment of the majority in the commission and the Government at the fact that this report, when it became public, fell flat on its face. It aroused no enthusiasm anywhere in the country, as far as I am aware, and what reaction there was either damned the recommendations with faint praise or strongly criticized them. I shall presently give examples, from various parts of the country and from various race groups, to show hon. members on that side of the House precisely what the reaction was to that report. I shall also try to show why this was so.

Let us, in fact, consider why this was so. These new recommendations differ very little from the recommendations made 28 or 29 years ago by the Pellisier Commission. But what a change has occurred in this country since then, what enormous social changes. [Interjections.] An hon. member on that side of the House asks “What social changes?” For the sake of that hon. Rip van Winkel, let me remind him of the educational changes that have taken place in this country, of the increased standards of literacy and of the university education which is available to Black people. Let me refer him to the rising living standards of the Black people and the improved quality of life which we hope they will increasingly enjoy. Is there anybody on that side of the House who is not aware of the fundamental, sweeping and wide changes that have taken place in the lives of Black people in South Africa in the last three decades? [Interjections.] There is wide consent throughout the country today, on account of the social changes, the economic changes and the political consequences of these changes, that it is vital to negotiate with people, or at least to consult with them if one cannot negotiate, in order to reach a consensus as to the future development and prosperity of this country. It is not just we on this side of the House who are saying it. It is also being said on that side of the House. The hon. the Prime Minister was at pains last week, when discussing his Vote, to insist that his 12-point plan is the only answer for South Africa. He said that there is no other. In his own words, he wants a system of consultation when matters of common interest are involved. He wants a system of consultation.

The same principle applies to the Schlebusch Commission, which has gone out of its way to obtain the views of all race groups as it formulates its constitutional plans. Even the Department of the Interior, in its 1979 annual report which has just appeared, makes it clear that in matters such as a body created to control publications—which is perhaps of less direct concern to all race groups than the public holidays—that body should, and I quote (p. 11.) “represent South African society in general” and include “persons from various language groups and from various religious persuasions”. This is a sound approach which is increasingly being adopted by people in South Africa who are concerned with the development, the growth and the growing maturity of our political body in South Africa. I think that every hon. member of this House, on either side, will endorse that this is a necessary and healthy thing to be happening. It was therefore with great regret and dismay that, as the work of the Gericke Commission continued, we found that no attempt was being made to draw Black people into the consultations. Let me describe my own experience. I was actually brought into that commission after it had been sitting for some time. I became a member in June. In June one saw a programme of witnesses being called. One accepted that that was the programme and, as a newcomer, one went ahead and listened with great interest to their evidence. There was a meeting in June and a meeting in August. Because of physical factors over which I had no control, I was unable to attend the October meeting. In November we had a further meeting. By this time it had become clear to me that there was no likelihood whatsoever that Black witnesses were going to be called. In fact, it became clear to me then that the commission was rapidly heading towards the final stages of its proceedings and was going to draft its report. It was at this point that we put in a report. This report was an internal report.

Did you not try to withdraw that report?

Yes, I shall explain that in a moment. The hon. member for Johannesburg North and I submitted a report for circulation to members of the commission, a report in which we drew attention to what we thought were certain deficiencies in the constitution, the work and the procedure of the commission and the evidence led before the commission. We are being accused by hon. members on that side of the House of not having drawn our objections to their attention in time. Certainly, if there was a time limit, they were a bit late. However, in the previous months the commission was involved with hearing evidence. When it came to the question of drawing conclusions, it became clear to us what direction this commission was taking. At this stage we informed the members of the commission, by means of this memorandum, that we had certain objections. What did we get in response to this? Did we get an echo from that side? Did we have an open discussion? No, Sir, the commission immediately set about destroying this document. They decided that this document should be published and that it was going to form part of the report. They also decided that it had to be attacked, and they put constructions on it that the text simply does not bear. Later on I shall be dealing with that in a little more detail, if necessary. However, this was the treatment accorded that document.

There was a very long discussion on that document.

Precisely. There was a very long discussion on that document.

But nothing was done about it.

We objected and said that it did indeed constitute criticism of the commission as it existed at that time, but that it was intended for discussion in the commission. We then asked that the document should not be published.

Why not?

Give me a chance. We asked that because the document was intended as a document for internal discussion in the commission. We saw that this document would be used to refute certain arguments and frustrate our objectives and therefore we asked that it should not be revealed to the public. The commission then decided to vote on this. They voted that they would publish it and that it would form part of the report. [Interjections.] Who voted against it? The hon. member for Johannesburg North and I voted against it.

Do you still stand by the document?

Of course! What do you think?

I want to say that the majority of the commission stated in its report that this document, circulated for internal consumption, contained certain statements which could be construed as insults, insinuations and so forth. We do not agree with this, because it was in fact seen by us as an internal document, and it is only by publishing that an insult becomes an insult.

[Inaudible.]

If in the course of a discussion in a commission, where privilege exists, one discusses the conduct of witnesses, for example, one does not regard that as a matter which will be made public. In fact, a commission usually does not do this. Our reference to the conduct of witnesses was made public. Was it then we who insulted the witnesses, or the people who made our references public? I leave this thought with the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

The commission went ahead and drew conclusions without hearing evidence from Black witnesses. Now I want to be fair to the commission. The Department of the Interior did advertise that the commission was willing to hear evidence. In those advertisements no restriction was placed on the race of people invited. It is our view that because of the circumstances in South Africa, and because of the nature of the political history of this country, it is unlikely that any Black person would easily see himself as a candidate to give evidence before a State commission. This is what the Schlebusch Commission found and it has gone out of its way to invite a sufficient number of representatives of Black population groups to give evidence before it. I believe it would have been right for this commission to have done the same.

Did you propose that?

In my memorandum I pointed out the deficiencies, but far from having a reasonable discussion about the deficiencies I identified, there was a most violent attack on the hon. member for Johannesburg North and myself. It was quite obvious that there was no possibility of this matter being taken any further. [Interjections.]

Reference has been made to the evidence given by Dr. Bergins and Mr. Leon. Dr. Bergins had a number of things to say—and I want to try to avoid those which have already been referred to. He said, for example, on Republic Day—

He refers to the three public holidays. I quote Dr. Bergins again—

In other words, he is saying to the commission there is no room for other races in these White holidays.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Constantia please to tell us whether Dr. Bergins voted for the retention of Republic Day or not?

Dr. Bergins voted for the report and the report contained a number of things which are not necessarily supported by all members. The hon. member for Durban Central, for example, has told us there were things in the report he did not agree with.

So I recorded it.

Yes, he recorded it.

Why did you not?

The other hon. members did not record their objections. [Interjections.] Presumably, they had no objections; but their objections certainly stand in the verbatim record. [Interjections.]

Did he say “yes” or “no”?

Mr. Leon mentioned that there are three holidays which are predominantly for the Afrikaans-speaking people, if we take into consideration that Van Riebeeck Day is to be restored. The others are the Day of the Covenant and Kruger Day. He asked what is to be given, in proportion, to the other people who make up the South African nation. One could go on at some length, but I want to draw a comparison between these remarks—and there are many more—and the findings in the report.

Hon. members will recall what hon. members have had to say about Republic Day. They will also know what was said about it by Rev. Hendrickse whom, as I have already said, we have not consulted and with whom we have had no contact in this matter. However, hon. members will know what he said. The commission makes the following finding on page 5, paragraph 6.7—

This is something I certainly share. The commission continues—

This is the sort of finding that can only be reached if one ignores the words of a Bergins and a Leon and one recalls no Black witnesses, because it must be clear to everyone in the country that the sentiment referred to here is not shared by all the people in this country. Again, I could give further examples. I have one here which deals with Kruger Day. I quote from paragraph 6.8(b) of the commission’s report—

Of course, there are many people in this country who do honour Paul Kruger, and I will be the last person to derogate from the honour in which he is held. To suggest, however, that all people hold that view is obviously absolute and pure nonsense. It is absolute and pure nonsense.

But nobody ever said that.

Only people who have not heard evidence from Blacks, people who have not paid attention to the words of the two commissioners of colour who were on that commission, could make such a ridiculous statement. I could go on to prove that throughout the commission’s findings there are assumptions about Black views, assumptions about politics …

But why then did you not support the hon. member for Durban Central on changing the name of Kruger Day?

I happened not to be there. [Interjections.]

Very conveniently.

I do not know, however, whether I would have supported it or not My straight answer, however, is that I happened not to be there.

I hope hon. members are now beginning to understand why the recommendations of the majority and the provisions of this Bill fail to convince. I should like to draw the attention of the House to what the actual response of South Africa was to the recommendations of the commission.

First of all, let us take a voice from Johannesburg. This is a leading article from The Star. It says—

Hon. members ask, as they have repeatedly asked this afternoon and this evening, what our main objection is, whether it is to the composition of the commission, or whether it is to this or that or the other specific shortcoming. Our problem is a simple one. We believe the time has passed when decisions on important matters can be taken without consultation with all the race groups involved. That is what it is all about.

Let us take another voice from the Transvaal. I quote this time from Die Transvaler. Die Transvaler says that it welcomes certain improvements in regard to Van Riebeeck Day. It goes on to say—

They approve of the fact that this day is being partly restored, but then they go on to say—

It is only Die Transvaler.

Yes it is only Die Transvaler.

†I found a similar comment in Die Vaderland. This is what Die Vaderland says, and I think the hon. member for Tygervallei should listen—

Allow me to go on. I do not want to take up too much time with this. I should now like to quote from the Eastern Province Herald—I do not want to quote at too great length, but I hope the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is listening—

He does not understand that.

I quote further—

Did you hear that, Dan?

The article goes on—

I have many more instances I could quote. In fact, there has been reaction from all over the country.

Who do they represent?

They represent sections, regions and people. My time is running out, but I have here a statement by Dr. Motlana. Just to allay another suspicion, let me say that it was not this party that went to Dr. Motlana to ask him for his views. Dr. Motlana says—

There is a similar statement by Dr. Oscar Ndhlomo.

From all over the country, i.e. from Natal, from the Eastern Province, from the Cape and from the Transvaal, in both official languages, and from the Blacks as well, there has been a response that indicates that this report by the commission, and the Bill before us by extension, are not arousing any enthusiasm whatsoever.

I have only a couple of minutes more, so I now want to come to the crux of the matter. Our criticisms arise entirely out of our belief that it is no longer possible, in South Africa, to have decisions on a matter of common interest without calling into consultation the people involved. Leaving aside all the circumstantial details that the other members of the commission have called into question.

Why did you serve on the commission then?

Leaving aside the criticisms they have levelled about the words we have used, circumstantial detail and so forth, let me say that the core of our objection—and we have tried to make it abundantly clear—is contained in our minority report. If anybody is in any doubt about our essential meaning, let him read our minority report. Annexure A contains the report we wrote for publication as a minority report, and not annexure B which is an internal document. Annexure A is our minority report. We nail that flag to the mast. That is why we have difficulties with the findings of the commission. That is what it is all about. We believe that we are right and that the hon. commission is wrong. We say this without rancour. We say this with charity and not with any malice towards anyone. We say it with deadly seriousness because we believe that the day has passed when politicians in this House, or negotiators anywhere else in South Africa, can hopefully go forward seeking the good of this country, its welfare and progress, without taking into account the views of other race groups when a common cause or common endeavour is involved. Who can doubt that with the vast and growing labour force we have in South Africa, with the interest a labour force naturally has in leisure activities and public holidays, it is rational or reasonable or logical that one cannot take decisions on matters like this without calling those people into consultation. In spite of the superficial attempts by hon. members on that side to prove that indirectly they were able to get some reflection of the views of Black people it is a fact—and no one can deny, it—that the Blacks were not consulted. They were not called in, the way they were called in by the Schlebusch Commission. I believe that the best thing we can do with this report, and in fact with this Bill, is to put them away quietly. I believe it is right to say that the Schlebusch Commission, its report and its findings, should enjoy priority. Let us find out where we are going. Let us decide, together with the other people in this country, where we are going. Let us establish a basic framework. Then, when we know where we are going, let us decide once and for all that we will no longer try to reach decisions on this or any other matter without consulting those other people of this country who have an equal interest with us in these matters.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia has just been trying with all the eloquence at his disposal, to explain why he and the hon. member for Johannesburg North, as members of the commission, performed this egg dance here. I wish to ask any impartial member in this House whether he was in any way impressed by the kind of arguments which the hon. member for Constantia raised here a moment ago. [Interjections.] He tried to disparage the report of the commission merely as a smoke-screen to salve his own conscience and to hide his guilt feelings behind. The hon. member for Constantia said that the hon. member for Tygervallei must accept that he did not receive any instructions from the Labour Party to adopt such an attitude. I want to tell the hon. member and the hon. member for Johannesburg North that the party whip has been used to compel them to carry out this opportunistic political manoeuvre to which they leant themselves in the end.

I deny that.

The hon. member can deny it if he wishes, but how else can he explain that egg dance of his to the House?

I should like to convey my sincere thanks to those hon. members who conveyed their appreciation here to the chairman of the commission, Dr. Gericke. I think Dr. Gericke deserves appreciation because he devoted himself to this task with his characteristic enthusiasm and with full dedication, and did the work.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North said that the chairman of the commission was very keen to bring out the unanimous report. That is true, but the hon. member for Johannesburg North was pre-eminently one of the members who gave the chairman the impression that it would be a unanimous report, for up to the last meeting, at which the resolutions were put one by one, he voted in favour of them.

Were you there?

But the report says so. Is the hon. member denying it? Could the chairman of the commission not, on the basis of the actions of the hon. member, have been under the impression that it would be a unanimous report?

It is a great pity.

The hon. member was under that impression himself.

We cannot get away from the fact that the representatives of the official Opposition on the commission and their behaviour in the debate here today are unexplainable. The fact of the matter is that they served on that commission on behalf of their party. They made no objection to the composition of the commission. They made no objection to the terms of reference of the commission. Did they, at any of the meetings which were held, come forward and say: “Let us ask the chairman to bring out an interim report to tell the State President that we think the terms of reference of the commission are too restricted. We must include people whom we should like to hear. We would even like to have other people appointed”?

What do you think the minority report is?

[Inaudible.]

Order!

They never made use of these channels although it could have been done, and is frequently done. Now the hon. member for Johannesburg North is asking: “What should I have done? Should I have gone to speak to the State President?” The hon. member knows the legal channels. The fact of the matter is that nothing of the kind occurred to him while he was serving on the commission.

What should I have told him?

That idea was planted in his mind after he had agreed with everything. I almost feel like objecting on behalf of the hon. members for Johannesburg North and Constantia to the unenviable position in which the official Opposition has placed them. The party whip was used to compel them to behave in this way.

Is an hon. member appointed as a commissioner on a commission as an independent person or not?

The party of the hon. member was consulted on his appointment. It was therefore a party appointment. The hon. member ought to know that. It is quite clear that the conduct of the hon. member for Sandton and his party placed these two hon. commissioners in a humiliating position. The hon. member for Sandton made a spectacle of the hon. member for Johannesburg North tonight. It is not fair that he should do this, and I cannot understand why the hon. member for Johannesburg North allowed it to be done to him. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Johannesburg North has to swallow such a bitter pill at the hands of the hon. member for Sandton. I have never seen anyone be so negative about such a matter as this as the hon. member for Sandton was tonight. He sounded absolutely no positive note at all. He tried to belittle everything, and attacked everyone. He disparaged the two Coloured commissioners. In addition he also disparaged the part played by the 1820 Settlers’ Association, and asked on whose behalf that delegation was speaking. He said they were “self-appointed” people. The 1820 Settlers Association erected a monument in Grahamstown. That monument symbolizes the part played by the English-speaking people in building up this country. It is a positive demonstration of the part played by English-speaking people in building up this country. With his conduct, however, the hon. member is belittling that work and insulting those people. The hon. member displayed no sign of having any feeling or understanding for the cultural heritage of other groups in this country. It is time that we in this House were adult enough to realize that certain people and certain groups in this country have cultural heritages, which we as hon. members of this House must respect and accept. The hon. member for Sandton, and this was also the refrain of the hon. member for Constantia, said that Blacks had not been consulted in this matter. That was merely a smoke-screen and an egg dance, because they did not think of that initially. It was only when the hon. member for Sandton sat down to write the minority report that he thought of the Blacks, and instructed the hon. member for Constantia to raise the matter. Why is he displaying such a racistic attitude in respect of this matter?

That is not true.

After all, everyone was given an opportunity to give evidence. People were asked in the newspapers to give evidence before the commission, and surely Blacks could have come forward and stated their case. What was there to stop them from doing so? Like everyone else, they could have come forward to state their case. They were not excluded from the proceedings of the commission. Tucsa and certain church denominations gave evidence on behalf of thousands of people before the commission and stated how their people felt about the matter.

On the question of Settlers’ Day, the hon. member also chose to beat the racial drum. He alleged that we were taking away the only English holiday. This is just the reverse of the attitude adopted by the two Coloured members of the commission. Then, too, it is just the reverse of the attitude of the hon. member for Durban Point. In the times in which we are living, we should not try to score such political debating points off one another. We must not try to beat the jingoistic racial drum here.

I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that we look forward to the day when holidays are no longer a political issue in this House, when they will no longer be used to for petty political gain, and when we need no longer argue about them. I trust that public holidays will be used to promote national unity, rather than to use them to try to drive a wedge between the various ethnic groups in this country.

I wish to be brief. Hon. members on my side of the House—the hon. member for Tygervallei, the hon. member for Pietersburg, the hon. member for False Bay and the hon. member for Rosettenville—as well as the hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Durban Point, dealt point by point with every argument used here by the official Opposition. They exposed the lamentable, pathetic conduct of those hon. members of the Opposition who served on the commission, and I do not think there is any need for me to make a long speech here on what has already been said. However, a few specific questions were put to me.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked whether we cannot move an instruction during the committee stage to have the name of Kruger Day changed to Heroes’ Day. I have respect for the hon. member’s feelings in this regard. However, the fact remained that he himself said that the commission went out of its way to evaluate the evidence and to reach a compromise. I accept, and the hon. member concedes, that everyone on the commission felt in a good spirit that it should rather be Kruger Day instead of Heroes’ Day. How can he now expect me, after the commission has come to this decision in its wisdom after evaluating the evidence before it, that I, who was not a member of the commission, should now pass judgement in favour of Heroes’ Day? I really do not think that the hon. member can expect that of me. In fact, I do not think that I should try to intervene in respect of any recommendation of the commission. The Government would like to accept the report of the commission in full, because it is a thorough and a good piece of work. That is why I do not see my way clear to issuing such an instruction.

The hon. member for Rosettenville requested that we should consider the many workers who will be involved in these decisions, so that they will suffer no harm as a result of the passing of this legislation. This legislation is not concerned with the negotiation of paid holidays. Payment in regard to holidays is dealt with by other legislation. However, I wish to give the assurance here tonight that no employee will, as a result of the passing of this legislation, be worse off than he was before.

For the sake of interest I can just mention here that according to statistics every paid holiday costs the economy R65 million in salaries. This amount can be increased to R162 million if the production loss is also taken into account. It is therefore an important aspect, but this legislation is not depriving the industrial councils of any negotiating power, and I do not think that people on the labour market will suffer any losses as the result of this legislation.

We shall probably have to discuss certain matters again during the committee stage. In the meantime I should like the Second Reading of the Bill to be taken this evening. That is why I just wish to point out briefly that this report will probably not be the last word which is going to be spoken in regard to holidays in this country. The hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out that this subject has frequently been investigated by various commissions and that we are now living in changed circumstances. Holidays also reflect the way of life and philosophy of the people.

Except the milk farmers.

This never remains static, and from time to time, therefore, these matters will probably be reconsidered. Therefore we cannot say that this will be the last word which will be spoken in respect of holidays in this country.

In the second place I wish to convey my appreciation once again to the commission, which obviously went out of its way, as the hon. member for Durban Central rightly said, to evaluate fairly the various schools of thought and the evidence of various interest groups and to accommodate these in a satisfactory way. I wish to make an appeal to hon. members here tonight, after we have finished this debate, and in spite of the discordant note which was heard as a result of the opporunistic behaviour and politicking on the part of the official Opposition, to continue to celebrate our holidays in the spirit which is reflected in the report of the commission, and that we should celebrate them in such a way that national unity will be promoted in this country, and not in such a way that our people will be driven further apart.

Question agreed (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.