House of Assembly: Vol106 - FRIDAY 3 MARCH 1961

FRIDAY, 3 MARCH 1961

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 10.5 a.m.

CONDENSED VERSION OF A REPORT BY CHAIRMAN OF PRESS COMMISSION

The MINISTER OF LANDS (for the Prime Minister): In accordance with an assurance given in this House on Friday, 27 January 1961, I lay upon the Table of the House the reply received from the chairman of the Press Commission in which is set out the work entailed in, dealing with and reporting on the commission’s terms of reference. The chairman’s reply is a lengthy one and it has been necessary for the Department of External Affairs to condense it in a form which contains all the salient facts but omits the less important detail.

QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Dipping Tanks Damaged by Rioting Bantu *I. Capt. HENWOOD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) Whether any cattle dipping tanks were damaged on farms privately owned by Bantu persons or in reserves adjacent to European-owned farms by rioting Bantu during the period 1958 to 1960; if so, (a) how many, (b) how many have been repaired and (c) who paid for such repairs; and
  2. (2) whether any European farmers (a) reported and (b) claimed damages for stock losses considered to be due to tick-infested cattle spreading disease in areas where cattle dipping tanks have been damaged and not repaired.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) (a) None of the 240 cattle dipping tanks on farms privately owned by Bantu were damaged during the period 1958 to 1960 but in Bantu reserves 45 out of a total number of 800 dipping tanks were damaged.
    1. (b) 25.
    2. (c) The tanks were repaired by the Bantu communities at their own cost.
  2. (2) (a) and (b) No.
    • It is presumed that the hon. member desires the information in respect of Natal and the above figures are for that Province only.
Dipping Tanks Supplied by Bantu Authorities *II. Capt. HENWOOD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

Whether provision is made by his Department for dipping tanks and the dipping of stock (a) on farms privately owned by Bantu persons, (b) in Bantu reserves and (c) in Bantu locations adjacent to European-owned land.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (a) No.
  2. (b) and (c) In Bantu reserves and locations adjacent to European-owned land in the Transkei and certain districts in the Ciskei and the northern areas of the Transvaal both tanks and materials are supplied by Bantu Authorities. In Natal and in the remaining districts of the Ciskei and the northern areas of the Transvaal provision for dipping is made by the South African Native Trust.
European-Owned Dipping Tanks Not Damaged by Bantu *III. Capt. HENWOOD

asked the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services:

  1. (1) Whether any cattle dipping tanks were damaged on European-owned farms by rioting Bantu during the period 1958 to 1960; if so, (a) how many, (b) how many have been repaired and (c) who paid for such repairs; and
  2. (2) whether any European farmers (a) suffered, (b) reported and (c) claimed damages for stock losses considered to be due to tick-infested cattle spreading disease in areas where cattle dipping tanks have been damaged and not repaired.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL SERVICES:
  1. (1) No; (a), (b) and (c) fall away.
  2. (2) (a), (b) and (c) No.
*IV. Mr. MITCHELL

—Reply standing over.

Use of Fire Hoses at Jan Smuts Airport *V. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to Press reports on the use of fire hoses against the crowd which welcomed the Springbok rugby team at Jan Smuts airport on 26 February 1961;
  2. (2) why was the use of hoses resorted to;
  3. (3) whether any damage was done to (a) clothes and other possessions of members of the crowd and (b) radio equipment used for recording the arrival of the team; if so, what damage;
  4. (4) whether any claims for compensation have been received; if so,
  5. (5) whether such claims will be considered; and
  6. (6) what are the standing instructions for crowd control at Jan Smuts airport.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Some 2,000 members of the public had, without authority, entered the restricted area and taken up position around the S.A.A. aircraft carrying the Springbok team. It is a contravention for unauthorized persons to enter the apron area. Three other aircraft, viz. a Sabena Boeing, a C.A.A. Viscount and a B.O.A.C. Comet were being loaded or unloaded and luggage and freight were being handled on the apron. Refuelling of the aircraft was also in progress. A great number of the spectators were smoking or lighting cigarettes. The firemen had in the first instance trained their hoses on highly inflammable aircraft fuel which had been spilt on the apron. The crowd was at this stage completely out of control and the use of hoses was resorted to in the interest of safety not only of the aircraft and equipment on the apron but also of the public.
  3. (3) (a) and (b) Not known.
  4. (4) No.
  5. (5) Falls away.
  6. (6) The South African Police are responsible for the control of crowds at all State-owned airports.
No Scheme for Closed-Circuit Television *VI. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Education, Arts and Science:

  1. (1) Whether the introduction of closed-circuit television in educational institutions is contemplated; if so, (a) what will be the extent of the scheme and (b) when is it expected to be introduced; and
  2. (2) whether any preparations for the introduction of such a scheme are being made; if so, what preparations.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) Falls away.
Television Unit Granted to Natal University *VII. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (a) On what date was the application from the University of Natal, for permission to operate a closed-circuit television unit at its “From Our World” exhibition in June 1960, received, (b) when was a reply given and (c) what was the reply.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) Application was made to the Postmaster-General on 23 November 1959; and
  2. (b) and (c) the application was refused on 4 December 1959, but after further correspondence, in which more detailed information was furnished, it was granted on 28 March 1960.
Railways: Report on Consolidation of Cost-of-Living Allowances *VIII. Mr. HOPEWELL (for Mr. Russell)

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether the fact-finding committee inquiring into the consolidation of the costof-living allowances with the basic wages of railway workers has submitted a report; and, if so, when will it be laid upon the Table.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes, but it is not the practice to make public departmental reports of this nature.

Mr. DURRANT:

Arising out of the reply of the hon. the Minister, may I ask him whether the statement he made the other day to the staff associations of the Railways in regard to the consolidation of allowances is the result of the report of the fact-finding commission?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes.

Persons Removed from Voters’ Roll Under Population Registration Act *IX. Dr. RADFORD

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether the names of any European voters have been removed from the voters’ roll as a result of being classified as Coloured persons in terms of the Population Registration Act; and
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in this regard.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) The Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951, and the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, provide for the compilation and maintenance of voters’ lists in respect of White persons and non-Europeans. The name of a person who has been re-classified in terms of the Population Registration Act, 1950, and who is registered as a voter, is thereupon removed, on the same evidence, from the relevant voters’ list in terms of the first two mentioned Acts. I may add that the Secretary for the Interior, who is authorized by the Population Registration Act, 1950, to classify the population, is also the Chief Electoral Officer charged with the compilation and maintenance of voters’ lists.
Dr. RADFORD:

Arising out of the reply will the Deputy Minister please say whether the removal of the names of voters from the roll is held in abeyance if they appeal against the decision of the Population Registrar, and secondly, what is the position of women who have been voters for more than 20 years and who were regarded as Europeans and are now classified as Coloureds? They have exercised the vote for over 20 years. What happens to them?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If the hon. member will Table his question I will give him full particulars.

State Contribution to Symphony Orchestras *X. Dr. RADFORD

asked the Minister of Education, Arts and Science:

Whether the Government makes any contribution to aid or advance the performance of music by symphony orchestras in the Union; if so, what contribution; and, if not, why not.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND SCIENCE:

Yes; R240 a year to the Johannesburg Symphony Orchestra and R100 a year to the Johannesburg Philharmonic Orchestra.

Re-admission to Turfloop Refused to Students *XII. Mr. DODDS

asked the Minister of Bantu Education:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Cape Times of 28 February 1961, that two second-year students have been refused re-admission to the University College of the North at Turfloop; and
  2. (2) on what grounds was re-admission refused to these students.
The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Misconduct.
Mr. MOORE:

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, is it customary for the Minister to give reasons for refusal when he issues his letter of refusal?

The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

No, not necessarily.

Mr. MOORE:

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, may I ask whether the reasons are only given in this House and not to the man most concerned, the student himself?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*XIII. Mr. DODDS

—Reply standing over.

War Pensions for Disabled Persons *XIV. Mr. J. LEWIS

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

How many (a) disabled volunteers and nurses, (b) widows of volunteers and (c) parents and other dependants are being paid war pensions as a result of (i) the First World War and (ii) the Second World War.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS:
  1. (1) First World War:
    1. (a) disabled volunteers and nurses 1,504
    2. (b) widows of volunteers 864
    3. (c) parents and other dependants 164
  2. (2) Second World War:
    • This information is not readily available. Approximately 20,630 persons are in receipt of pensions or allowances under the War Pensions Act, 1942, and to extract the particulars required would necessitate the examination of each individual case which would involve three months’ overtime by the staff concerned. I regret that pressure of work does not permit of this being done.
Ngqusa Hill: No Action Against Sergeant *XV. Dr. D. L. SMIT asked the Minister of Justice:
  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Eastern Province Herald of 14 February 1961, of the magistrate’s verdict at the inquest proceedings on the 11 Pondos who were killed by police action at Ngqusa Hill on 6 January 1960, in which the magistrate found that the firing by a certain police sergeant was unjustified and that the resultant killing of Bantu amounted to culpable homicide; and
  2. (2) whether any action against the police sergeant is contemplated.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) The Attorney-General has decided not to prosecute.
Tapping of Telephone Lines in Durban *XVI. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Justice:

  1. (1) Whether an officer of the Police Force interviewed the Deputy Mayor of Durban and other municipal officials on 22 February 1960; if so, what was (a) the name and (b) the rank of the police officer;
  2. (2) whether the police officer requested permission to tap certain telephone lines of the municipal telephone system; if so,
  3. (3) whether permission was granted; if so,
    1. (a) on what conditions and (b) for what period; and
  4. (4) for what reasons did the police wish to tap certain telephone lines in the Durban area.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The question of the hon. member refers to the same matter to which I already replied to in this House on 21.2.61 and 28.2.61.

Mr. OLDFIELD:

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, may I ask him whether he or his Department has investigated the part that is being played by the police in this matter and if so, why he does not wish to give a reply to the questions which have been put?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Mr. HOPEWELL:

On a point of order, is it in order to ask questions arising out of the Minister’s reply?

No Apparatus for Tapping Telephone Lines *XVII. Mr. OLDFIELD asked the Minister of Justice:
  1. (1) Whether the Police Force has any apparatus for tapping telephone lines; if so, what apparatus; and
  2. (2) what is his Department’s attitude towards the principle of tapping telephone lines.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) Falls away.
Mr. OLDFIELD:

Arising out of the Minister’s reply may I ask whether the apparatus was loaned from the Posts and Telegraphs Department?

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

I have given the reply.

Mr. RAW:

You have not replied to (2) at all.

Tapping of Telephone Lines not Permitted in Post Office *XVIII. Mr. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the Natal Daily News of 13 February 1961 that an official of his Department attended a meeting on 22 February 1960 between a police officer and representatives of the Durban City Council to discuss a request by the police for permission to tap telephone lines of the municipal telephone system;
  2. (2) (a) what was the name of the official and (b) in what capacity did he attend the meeting;
  3. (3) whether the official was invited to attend the meeting; if so, (a) by whom and (b) for what reasons was his presence required; if not,
  4. (4) whether the official sought permission to attend the meeting; if not, why not; if so,
  5. (5) whether permission to attend the meeting was granted; if so, by whom.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (1) Yes; and
  2. (2), (3), (4) and (5) I have no knowledge of the alleged happenings. I can but repeat that the tapping of telephone calls is not permitted in the Post Office.
*XIX. Mr. HOPEWELL

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

Whether any steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that telephone tapping does not occur; if so, what steps; and, if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The equipment in telephone exchanges is designed in such a manner that telephone calls cannot be tapped without our knowledge. It has never come to the knowledge of my Department that a telephone call is being deliberately tapped and it will also not be permitted.

*XX. Mr. BUTCHER

—Reply standing over.

Mineral Ores Exported through South African Ports *XXI. Mr. BUTCHER

asked the Minister of Transport:

What tonnage of (a) manganese, (b) chrome, (c) iron ore, (d) iron, (e) steel, (f) copper, (g) asbestos, (h) coal, and (i) other minerals, was shipped from each of the ports of the Union and South West Africa and through Lourenço Marques during 1960.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Durban:

  1. (a) 520,880 and 107,692 ferro-manganese.
  2. (b) 14,496 ferro-chrome.
  3. (c) 92,109.
  4. (d) 273,033 pig-iron.
  5. (e) Not separately available.
  6. (f) and (g) Nil.
  7. (h) 535,475.
  8. (i) 156,108.

Cape Town:

  1. (a) 763.
  2. (b), (c), (d) and (h) Nil.
  3. (e) Not separately available.
  4. (f) 41,313.
  5. (g) 23,762.
  6. (i) 28,703.

Port Elizabeth:

  1. (a) 325,654.
  2. (b), (d), (f) and (h) Nil.
  3. (e) Not separately available.
  4. (c) 141,029.
  5. (g) 26,480.
  6. (i) 1,705.

East London:

  1. (a) to (d) and (f) to (h) Nil.
  2. (e) Not separately available.
  3. (i) 27,979 (sillimanite).

Mossel Bay:

  1. (a) to (h) Nil.
  2. (i) 3,310 (ochre).

Walvis Bay:

  1. (a) 64,327.
  2. (b) to (e) and (g) and (h) Nil.
  3. (f) 200,904 copper and lead ores.
  4. (i) 48,204.

Lourenço Marques:

As far as Union despatches are concerned, the following are the figures—

  1. (a) 90,323.
  2. (b) 752,131.
  3. (c) 197,348.
  4. (d) to (g) and (i) Nil.
  5. (h) 228,022 exported and 218,759 shipped to Union ports.
*XXII. Mr. BUTCHER

—Reply standing over.

*XXIII. Mr. MILLER

—Reply standing over.

*XXIV. Mr. EGLIN

—Reply standing over.

*XXV. Mr. EGLIN

—Reply standing over.

*XXVI. Mrs. SUZMAN

—Reply standing over.

*XXVII. Mr. RAW

—Reply standing over.

Public Servants and the Ku-Klux-Klan *XXVIII. Mr. R. A. F. SWART

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to a Press report that the leader of the Ku-Klux-Klan in Natal claims that members of Government Departments are members of this society; and
  2. (2) whether he will make a statement in regard to the matter with particular reference to public servants becoming members of secret societies.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) I have no information which enables me to make a statement in regard to the particular claim. Public servants who are subject to the provisions of the Public Service Act, 1957, are debarred from becoming members of political organizations or to take part in political matters. Membership of other organizations or societies is not expressly forbidden, but if an officer as a result of such membership does anything which is defined as misconduct in Section 17 of the forementioned Act, action can be taken against him as provided in the Act.
Dam to be Built on the Umgeni River

The MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS replied to Question No. *III, by Capt. Henwood, standing over from 28 February.

Question:
  1. (1) Whether the Government is contemplating the building of a dam on the Umgeni River in the Lion’s River district; if so, (a) where will the dam be situated, (b) what will be the approximate (i) capacity and (ii) cost of the dam and (c) to whom will the water be supplied;
  2. (2) whether an investigation into the building of the dam is being made; if so, (a) what progress has been made and (b) when is it expected that (i) negotiations for the purchase of the required land will be started, (ii) the building of the dam will be commenced and (iii) the dam will be completed; and
  3. (3) whether adequate time will be allowed to the present occupiers of the land to move elsewhere after the purchase or expropriation of their land.
Reply:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) On the farm Midmar a few miles upstream of Howick;
    2. (b) (i) initial capacity 61,000 morgen feet and eventual capacity 92,000 morgen feet,
      1. (ii) R3,750,000 initially and R4,050,000 eventually;
      2. (c) to the Corporations of Durban and Pietermaritzburg and other users along the river like Feralloys, Cato Ridge Development Co., etc.
  2. (2) Yes.
    1. (a) Drilling and foundation investigations as well as the preliminary design are almost complete;
    2. (b) (i) as soon as Parliament has approved the scheme and funds are voted the Department of Lands will start negotiations for the acquisition of the required land,
      1. (ii) if approved by Parliament, during the latter half of this year,
      2. (iii) during 1964.
  3. (3) It is expected that the land will be required by the Government during 1963 and the sooner negotiations for the purchase or expropriation thereof can be completed, the longer time occupiers of land will have to move elsewhere.
Bantu Charged for Illegal Striking

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE replied to Question No. *VI by Mrs Suzman, standing over from 28 February.

Question:

How many Bantu persons were (a) charged and (b) convicted during 1960 in terms of the Native Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act for striking illegally.

Reply:
  1. (a) 364.
  2. (b) 294. One case against 27 Bantu is still pending.
COMMUNISM IN AFRICA *Dr. DE WET:

I move—

That in the opinion of this House consideration should be given to the effect of the communistic ideology and activities in Africa, especially in view of—
  1. (a) their danger to South Africa;
  2. (b) the importance of emphasizing South Africa’s strong anti-communistic policy; and
  3. (c) the need for intensifying the realization among the anti-communistic countries that South Africa is an indispensable stronghold against Communism.

I want to commence by drawing a sombre picture and I am obliged to do so because Communism is a monstrous danger which has set itself the object of liquidating the Western as well as the Eastern civilizations. Communism is the direct autithesis of freedom as we know it. It means the total destruction of everything we value in the Christian, moral and political spheres. To achieve this aim, the communist is relentlessly working to:

  1. (i) Conquer and dominate the world and the universe;
  2. (ii) remake mankind in his thinking, way of life and standards of values, in other words, as far as we in South Africa are concerned, to liquidate Christianity.

To be able.to appreciate this cruel reality fully, we need to know what a communist is, the Marxian man as he is also called. In this regard the hon. the present Minister of Economic Affairs, Dr. Diederichs, has said the following in a book which he has written on this subject—

He who wishes to understand Communism correctly, must try to delve deeper than the theory and must try to understand the mind which lies behind that theory. It is above all a certain way of life, a definite psychological attitude.

The communist does not believe that he has a soul, the communist does not believe that he has a Maker, and he does not believe that there is a life hereafter. As a matter of fact the motto of Carl Marx, the father of Communism, was “In one word, I hate all gods”. The communist’s philosophy of life is that he will succeed in controlling not only mankind but the cosmic world as well. He will become the ruler and the god of earth, and then will follow control of the whole universe. One of the works on this matter puts it as follows—

He believes he has no Creator and has no purpose or reason for existing, except as an incidental accumulation of accidental forces in nature.

This is the direct opposite of what the civilized and religious man believes. The communist is in his very being an atheist. He is a barbarian, and his watchword is “revolution” in order to achieve all these aims. As a matter of fact the House and the world know that the so-called purges which take place in the communistic countries mean three things: Murder, banishment and forced labour. I almost feel inclined to say that murder is a necessity for the communists.

Furthermore, morality is completely absent from the communist. Honesty as we know it is foreign to him. For that reason he does not act like a normal being and his reactions are quite unpredictable, as we have so often seen in recent times.

The communist’s whole being dictates to him that he must use agreements and discussions as means towards the achievement of his ultimate aim, definitely not, as we believe, that they represent attempts to achieve peaceful coexistence. We regard the keeping of a contract as a question of honour, but the communist regards the breaking of an agreement as a victory. One of the well-known authorities in this field has said the following in this regard—

He has relieved himself from all the confining restraints of honour and ethics which mankind has previously tried to use as a basis for harmonious human relationships.

Because of this basic fact I believe that UNO will fail. Furthermore I want to add that as far as the West is concerned, the dissolution of UNO has become essential. In this regard I must also say that, since the U.S.A. is the leading country in the world, we feel concerned about the way in which President Kennedy proposes to deal with the Russians. In his first speech he said the following—

So let us begin anew, remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.

Fine words, but they are of no value in dealing with the communist and only offer him an opportunity to break his word once again.

We are living in the space age, a factor which makes the communist an even greater danger, a factor which must give him cause for optimism and which will inspire him to yet greater dedication to his struggle to control the world and the whole cosmic universe. Taking this into account, one sometimes wonders (when one considers the whole essence of the communist, his outlook, his beliefs, if one can call them that) whether in this space age the West will ever make up the backlog as compared with the Russians, and whether we may not find that before the backlog is made up, the communists will have destroyed everyone and everything.

In the second place I want to discuss the objects of international Communism and I shall deal with them very briefly. In 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels drew up the programme of the international communist, viz.: (1) The overthrow of capitalism; (2) the ending of private ownership; (3) the elimination of the family as a social unit; (4) the ending of class and racial divisions; (5) the overthrow of all governments and (6) the establishment of a communistic order with communal property rights, and a classless, stateless world. How these objects are to be realized, we find set out in the resolutions of the 1928 Communist International. They said the following—

The ultimate aim of the Communist International is to replace the world capitalistic economy by a world system of Communism and to remake world society into a World of Union Socialistic Republics. The Soviet Union being the land of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

That is the communist and his objects. It would be fatal for us to believe that the 1961 communist is anything different and that he has become any tamer. There has definitely been no change in either the communist or his objects. The communists are still striving to establish a world dictatorship by means of revolution. This is put quite clearly in the instructions to the present-day communist—

The party should use all methods available and useful in a given situation. In particular both legal and illegal means should always be combined as far as the state is not yet communist.

Further conclusive proof that Communism has not changed at all, is to be found in the speech made on 17 January by Mr. Khrushchev. In it he said—

The victory of socialism is no longer far off. But if capitalism tries to resist, then the working classes must resort to arms to bring about a world-wide dictatorship of the proletariat.

On war his main point was (this is a Sapa report) that it was to Communism’s advantage to prevent a full-scale thermo-nuclear conflict, but he threw the full support of the world communist movement behind wars of national liberation.

He then referred to the revolution in Cuba and the conflict in Algeria as examples and of them he said—

These are sacred wars. We recognize such wars. We have helped and shall go on helping people fighting for their freedom, Communists support such just wars fully and without reservation, and march in the vanguard of people fighting for liberation.

There can therefore be no doubt that Communism to-day has definitely not changed for the better. In that regard I want to quote another very reliable authority, namely Field-Marshal Montgomery, who has said the following about the Russians—

The war we have to face is political, financial and economic. It is global, it is directed at the foundations of our standard of living and civilization.

He said that recently. Mr. Speaker, as regards the communist and his objects, I just want to add that the communist is an amoral monster, and that world Communism is monstrous and cruel and its activities throughout the whole world are colossal in scope.

I now just want to say a few words about the methods used by the communists, before I deal with their activities in Africa. The first method is to create confusion and chaos; the second to create dissatisfaction; the third to undermine loyalty and authority; the fourth to bring about revolution; and the fifth is to sympathize with and to offer assistance to all the so-called oppressed peoples and by so doing to pose as their best friend. I have already referred to the sixth method, namely, murder, banishment and forced labour and the so-called purges which have already claimed the lives of thousands, while others are in Siberia and elsewhere where they have to perform forced labour.

I now turn to their behaviour and their activities in Africa. We know that communist interest in Africa dates from the earliest years of this century. But I do not want to discuss that aspect to-day. I want to confine myself to the present phase in communist activity in Africa, which in my opinion was given the green light by the nationalization of the Suez Canal. The activities of the communists in Africa in my opinion have five objects: (1) To achieve access to the African continent; (2) to establish the concept of Black Pan-Africanism and to link with it the Afro-Asian concept; (3) to gain the favour of the Black states; (4) to indoctrinate the present and future Black leaders with Marxism; and (5) to make the emergent Black states dependent on Russia. I used the words “emergent” but I wonder whether one should not say the “declining” Black states when one sees the developments taking place in areas which have recently gained their freedom.

As regards the first point, namely access to the African continent, the Russians have daily contact with all the African states as a result of the development of air communications. But as far as territorial access to Africa is concerned, we know that the communists have a considerable foothold in Asia Minor and that through President Nasser in particular they have also brought Syria under their influence. I think that Israel is one of the few countries in the Middle East which is still strongly anti-communistic. I have referred to the United Arab Republic, and I contend that they are very good friends of Russia, although I have not been able to find proof that they are communists. As a result of the nationalization of the Suez Canal Russia has gained access to Africa and also to the Indian Ocean through the Persian Gulf. The bridgehead through Egypt is therefore a fait accompli. As a matter of fact, in very recent times they have found it very convenient to provide weapons to the supporters of Lumumba via the Sudan. In the Congo the Orientale province which borders on the Sudan is under the control of a communist dictator named Saluma who received his training in Moscow and it has been reported that large quantities of weapons are being supplied to him from Czechoslovakia. Russia also has access to Africa from the sea. There have been reports that a Russian submarine base has been opened in Guinea, and I am inclined to believe it because not only does their Prime Minister, Sekou Touré, visit Moscow, but many influential and responsible persons in Ghana told me personally that Touré was a communist. I think there is considerable truth in the report that a submarine base has been established there.

I come to the next point, namely the attempt to encourage Black Pan-Africanism and to link with it the Afro-Asian concept. We know that with a view to their domestic politics and their own positions, the question of Pan-Africanism is of very great importance to the Black leaders of Africa and that is why Russia is taking the lead in trying to bring the Black leaders of Africa together. Last year the “All African Trade Union Congress” was held in Lagos, and no less a person than Mr. Khrushchey sent a personal message in which he said inter alia

I should like to assure all those people taking part, that the peoples of the African countries can count fully in their efforts to solve their problems of economic and socialist progress on the friendly feeling and support of the Soviet Union.

We are also aware of conferences of African states at which the communists have played a leading role. One of the most important of these has been the recent conference at Casablanca. There is not the slightest doubt that the Russian advisers played a particularly prominent role at this conference and it was regarded in all quarters as a triumph for President Nasser. According to later reports, the position may since have changed slightly, but this meeting at Casablanca decided to establish a joint African command with the specific object of providing support wherever action had to be taken against the so-called colonialists.

And simultaneously with the attempt to establish a united Black Africa, Russia is propagating the Afro-Asian concept. The reason for this is obviously the fact that three-quarters of Russia lies in Asia. To tell the truth, the Afro-Asian concept is Russia’s brain child. In 1956 a conference of Afro-Asian states was held in Bandung, and it was followed in 1957 by the Afro-Asian Solidarity Congress in Cairo which is commonly referred to as the second Bandung Congress. At that congress in Cairo the following resolution was inter alia adopted—

To support these peoples, struggling for self-government, and to bring colonialism in Africa to an end.

Another method which the Russians are using in respect of Africa is to train students and leaders from Africa and Asia together and simultaneously in the same institutions in Moscow, Peking, Prague or Eastern Germany. This Afro-Asian concept is so important to Russia that the Committee for the Solidarity of Asian Countries, which the communists control, was recently re-named the Committee for the Solidarity of Afro-Asian Countries. In other words, they have even changed the name to suit the policy they are following. The point I want to make is that the union of Africa and Asia is undoubtedly the present policy of Soviet Russia.

The next point which I have mentioned in discussing communist activities in Africa is their attempt to gain the favour of the Black African states and to indoctrinate them with the communist ideology. The method being used is obvious and I do not want to discuss it. The communists are posing as the friends of the Black man. They are promising him support and assistance and are then overjoyed when Black states gain their independence. On the other hand the White man and colonialism are condemned. I can say that they make their affection for the Black states unashamedly obvious and that the undermining of the White man’s authority is their overriding aim. This to me is the deadly danger facing South Africa and it could bring about the eventual elimination of the influence of the Western nations throughout Africa.

I just want to give two examples of the communist attempts to gain the favour of the Black states. The non-White who at the moment is taking the place of Kenyatta who is still in prison, visited Russia and China not very long ago. He then returned with the message which all such visitors bring back, namely that the Black states can rely on the wholehearted support of Russia in their struggle against imperialism and colonialism. Recently a book by a Negro author, a certain Louis Lomax, appeared under the title “The Reluctant Africa”. He travelled through all the African states and he then wrote the following, which indicates the methods the communists are using in Africa—

The impact of Russia and China on Black exiles is cause for concern. They are led to believe that the communist governments are sympathetic to their cause and the Western governments are not.

As far as South Africa is concerned, he says—

In Cairo, special funds for the support of Africans in exile are maintained. Once they are in Cairo, the African exiles get overtures from both wings of the communist bloc. They are invited to attend student rallies in Peking and African seminaries in Moscow.

He then asks—

How do they get to Moscow? I put the question to several freedom-fighters, and found that an honest to God African exile, if he has been put in gaol by the British, French or Belgians, or in South Africa, can get an all-expenses paid trip to Moscow or Peking, plus 3,000 dollars personal money.

Another point which I want to mention in discussing these activities is the reciprocal visits between Russia and the African states which are accompanied by luxurious receptions. Normally the Black man returns to Africa with a gift. I need only mention the example of Emperor Haille Selassie of Ethiopia. He returned with a jet aircraft as a personal gift to himself. We also know that last year the communists gave several aircraft to the Congolese.

I now want to say a few. words about the activities of the communists in Eastern Africa, Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya, and Zanzibar. Here the Chinese communists are particularly active, and some reports claim that at least 5,000 of them are already active in these areas. All we know is that the Prague conference was linked with these activities and that the Chinese communists played an important role at that conference.

Then there is a final point: For years past already non-Whites have been studying in Moscow and other communistic countries, but last year Mr. Khrushchey went a step further by opening the “People’s Friendship University” in Moscow where 500 Blacks are being trained in Marxism. The communists claim that 43,000 young Black men and Asiatics have applied to follow the five-year course. The communists also play a tremendous role in the trade-union movement in Africa. I have here a report from the Cape Argus of 11 February of this year dealing with this matter—

Communist infiltration into Africa was one of the most discussed subjects at the recent meeting of the World Federation of Trade Unions. The president of the World Federation reported exhaustively on infiltration in Africa, which is regarded by the executive committee of the Federation as one of its main objects.

As far as literature is concerned, it is unnecessary for me to say that communistic literature is being disseminated on a vast scale in Africa, all of which is being done with the object of indoctrinating the people of Africa. The communists are also active through the medium of diplomatic missions, the size of which is quite disproportionate to the importance of the states or the trade being carried on with those states. A little while ago it was reported that in Tunisia, for example, the Russian embassy had a staff of 300. Hon. members can realize what a tremendous influence they can exercise on such a country. A further method which they are using is the radio, and broadcasts are emanating particularly from Cairo, Moscow and Peking I have here a report by the British Broadcasting Corporation in this regard which gives the following information—

Programmes totalling 84 hours are broadcast to Africa from communistic countries in English, French, Portuguese and Swahili, and in addition there are broadcasts in Arabic totalling 166 hours per week.

In the Burger of 15 February of this year we find this example—

Russians attack the Belgians and Hamraerskjoeld. Moscow Radio has broadcast a violent tirade on the murder of Lumumba and has described it as one of the worst crimes of the twentieth century. The bared fangs of the colonialists, and particularly of the Belgians, the low alchemists who have made a protracted study of turning the sweat, blood and tears of Negroes into cash …

Another example: “Kill the White dogs in Africa.” These words have recently been broadcast daily in more than 12 Native dialects by Egyptian radio stations.

Then there is another sphere in which the communists are very active, namely the technical, scientific and the economic assistance which is being provided. This is an extremely important sphere, but I do not want to discuss it; the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) who will second this motion, will go into that aspect more fully. I just want to draw one or two conclusions from their activities in Africa. The first is that the struggle against Communism in Africa will be of decisive importance in the over-all struggle against Communism. The presence of the White man in Africa is the greatest stumbling-block facing Communism, and that is why they want to eliminate the White man. But we must understand quite clearly and our friends of the West must understand quite clearly that the influence of the West will disappear and will be doomed for ever if the White man is eliminated from Africa. In this regard South Africa in particular is the last bastion of civilization on the continent of Africa.

The second conclusion which I want to draw in connection with the activities of the communists in Africa is that they have undoubtedly made progress, and they have achieved three things in particular. The first is the nationalization of the Suez Canal which has given them access to Africa and the Indian Ocean; the second is that the Western world to-day accepts them as people with whom they can consult in the council chambers of the world; and I think their third achievement is that the doctrine of the equality of all men, which they advocate, and which forms the basis of Communism and of Russian ideology to-day, is in fact being most energetically propagated by the Western powers. Mr. Speaker, England, the U.S.A., the World Council of Churches, etc., all ignore completely the diversity of Africa’s peoples. This I regard as one of the greatest achievements of Communism in this century. It is once and for all the position that a sickly liberalism holds sway to-day, a liberalism which condemns any White man who dares simply to say that there are natural differences, customs and philosophies of life, that each people has its own identity and that these things should be preserved. I find it disturbing that so many of South Africa’s friends completely ignore the established interests of the White man here on the southern tip of Africa and, by the same token, those of Western civilization as well. Those who are the greatest enemies of Communism have become the propagandists of a policy which createst the fertile soil Communism needs and the eventual domination by the anti-Christ. The bitter fruit is already being picked in Africa, because where confusion and chaos prevail, Communism flourishes.

In referring to this matter, I think it is necessary that I should quote the highest authority in our country, and I should like to read from a speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister on 15 December 1958, when he said the following—

Communism has one object in Africa—to persuade the Black man to oppose the presence of the White. And now the Western powers, who also want to be friends with Africa, are unwittingly following the same tactics. They are trying to outbid the others in attacking the prestige of the White man in Africa. They are afraid to say that colonialism has done more good than harm. The Western nations do not realize what they are doing by also apparently sympathizing with the vilifiers of South Africa.

We are already picking the bitter fruits of this state of affairs. Just think of the consequences of the actions of the Belgians in the Congo. Just think of the consequences of the speech Mr. Macmillan made here in Cape Town last year. Just think of the consequences which will flow from the unusual statements —I say unusual statements, but I feel inclined to say shocking statements—which Mr. Soapy Williams has been making during his travels in Africa. I just want to say that the explanations which he and the U.S.A. have given still remain very “soapy”. I leave it at that. I do not think this is the occasion on which to discuss that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to refer to the folly of all nations, including the communists, in their behaviour towards the Black man in Africa—the folly of that behaviour, the stupidity of that behaviour. I just want to give one or two examples. The late Lumumba travelled to New York—one does not know who paid for his journey. He arrived there and the red carpet was put down for him. But who was he? He was a leader—not one of stature—of Black people in the Congo, but he was a post office clerk who had already been convicted of fraud. He went to America, the greatest nation in the world; the red carpet was put down for him. He stayed in the same flat as the Queen of England occupied while she was there. Everyone fell over themselves to entertain this man as no monarch had ever been entertained before.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

They arrived there with £8 in their pockets.

*Dr. DE WET:

I am not disparaging the Black man in Africa in any way. I think that would be wrong and we dare not do so. Nor do we want to do so. I am pointing out the folly of the behaviour of all nations in this regard. In Ghana the late Lumumba is now a saint. There is a church which has the special name of “Saint Lumumba’s Church”. He is held up as a saint. In Russia, Mr. Khrushchey himself has announced that a training institution—I think a university—will be named after Lumumba. Mr. Speaker, I think that is all I need say in this regard.

I just want to say that the activities of the communists in Africa are being further aggravated by the fact that, to a large extent, one is still dealing with barbarians. In this regard I should just like to quote something which Dr. Diederichs said in the book he has written on Communism. He said the following—

And the saddest of all is that Communism in this struggle does not make its appeal to what is finest and noblest in mankind, but precisely to what is lowest and meanest. It does not hesitate to utilize the basest thoughts and feelings which are present in the human soul and the community. No social, moral or religious laws can halt it, and that is why it is one of the most terrible diseases which can ever take hold of a nation.

If that is true, and it is true, then I say that the problem is still greater when one is dealing with an overwhelming majority of barbarians, which is the position in Africa.

But in this dark picture I honestly see one or two rays of light. These are that the signs still are that Russia’s chances of success in Africa are dubious. In the first place, our good friends in Mozambique stand unequivocally opposed to Communism. According to our information, Mr. Nyerere of Tanganyika is certainly not communistically inclined; and the same applies to Nigeria and other African states. Together with this, I see one or two other rays of light as well. In the first place there is the fact that the Russians are also regarded as Whites by the Black men of Africa, and their anti-White propaganda is still going to be a boomerang. The second is that I believe, and this has been my observation, that, with the exception of certain Black leaders in Africa, the Black peoples are inherently not communistically inclined, and in this regard I also have the greatest faith in the Bantu and the Brown man in South Africa. Inherently they are not communistically inclined. The third ray of light I see is that the Russian, with his propaganda against the White man, is making the Black man so acutely aware of exploitation, or is arousing such strong feelings against exploitation, that the Black man will not tolerate the communist either. When one reads what the Black leaders in Africa have written, it is quite clear that they realize this. The Black man also realizes what Russia’s object is. He realizes that Russia wants to use the Black man to break the West and then to rule Africa herself. I have here just one quotation from the book by George Patmore, the former adviser of Dr. Nkrumah, in which he had the following to say on this subject—

Hence, argued Lenin …

He goes back a little into history—

… the Western domination of the world can only be broken by stirring the Coloured colonials and semi-colonial peoples of Asia and Africa to achieve their national independence.

And he then referred to the assistance which the Turks used in 1920, but they definitely did not become communists thereafter. He concludes with this sentence—

In politics there is no gratitude—

He goes on to say—and this is why I say that I regard this as a ray of light because it is an indication of what the Black leaders are saying—

They do not believe in permanent cooperation. Their object is to use their allies to advance the party line at a given time. Alliances, therefore, are temporary; and if their allies prove unmalleable, the communists find ways and means of disrupting the brief united front.

Mr. Speaker, I, therefore, definitely see rays of light in respect of this matter as well. But I ask: Does the danger nevertheless not remain that, although the communists may eventually not succeed in Africa themselves, the White man will in any case be destroyed during this process?

I want to leave Africa now, and I turn to the second section of the motion which deals specifically with South Africa. I just want to say a few very brief words about the history of the communists in South Africa. I think one should start in 1915 with the establishment of the International Socialist League (the I.S.L.). It was originally established because its members were opposed to the world war, and they immediately commenced publishing a journal under the title International, which concentrated particularly on advocating the abolition on all forms of restrictions on the Natives. It is perhaps interesting to know that in 1915 they even put up two candidates, viz. in Langlaagte and Georgetown, but they only polled 82 and 58 votes respectively. This was the I.S.L., which was the predecessor of the Communist Party. On 29 July 1921, the Communist Party was established in Cape Town, and the I.S.L. immediately became affiliated to it. Let us realize quite clearly that the former Communist Party of South Africa was, until it was banned, affiliated to the Communist Party in Russia and to Communism in Russia itself. They concentrated particularly on advocating that the pass laws should be abolished and that there should be free education for all. They went so far as to establish a night school in Ferreiradorp with communist teachers in 1925. It was from 1926 onwards that the Communist Party devoted its attention particularly to the African National Congress, and did so to such an extent and so effectively that the Communist Party and the A.N.C. in Johannesburg had the same head office. The Communist Party grew to such an extent that by 1928 it was the strongest non-White organization in South Africa. When the May Day celebrations were held in 1928 thousands of Natives, carrying communist banners, held a procession in Johannesburg. The policy which they advocated at that time was the following. They advocated particularly that the British and Boer imperialism which were oppressing the Native masses of South Africa, should be destroyed as soon as possible and they pointed out that the only way to achieve this aim was by means of revolution.

After 1928 the Communist Party lost ground to a certain extent and as a result of certain developments—which I do not want to discuss now—they suffered a setback. But their greatest opportunity came when Russia entered the last world war. Then the communists in South Africa became good fighters against everything which was despicable and bad. Now they appeared in public and they were even accepted to such an extent by the then South African Government—not only by the Government, but also by certain people in South Africa—that an organization with the name “The Friends of Soviet Russia” was established. As we know, the statesmen of that time blessed Russian weapons. They even went so far as to make the broadcasting service available to the communists on May Day, 1942, on which occasion they encouraged the communists and their supporters to further the war effort. In other words, Mr. Speaker, in that year the Communist Party of South Africa became an honoured guest which could operate in the open. May I say that nor did they let the opportunity pass to propose equality between Black and White in very eloquent terms, and they even asked that the Blacks should be armed. At that time, they were operating in public to such an extent and they were such good people that at the 1943 election the Communist Party put up nine candidates. I must say that not one was elected. The same happened in 1948. Once again they put up several candidates, but fortunately not one was elected. As a result of the war years the position deteriorated to such an extent that the hon. the Minister of Transport, at that time Minister of Labour, stated in this House in 1949 that the Government knew that the communists were playing an important role in one-third of the 215 registered trade unions, and that this was particularly true of the mixed and Native trade unions.

And in the meantime a Russian embassy and a consular agency were established in Johannesburg and Pretoria which immediately became the centre of the communist campaign in South Africa. After this development, communist activities increased rapidly to such an extent that the Department of Justice appointed a special departmental committee to investigate the position, and that committee revealed that the position had become very critical. For the moment I want to leave the history of Communism in South Africa at that.

I now turn specifically to the methods being used by the communists in South Africa. The first aspect which I want to mention is that ever since the establishment of the Communist Party, they have mainly sought to align themselves with the Bantu. They are doing so by undermining the authority of the White man. Dr. Piet Meyer, at present of the Broadcasting Corporation, says in his book, “The Hand of Moscow in South Africa”—

The object of the Communist Party in our country at the moment is not to spread communist ideology amongst the Natives, but to poison Bantu nationalism in Southern Africa with an anti-White feeling and that they are doing under the slogan of a Bantu republic in South Africa, and eventually in Africa as a whole. “Africa for the Bantu” is to-day the all-persuasive slogan. Just as they were prior to 1935, Moscow’s efforts to-day are aimed at British and Boer imperialism in South Africa as part of its world struggle against Anglo-American imperialism and capitalism.

Allow me to tell my hon. friends opposite, and the Liberal Party as well, that this propaganda is not only aimed at the National Party Government. This propaganda is aimed at all White men in South Africa, even at those who offer so-called co-operation. Moreover, the communists say so in one of their pamphlets. This is one of the things they are spreading amongst their people—

Modern nationalists believe that White supremacy is best maintained by naked force. Many modern White liberals believe it is best maintained by benevolent fatherliness.

There is only one inference one can make, namely that their propaganda as a whole is aimed at all White men. In addition, they are undermining the authority of the chiefs and tribal authorities in the country, as we have clearly heard in this House. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this is not only the position in the Union of South Africa. We have seen this recently in Angola. I have here the Cape Argus of 25 February and in it we read the following—

Marxist plot seen in Angola: The Government of Portuguese Angola said yesterday that an “international command” was given for the recent riots in the Portuguese West African colony … The gang of a hundred or so men who carried out the recent assaults in Luanda obeyed an international command.

These are not developments which are confined to the Union of South Africa. This is the pattern throughout Africa. In their activities in South Africa the communists are also making extensive use of the history of this country. By distortions and lies they are presenting our history in a light which will encourage dissatisfaction amongst the Blacks. In this so-called history which they have written and which they are distributing, they refer nowhere to the barbarism and illiteracy of the Black man in the past. They deliberately talk as though all Black men have been civilized and developed ever since 1652 when the White man came to this country. In this so-called history of theirs they have this to say about the Voortrekkers—

The Whites whenever they were strong enough to do so. seized all the good land. The Africans who had been there before, were killed, driven away or allowed to remain as servants or serf-like squatters. Only areas which could not be seized, or which were not worth seizing remained for the Africans; these later became the reserves.

Even Union does not escape their condemnation. They have the following to say about Union—

One of the most powerful motives behind the formation of the Union of South Africa was precisely the need of the capitalist class, for a single state powerful enough to subdue the resistance of the African people to the ruthless process of converting them into landless labourers, forced to work at low wages for the profit of others.

And then in their history they use the same words as we have heard during this Session—

The non-Europeans were neither consulted nor represented at the convention.

Another method which they are using very assiduously is to try to break down the barriers between the various races in South Africa. In one of their pamphlets they tell the Natives the following—

Unite as workers unite, forget the things that divide you, let there no longer be any talk of Basuto, Zulu and Shangaan. You are all labourers. Let labour be your common bond.

To my sorrow I must say that in all this propaganda White communists in South Africa are unfortunately the brains behind this agitation and the disturbances which have broken out sporadically. I have to say this to my regret, but it is true. Their numbers may not be large, but they are the brains behind these developments.

Then a third method which the communists are using is, as we know, the use of international front organizations. I do not want to discuss them but I only want to mention one of the most important which was established in 1941, namely the World Peace Council. Here in South Africa we also have front organizations which are affiliated to the international front organizations and which in turn are directly affiliated to the Communist Party. I just want to give a list of those in South Africa of which we know: The African National Congress, South African Indian Congress, Congress of Democrats, Pan-Africanist Congress, South African Peace Council, Transvaal Peace Council, South African Coloured Peoples Organization, the Society for the Peace and Friendship of the Soviet Union, National Liberatory Movement in South Africa, Federation of South African Women, International Union of Students and the South African Congress of Trade Unions. Apart from this, they are also trying to gain influence in various other organizations. Hon. members and particularly members of my own profession will know that they recently tried to gain control over the funds and management of no less an organization than the Cancer Fund of South Africa. They got their supporters to enrol as members just before the general meeting. Fortunately this plan was discovered and they did not succeed. A definite attempt was made, and I say it is generally known, to gain control of the Cancer Fund in Johannesburg. By these means they are still pursuing their underground activities. It is very difficult to combat the literature which comes into South Africa from abroad. But here in South Africa they, once again, have started to publish a journal under the name the Spark which propagates their objects and which is aimed particularly at underming the authority of the White man. I think that there is ample evidence that the communists are trying and are trying actively to undermine the authority of the White man in South Africa at present.

Having said that, I want to conclude with this thought: If this is the position and if Communism is the barbarous monster we believe it to be. what is the task which awaits South Africa in the years ahead? I believe that in the first place we must expose the communists and Communism in all their nakedness to all the peoples in our country and the world. I feel that making our people realize what the communist is. should form part of the syllabus at our universities, our high schools, our technical colleges and also of our adult education organizations. I feel that we should indoctrinate the Whites as well as the non-Whites in South Africa against Communism. I know the word “indoctrinate” is a suspect word because it is linked to Communism. I have taken the trouble to look up the meaning of the word, and I want to repeat that we should definitely indoctrinate them against Communism because all indoctrinate means, according to the dictionary, is “to imbue with learning”. I believe that we should imbue our people with the knowledge of what the communist and Communism are. I believe that the heads of educational institutions should voluntarily start with this work at once; it should, also be started immediately in the Bantu, Coloured, and Asian schools and colleges. And our churches—all churches— should do far more to expose Communism. It would perhaps be a very good thing, and what is more the right thing, if the World Council of Churches would devote more of its time to combating this devilish ideology.

*Prof. FOURIE:

May I ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member is proposing a tremendous indoctrination programme against Communism—a completely negative proposal. Does he not think that it would be far better to undertake a positive campaign on the basis of one’s principles and that which is one’s own?

*Dr. DE WET:

I want to say in all kindness to the hon. member, because I have great respect for him, that some of us think negatively and others positively. I am thinking specifically along positive lines in telling our people what a monstrous thing Communism and the communist are, and what a monstrous thing their ideology is. If he knows that—and I am coming to that—he will realize that there is only one way to govern South Africa and that is the way in which it is governed to-day. I feel that the public service, the police and the Defence Force should not lag behind either. Even our great employers’ organizations should even make use of the lunch break to expose Communism because until we know what the communist is and what his objects are, we shall accept him as the world does to-day. I feel that even our politicians should expose the communist to a far greater extent at meetings and those opportunities which present themselves, even in this House. We may differ as to how these aims should be achieved. But even in this House, and I say this with confidence and without reservation—I believe that the overwhelming majority of members in this House are anti-communist. Even though we may differ as to the method, we must speak with one voice and we must stand together as one man against the monstrous threat of Communism.

The Press should also do far more in this regard. Why cannot every newspaper—not all of them at once—set aside one week every year as an anti-communist week? The hon. member has referred to taking negative steps. The communists also make propaganda. They also propagate their objects, but it is for us to reveal the communists for what we consider them to be, because they present Communism in the flattering light in which they see it. In other words, both are positive.

Mr. Speaker, I should be failing in my duty if I did not point out in discussing this aspect that South Africa and the whole world should be thankful for what this Government at least has done to combat Communism. Because what has this Government done? In the first place it first reduced the size of the staff of the Russian Consulate in Pretoria and eventually closed the Consulate in 1956. Then there is Suppression of Communism Act which was piloted through this House. The Communist Party has been banned and to-day communists are listed and can therefore be controlled and branded as communists. We have expelled communists from this House and the provincial councils. I also say without any reservations that our Police Force in particular is making it its task to uncover and to combat communist activities. I think that the mere fact that several communists have fled from South Africa, particularly in recent times, is proof that they are not finding things too pleasant here.

But while we are doing all this, Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I just ask if we should not take much stricter action against Communism because, bearing in mind the philosophy of the communist, it seems to me to be futile to deal with him under the ordinary rule of law. He has no respect for democratic institutions. Should he then not be treated in a way which he himself will understand? In these critical times in which we live, has it not become time for us to speak to the communists in our ranks in the language which they at least will understand—their own language? In this regard I just want to point out that the number of listed communists at this moment is less than the number of the members the Communist Party had when it was banned. I want to leave it at that. I am merely asking whether we should not speak to the communist in his own language.

That is all I want to say as far as South Africa is concerned. As far as our future international task is concerned, I feel that our primary task is to make the world understand —and we have not yet succeeded in this—that South Africa is the indispensable bulwark against Communism in Africa. We must make the world realize that if the South African White democracy is not preserved, Western influence in Africa will to a large extent disappear. In this regard we must point out specifically what contributions we are making to Western thought and strategy. Just think of our geographic position on the southern tip of Africa. We are the half-way house between the East and the West. I think the Suez crisis proved that more conclusively than anything else. Think of the raw materials which we have and which are of the utmost importance to the West in time of war and in time of peace. In the scientific sphere we are rendering services of incalculable service to the West. I do not want to discuss this aspect in detail, but I just want to say that the West must also realize that in solving the problems of Africa, South Africa is the one country which can set the right example and which can be of the greatest assistance and which is assisting at the moment through the medium of the C.C.T.A. and other organizations.

I think the second task facing us in the international sphere is to make the West realize that we are the natural link with the African states. We are an African power, but we are a Western democracy, and we are an indispensable asset to the anti-communist countries. Allow me to say clearly that as far as we are concerned we want to co-operate with all the Black states in Africa in matters of common interest, and if there is one matter which is of common interest to us all, it is this question of Communism. For that reason we want to cooperate wholeheartedly with all the Black states of Africa which are anti-communist. I also think that at the Prime Ministers’ Conference which is about to take place, it should be realized quite clearly that South Africa is one of the bastions against Communism in Africa, and that it should be noted particularly that while South Africa is a bastion in this struggle, there are members of the Commonwealth whose anti-communist feelings are very feeble indeed. I have here the autobiography of President Nkrumah of Ghana and he said the following about himself—

In those days I took my religion seriously and was very often to be found serving at mass. As I grew older, the strict discipline of Roman Catholicism stifled me. To-day I am a non-denominational Christian and a Marxist Socialist and I have not found any contradiction between the two.

I say it is of the utmost importance that the Prime Ministers’ Conference should realize that we are an anti-communist bulwark, the strongest in all Africa.

In this regard I just want to submit one or two facts to show how South Africa is playing her part as an anti-communist power. I have mentioned the fact that we have banned Communism. We did our duty in fighting the communists in Korea when a large number of countries stood aloof. In the forum of UNO the Union through its support of the anti-communist countries has unequivocally given its support to the standpoint of the West. A very important point is that as regards defence South Africa is prepared to co-operate with America especially in establishing certain defence installations Several of which have already been erected in the Union. The West has no better friend in Africa than the Union, and I say that once again on the highest authority. I want to quote again from what the hon. the Prime Minister said on 14 December 1958—

South Africa is the one reliable friend which the Western world has. We are the one country on which the West can rely absolutely, the front line in any possible conflict between the East and the West. Our friendship must continue despite misunderstandings because our interests are the same. However, if we are abandoned in the present cold war for the friendship of Africa, and if the Whites should lose the struggle in this country, then even this bastion will be lost to the Western world.

I say that these words should find a very clear echo at the deliberations in London.

In the international sphere I also believe that we have a third task, and this is so because Communism does not only threaten the Christian but the Jew, the Roman Catholic and the Mohammedan as well. For that reason we must combine these faiths into one mighty force against Communism. South Africa can perhaps take the lead in this respect.

And then the last and perhaps the most important point, and this may answer the question which the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Prof. Fourie) has put to me. I believe that we cannot combat an ideology such as Communism without another ideology. I want to read it to the House—

Democracy is the antithesis of the communist ideology. South Africa has the right to propagate democracy because it forms the basis of our whole system of government. But South Africa is in an even stronger position in the ideological conflict with Communism. South Africa is the only country which, in direct contrast with the communist policy of equality for all, is following a policy which recognizes the diversity of Africa’s peoples, and which is not prepared to ignore the individual identity of the various races in our own country. I regard the policy of separate development, not merely between Black and White, but between all the peoples of the world, as being above all others the only real antithesis of the communist ideology.

South Africa is serving the cause of democracy on the Continent of Africa. It will stand as long as the White man remains here, and we must make the Western warld realize this.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude where I began. The communist is an amoral monster. The communist is monstrous and cruel. The activities of the communist throughout the world are colossal in their scope. In this world struggle and in. Africa South Africa has an important role to play. In my heart, which is not the heart of a communist but that of a Christian, I believe that the reason why we are here is to oppose Communism and that is why Christian White civilization will not be destroyed on the southern tip of Africa. I move.

*Mr. S. P. BOTHA:

I second. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet), on taking the initiative in moving this motion and on directing the attention of the Western world, of this House and of the country to this danger which threatens the whole Western world and more specifically our continent. I also congratulate him on the way in which he has succeeded in describing the tactics used by Communism in this continent as well as in South Africa, and also on the positive submissions he has made in reply to the question which the hon. member opposite has put to him. I congratulate the mover of the motion and I regard it as a privilege to second his motion. I just want to remark that it was noticeable while the hon. member was discussing Communism and its methods, how uncomfortable the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) was. I do not think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark was referring to him, but it was clear that the hon. member for Musgrave had no faith in the future of South Africa.

The threat of Communism has become the dominating issue of our time for us in South Africa, a problem which will determine the steps by which we must implement our policy because it is a practical and real threat. It has also become a problem which makes it essential that we should hasten in the implementation of our policy of separate development for the various races in South Africa, each along their own lines. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has said.

When Russia changed her form of government 44 years ago, this stronghold of Communism was still backward and weak and very soon she had to begin organizing five-year plans so that, in addition to the propagation of her ideology, she could also acquire a different type of power, a power which would give her the only method of conquering the world in the twentieth century, namely the power of science, of technology and of economics. That is why these five-year plans were introduced with the aim of making Russia a powerful country so that she could move against the other countries which she wished to threaten. Communism over the past 15 years has achieved shocking successes and has become a new threat through the financial and technical as well as the scientific aid and advice which she is giving to the backward countries of Africa, Asia and Central America. By way of scientific advice and economic and technological assistance, the communist powers, Russia and China, are offering assistance to the backward countries of Africa to-day. The methods the communists are using to conquer this continent consist of their old programme of capturing the minds of the Black leaders and of inciting the masses in Africa against the Whites so that they can move ahead in accordance with their own plans. Russia has also emerged as a powerful force in the economic sphere. The communist tactics in Africa are in the first place following Molotov’s old plan which in 1953 he described as follows—

A period of decolonization … will be followed by a general independence. Then … a period of unbelievable disorder. There will be political and economic anarchy. Afterwards, and then only, the dawn of Communism will arise.

This assault on our continent is in the first place taking the form not only of the old tactics of working to conquer the minds of the Bantu leaders and of inciting the masses, but is being furthered by financial aid and advice on a massive scale. I submit that Communism has also won the struggle for the sympathy of the masses on this continent and is now taking over the continent physically through its offers of assistance in various forms. In my further remarks I should like to confine myself to the economic assault of Communism on the African continent and I want to try to substantiate the submissions I have just made. I want to commence by saying that by its actions in this continent, through the assistance which it is providing to the African countries, as well as the way in which it is leaving the continent, the West is in fact offering Communism the opportunity for which it was waiting, and that the West is in fact helping Communism and offering it an opportunity which may make its task easier. In the first place I want to add further emphasis to this point by submitting that the Western powers are leaving with their technical knowledge and capital. By so doing, they are creating a vacuum which the communists are filling. The creation of such a vacuum is something for which the communists have in fact planned, and they are being assisted by the co-operation which they are receiving from their liberal friends in Western circles, whether at UNO or in the State Department of the U.S.A. As the Western powers leave Africa and by so doing create a vacuum, the communists immediately fill that vacuum with the right people together with the right advice and assistance, as though ordered in advance. In propagating the cry of freedom the communists do not remind the non-White states in Africa of the real possibility that Western aid may not be forthcoming. They are not told that they cannot live on freedom alone. When the Black states then have to stand on their own feet and they find that they cannot continue without financial and technical aid, Russia is soon on the scene with just the right assistance at the right time and in the right place. This happened in countries like Guinea when the French walked out and left the country without any technical and financial aid. The same happened in the Congo, and this is the state of affairs which gives the communists the opportunity to act.

But I go further and say that there is a second way in which the Western powers are preparing the way for the communists to take over when they themselves leave, that is to say, the Western powers are leaving Africa so rapidly that the masses of peaceful Natives who form by far the majority, are being left to the mercies of power-drunk agitators, while the law of the jungle once again prevails. I want to substantiate the submission I have just made by reading what Kenneth de Curcy says in the January issue of Intelligence Digest

During December (last year) the West has been in retreat in vast areas of Africa, and the signs are that the retreat is gaining momentum. In the process, the many moderate Africans (actually a big majority) in Kenya, Uganda, Nyasaland, Rhodesia and even in the Congo are becoming totally demoralized. They feel, with every justification, that they have been truly rejected by the people they trusted and to whom they looked for help and guidance. To them the inescapable truth now is that Britain, the United States and the United Nations have decided to come to terms with African extreme nationalism.

He substantiates my submission that the Western powers are leaving so rapidly that the masses are being left to the mercies of power-drunk agitators.

But I want to refer to a third way in which the Western powers are helping the communists, and I am referring to the way in which they provide financial assistance. The Western powers are providing large sums of money in the form of gifts or loans without exercising any control over the spending of that money. On the other hand Russia does not give one rouble away without exercising the strictest control over the spending of that money, so much so that every gift or loan brings the recipients ever more firmly into the tentacles of the communists. I want to give the example of Guinea which received 5,000 tons of rice as a gift from America, but President Tourè immediately sold it at half the price to China and used the money himself. America gave the rice but did not retain any control over it, and the Natives continued to suffer hunger while China got the rice and Tourè wasted the money. But I want to give a further example, namely the conference of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa which was held in Tangiers during February 1960. On this commission the Western powers were represented together with six or eight independent African states, together with Nigeria, Somaliland, the Congo, India and Russia, and using their majority, they passed an important resolution, namely that all assistance which the West provides to Africa will be used by the African states on the basis that there will be no bilateral agreements, but only multi-lateral agreements. This means that if America gives Guinea £50,000,000, it must be deposited in a joint pool and the African states will decide how to spend that money without America or England being able to do anything about it. They are using Western money to trade with Iron Curtain countries. This year England will provide £50,000,000 to an International Development Association which is to be established. This money need no longer be spent in England, nor in the West. England will therefore provide the funds which these countries will or can use to trade with countries behind the Iron Curtain.

Mr. MILLER:

Can you give us any justification for our wool trade with Russia?

*Mr. S. P. BOTHA:

That is not relevant at the moment. The hon. member can speak himself presently.

But I want to go further and give example. But it seems to me that the hon. member who has asked the question is dissatisfied because I am discussing these agreements in this way.

*Mr. MILLER:

I only wanted to know.

*Mr. S. P. BOTHA:

I want to go further and give examples, i.e. in the fourth place the Western powers, by leaving Africa, are allowing communistically inclined officials to act for them in Africa, and in many cases the communists have planted those officials there to help them to get the West out of Africa. That being so, no opposition is being offered to Communism in Africa. I want to give one or two examples. I want to read from the New York Mirror of 9 February of this year. This report deals with an official who is acting in the Congo. He is a man with the name of Duran, and this is what the New York Mirror has to say about him—

Still another reason for the new gains in the Eastern Province is the United Nations Administrative team, under the direction of former State Department official Gustavo Duran. Duran was eased out of the State Department in 1946 after the Senate Appropriations Committee discovered that he had been a member of the Communist Secret Police during the Spanish Civil War. Leaving State, Duran moved over to the UN, where he has held policy-making jobs for the past 14 years. Duran’s past makes interesting reading in the light of the recent communistic successes in the Eastern Province … The investigation of Duran did not cease however. In June 1946 Colonel Wendel Johnston, Military Attaché to the American Embassy in Madrid, prepared another report on Duran for U.S. Intelligence. It declared: “Upon the proclamation of the Spanish Republic, Duran returned to Madrid. His identity papers indicated that he was the representative of the Paramount Film Company. However, his true mission was service to the G.P.U. Duran was greatly successful in his activities due to the political protection he enjoyed. He soon became one of the leaders of the Communist Party When this was brought out before a Congressional Committee in 1950 Duran was asked to deny the charges under oath in Washington. He refused, stating that as an “international official” he did not wish to become involved in anything that might “reflect on my position”

I want to give a further example to substantiate my submission. I am reading from the American News of September 1960—

The Congo is to become an “independent republic” on 30 June under the approving gaze of Mr. Robert Murphy, our State Department’s notorious expert, whose appearance in any part of the world is usually the prelude to another communist victory and whose good offices may have had more to do with his “democratic solution of the Congo problem” than is generally known.

I want to give a third example, namely that of Joseph Thuo, the former secretary of the Mau Mau, who is now the Press officer for the UNO information service in Kenya. I have just shown that the West is using the service of such people which only makes the task of the communists easier. I agree with the statement of the mover of the motion that the communists will not change their beliefs.

The pattern followed in providing this economic assistance to the African states is that these states are made dependent on the communist countries and that the communist countries take over the key industries and the military bases of such states through their technical aid. I want to illustrate this process with further examples, and I think that we can summarize the position by reading how the Review of Africa described the position in July, under the heading “Soviet Assistance to African Territories Totals £600,000,000“. The journal stated—

According to the Soviet magazine Economic Questions, the total amount of credits granted by the U.S.S.R. to underdeveloped countries is £620,000,000. These credits bear interest at 2½ per cent and are usually long-term loans. This economic aid takes the form of training managerial staff, handing over documentation, sending Soviet technical staff to work or start up new enterprises when construction and installation work has been completed. In 1960, 380 enterprises are being set up in 22 countries with Soviet technical and economic aid.

I also want to confine myself to this aspect in my further remarks. The tactics which the communists are using are the following: In the first place, under the guise of providing technical services, they are inundating the under-developed African countries with trained communist agents. Here I should just like to give a few examples to substantiate this point. Under an agreement between the two countries, China has sent 5,000 technicians to Guinea to teach the people of Guinea how to cultivate rice. They have trained 5,000 people who arrived there with maps, trained people who were fully acquainted with the geography and the typography of the country. Some of them also knew the language; some had previously been connected with universities where they had been prepared in advance for their task and they were all selected communist agents who were not only going to cultivate rice, but who would also help to take over the whole country. Then I give a second example, namely that of the agreement between Russia and Guinea. In December an agreement was entered into whereby Russia was to send 40 engineers to improve and to control the railways in Guinea. These 40 engineers have practically taken over the whole railway system of Guinea and now Guinea is in the hands of Russians who are only providing the local population with as much knowledge as they want to provide and Guinea cannot do anything about it. As far as her railways are concerned, Guinea has in fact been taken over by these 40 engineers. Furthermore, Russia is now also to develop the Fei river valley. The Fei river valley project is one of the few projects in that country which can be developed. All the resources required to make it the country’s main development project are found here. 7,000 morgen are now to be put under rice. The technicians have arrived with their own machinery which they alone can operate and they do not teach the local Natives how to operate that machinery. These technicians undertake the planning and they also take over complete control of the area.

Then I want to give a third example, namely the assistance which Guinea has received from Yugoslavia. An agreement has been entered into whereby Yugoslavia will provide technical and scientific assistance in prospecting the country and planning industries and towns. The right to prospect in that country gives Yugoslavia the opportunity to map the entire country and to obtain all the information required if the communists want to take over the country. But in addition Yugoslavia is being given the opportunity to gain full control over the country’s industrial development and the planning of towns.

I want to give a fourth example, namely, that of Egypt, where 70 per cent of the total national income is derived from cotton. By a clever trick it was so arranged that the particular government body which determines the cotton price, and which is packed with communists, suddenly decided that the price should be 30 per cent higher than the world price with the result that Britain refused to buy the cotton. Overnight the Sudan found herself in a crisis and she did not know how to solve this problem. Allow me to read to the House what no less a paper than the London Times has had to say about this type of behaviour. The London Times described these tactics as follows—

In September 1955 he signed arms agreements with the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia which mortgaged a portion of the cotton crop for a flexible period of years, and established a principle that cotton purchases by the communist countries could be made in Egyptian pounds instead of easily transferable currencies.

In other words a concession was made so that they could enter into the agreement in terms of their currency—

In the 1954-5 marketing season the Eastern bloc made its first large-scale purchases of Egyptian cotton amounting to 30 per cent of the total exports.

And provision was made that they would rise to as much as 70 per cent. I read further—

Having whittled away their trading surplus with the East by buying arms, Egypt still has had to turn to the West for many of her ordinary imports. Meanwhile the communist group is cleverly consolidated. By bulk buying at prices well above world levels, the Eastern bloc has killed competitive interest in Egyptian cotton. Some of the purchases may have been stock-piled for release in a later attempt to upset world markets, but much cotton has been re-sold at a discount to Western countries for hard currency. Nothing that the Egyptian Government has done, through offering premiums or juggling with payment mechanisms, has enabled the country to regain any of its former markets. As Egypt’s hard currency income withers, the Eastern bloc can name its own terms, making up for the higher prices it pays for Egyptian cotton (in depreciating Egyptian pounds) by adding to the cost of its own exports to Egypt.

I now make a further submission. The communists are tying the African countries to them by entering into many favourable trade agreements which are not economic for the communists but which give them a hold over the countries concerned. I also want to give as an example Egypt, to which I have just referred. I now give a further example: Last year Russia lent 400,000,000 dollars to Ethiopia. In granting this loan it was agreed that Russian officials and agents could land in Ethiopia without passports and could move freely throughout the country in order to investigate whatever they wished. In the meantime Russia built an embassy in Ethiopia on 50 morgen of land behind a barbed wire fence in Addis Ababa. The Russians very soon equipped this 50 morgen of land with a powerful radio transmitter. Hundreds of thousands of people are sometimes gathered together simultaneously on this 50 morgen of land, but because they can travel throughout the country and because they can map it as and when they like, within a few months they also established the various routes by which the whole of Africa can be supplied with weapons via Ethiopia.

I am mentioning this as an example of how trade agreements are being used to open the way for the communists’ attempts to make this continent an easy prey. I give a further example of how communist countries are entering into agreements which do not really benefit them financially but which they are entering into with ulterior motives. I give the example of China and Guinea. Guinea has been granted a £9,500,000 interest-free loan under an economic and technical co-operation agreement in terms of which China will send technicians to develop Guinea’s economy. Then I give a further example of an interest-free loan which Russia too has given Guinea. It suits Russia to lose a little interest. The loan has been granted for the industrial development of the Konkoure River, but the terms of the agreement are such that it will give Russia full control over the carrying out of the programme. In other words, it suits the communists to grant an interest-free loan if, in the process, they can gain control over the main development area of the country concerned.

I go further and I contend that the communistically inclined countries of Africa are making the position of the West as difficult as they can in order to break the West’s hold on Africa, particularly in the military sphere. Mr. Speaker, the temerity and effrontery of the communistically inclined countries in this attempt know no bounds, and the West is revealing a shocking naïvéte in this specific respect.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

Stupid.

*Mr. S. P. BOTHA:

Allow me to give the House one or two examples of what is happening. Libya has entered into an agreement with the U.S.A. in terms of which a large air base is made available to America in Libya. It cost the U.S.A. 100,000,000 dollars to construct this large airfield and when it was completed this miserable little country, Libya, told the mighty United States: “I shall decide in which wars you may use the air base.” Libya went further and told America: “I shall still allow you to use this air base, Wheelus Field, which you have built, but in the meantime I am increasing the rental by 4,000 per cent.” She made the position practically impossible for America and what happened? America accepted the position without protest, she is paying the 4,000 per cent increased rental. This Wheelus Field is one of the airfields in Northern Africa which America is using to protect the West because it is from that base that she must cover the Mediterranean area and Southern Europe with her aircraft. This Wheelus Field has practically been taken over by this small country Libya. But there are even worse examples. I give the example of Morocco which is much worse. In this case the U.S.A. has spent 500,000,000 dollars on erecting six of the world’s largest air bases in Morocco which, together with that in Libya, give the U.S.A. air control over Northern African and Southern Europe. As soon as the air bases were completed Morocco demanded that America should leave and hand over the air bases. Instead of America making a stand, as one would expect of a great country, President Eisenhower took steps to satisfy this small, poor, miserable Morocco. In December 1959 he expressed his satisfaction with the excellent relations existing between America and Morocco and he entered into an agreement under which the airfields would be handed over in three years’ time. The first has already been handed over to Morocco and the last will be handed over in 1963. But Morocco then had six large modern airfields for which she did not have the necessary technicians, and she immediately entered into agreements with Russia and China whereby they will provide the required technicians. America has now spent 500,000,000 dollars on building airfields; she then gave them as a present to Morocco who, in the meantime, is manning those airfields with communists. I say that the behaviour of the West in many of these cases is absolutely shocking. I now want to tell the hon. members opposite that I hope we are in agreement when I say that this is a shocking state of affairs.

I want to give a third example to show how difficult the position is being made for the West—the example of Guinea. Overnight, after independence had been granted, Guinea notified France that the four large French banks on which the whole economy of Guinea was dependent, had to leave the country and they did so. Then no banking services were available and they immediately approached Russia and Russia sent economic advisers to provide the necessary services. But these new services which were then provided were not simply banking services; they were immediately also advised to have all import and exports controlled through the medium of the banks. That is what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the difficulties which result from the balance of payments problems are facilitating the economic take-over of this continent. The demand for imports of the young African countries is rising more rapidly than the local production. Sir, my time is running out and I must hasten. Communist countries are supplying machinery and equipment together with their own technicians. Here I want to give the example of an agreement with Egypt for the building of a submarine base in the Mediterranean Sea. in terms of which; Russian technicians are also to be supplied so that they can control the entire base. I also want to refer just briefly to the provision of Russian technicians for manning air bases in Northern Africa. I go further and say that communist countries are buying from African countries and are providing loans or offering technical assistance and they are paying with services which give them control over such industries. In addition to these developments there is also a pattern, namely to take over key industries. Thus Russia lent Ethiopia £56,000,000 in 1960 but with the intention of developing key industries over which Russia would once again have control through her technicians. In other words, these countries are also being taken over as a result of the industries on which they are dependent being manned by communists. Then I just want to give this example in respect of Ghana because she is a member of the Commonwealth. We have all read of the great Volta scheme in Ghana. In the meantime Russia has entered into an agreement with Ghana whereby she will undertake a smaller scheme herself with Russian finance and assistance. But Ghana is now calling for tenders and loans for the much-discussed great Volta scheme. However, she has already entered into an agreement with Russia to the effect that the planning and execution of the scheme will be undertaken with the assistance of Russian technicians. Then I just want to mention in passing a ninth method which the communists are using within the framework of this pattern to achieve their aims, i.e. she is extending her control over Africa through the training of students outside Africa. I refer once again to the figure which the mover of the motion mentioned when he said that 43,000 students were on the list of applicants to disappear behind the Iron Curtain. Further information is that 12,500 students from Africa have been trained behind the Iron Curtain by this method during the past three years.

From the preceding it must therefore be clear that Communism has succeeded in gaining a controlling position in Africa which gives her a great advantage over the countries of the West. The communist countries have succeeded in achieving the following aims: Strategic control of northern Africa by means of air communications and air bases; gaining control of key points on the northern side of this continent via Egypt, on the eastern side of this continent via Ethiopia and on the western side of this continent via Guinea. They have created a triangle which they are now linking up by means of air bases so as to cut the northern part of the continent off completely from the West in time of trouble. This is a fact which we must accept. Furthermore the communists with their technical aid agreements have succeeded during the past three years in mapping and exploring the important countries of this continent by using their own technicians. They know more about these countries than the West because they have initiated large-scale research projects. They know exactly what is available to them from a military point of view; they are familiar with the topography of Africa and they also know more than the West about the mineral resources of this continent which they have mapped in detail through their technicians. This is the progress they have made.

As far as the Congo is concerned, they have now entered the central portion of this continent in order to gain a hold over the masses. And there the communists are trying—and they will probably succeed—to gain control over one of the world’s richest sources of copper and to gain control over the world’s greatest potential hydro-electric project. When one also takes into account the great labour resources of the African countries, if the communists should succeed in the Congo, they will divide this continent into two and they will also be within striking distance of South Africa and the Federation with their aircraft. In other words, from a strategic point of view, they are therefore in a position to threaten South Africa.

Furthermore, as regards the development programmes of the various under-developed African countries they have already entered into agreements or they are in the process of doing so, which will give them a say in all the key industries as far as the production potential is concerned. In other words, as far as the economic development of the continent is concerned, they have entrenched themselves and they now have the power in their hands. Mr. Speaker, what is significant in this regard is that, while the West left Guinea two years ago, Guinea will be in a position by next year that a quarter of her total export trade will be with countries behind the Iron Curtain and if the communists continue to take over the African countries at this rate, then our fear that here is a greater danger that they will take over the whole continent will be justified. [Time limit.]

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

It is clear from the speech of the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) that he has made a very thorough study of communistic conditions in Africa. He has given us certain facts, many of which were not known to us and which we on this side of the House certainly found interesting. What struck me, however, was the complete and unfortunate absence of some positive contribution to counteract the things which are taking place in Africa, however small and however trivial our efforts may be. My opinion of the motion of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is much the same. I welcome the opportunity that we are being given here to discuss the great problem of Communism, and in that respect I feel that the motion does serve a good purpose.

Every South African who loves his country realizes the great danger that Communism, as an aggressive and revolutionary force, is to South Africa. The continent of Africa, of which we form an inseparable part geographically. politically, economically and from the point of view of defence, has become the focal point of this communistic struggle within a very short space of time. The struggle is not only one for wealth; it is not only a struggle over forms of government; we must realize that this is also a struggle for the minds of people. In this struggle it is our duty to be armed, not only materially but also morally. The victory of the strongest weapon, the most powerful nuclear bomb, is only temporary. Throughout history it has always been the idea which has been victorious.

In Africa Guinea was the first country to succumb to Russian influence; shortly afterwards there were clear signs that Ghana was beginning to make friendly overtures to Russia, while the events of the Congo are fresh in our memories and as yet none of us knows where it is all going to end. It is agains this background that I regard the policy of the present Government as a sad story of powerlessness, of neglect and of weakness. Where we would have made friends, we created enemies. By taking steps which frequently could have been avoided we have become a burden instead of an asset to the most powerful countries which to-day form the bulwark against Communism.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

Who are those powerful countries?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

… and very often by inexplicable actions and statements we have estranged ourselves from the greatest churches of the world which constitute bulwarks against Communism. Let me emphasize that the party to which I belong, the United Party, the future government of South Africa, does not take second place to anybody in its disapproval of revolutionary Communism, and that it can and will prove this not only by word but also by deed. Part of the official policy of the United Party reads as follows—

The party will take steps to combat the growth of Communism amongst the Natives. In this respect it realizes that it is as important to remove the underlying causes of Communism as to combat its external manifestation. The Suppression of Communism Act will be amended along the lines indicated by the Uinted Party in Parliament, by granting named persons the right of appeal to the courts, by controlling arbitrary action by the Minister, by repealing the retrospective provisions of the Act and by making the commission of revolutionary communist deeds in South Africa treasonable.

Mr. Sneaker, I have said that the motion of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark gives us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. For the rest, however, I regard the motion as vague, ambiguous and pointless. I do not know if I am correct in assuming that perhaps the hon. member wanted to draft a more srongly worded motion but that it had to be submitted to the hon. the Minister of External Affairs or somebody else, and that as a result of that the motion was watered down somewhat.

*Dr. DE WET:

I submitted it to the Prime Minister and he accepted it without changing a single word.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

If the hon. the Prime Minister accepted the motion without changing a single word, then I must also accuse the Prime Minister of having approved of an ambiguous, vague motion, a motion which does not indicate any firm policy. What is asked for in the motion is that this House should discuss the question of Communism; with that I have no quarrel.

Mr. WATERSON:

On a point of order, we on this side listened in absolute silence while two members on the other side addressed the House. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is trying to make a serious speech and the other side is making so much noise that he is unable to do so.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The motion of the hon. member asks that we should emphasize our own country’s anti-communistic attitude. With that I have no quarrel either. What strikes me, however, are the words used by the hon. member in the motion in which he emphasizes that there is a need to “intensify the realization among anti-communistic countries that South Africa is a stronghold against Communism”. Why is there such a need; why should the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark have to come here and admit that there is such a need? Is that not an indication that there is something lacking in the Government’s policy? What is the reason for this need? Who is it who failed to make use of the usual channels, the diplomatic service and our Information Service, not only to explain our attitude but to explain it convincingly to the other countries of the Western world which are opposed to Communism? As the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has correctly said, the situation is serious. As far as I could gather from his speech he said that the hon. the Minister of Justice had even appointed a departmental committee to go into this urgent problem. Is that correct? I think he was referring to the present Minister of Justice.

*Dr. DE WET:

No, it was in 1949.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The question that we involuntarily ask ourselves is this: Was the praiseworthy effort that was made by our Government, by this country, in participating in the fight against Communism in Korea entirely'in vain; were the lives that were lost there sacrificed in vain; was the blood that was shed there shed entirely in vain? Was that not sufficient to convince our friends of our anti-communistic attitude? Where does the fault lie? What has gone wrong? Who is the guilty party? In order to make our attitude clear I want to move the following amendment at this stage to the hon. member’s motion—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House is profoundly disturbed at the Government’s failure to make the Union a sturdy rampart of liberty against the onrush of communist and nationalist revolt in Africa, and condemns it for failing to take a lead in Africa in showing what the true basis of the moral and material superiority of democracy over Communism is”.

I think it will be clear to hon. members that what I ask for in my amendment is for positive action to show that democracy in which we profess to believe is actually superior, on moral and material grounds, to Communism which has so much influence and is such a danger to South Africa. I agree with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that unless we have a full realization of what we are fighting against and of what Communism itself implies, it will be impossible for us to combat Communism in Africa in the most effective way. I want to associate myself with his statement therefore that we must have a correct understanding of Communism as such. My contention is that when we talk about Communism in Africa we make very great theoretical mistakes in our thinking. I can think of at least five wrong interpretations that we place upon Communism, particularly in respect of its influence here in Africa, and I should like to mention them here. The first is that we should make it clear, when we fight Communism, that we are not opposing other ideologies which are perhaps related to Communism. I am thinking of socialism in particular.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

The henchmen.

*Mr. E. G. MAL AN:

Mr. Speaker, all communists are socialists but not all socialists are communists.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

What did you say in your pamphlet?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I do not know to which pamphlet the hon. member refers. We must remember that in opposing certain principles of socialism which are perhaps in consonance with those of Communism, we are also giving the great democratic socialistic parties of Western Europe a slap in the face. We are perhaps unnecessarily making enemies of socialistic governments in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Belgium and Holland, and of the big socialistic oppositions, not only in Britain but also in Western Germany. The focal point in the fight against Communism, Berlin is controlled by a democratic socialistic government under a democratic socialistic mayor. This only goes to show that when we condemnthings such as state ownership of means of production or dialectic materialism or theories which are associated with Marx and Engels we must be careful that we do not make enemies of other countries whose assistance we need in Africa. I am not a socialist but I do realize that the right kind of democratic socialism may perhaps have advantages in developing many of the under-developed countries in Africa. Do not let us confuse that with Communism.

*Mr. J. A. L. BASSON:

Von Moltke is a National-Socialist.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

May I put a question to the hon. member?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Not now, please. The second theoretical mistake we must not make is to describe as Communism those things which, in actual fact, are not Communism, or which only form a sub-division of Communism, particularly in dealing with the Black States in Africa. I am thinking, for example, of the statement which is frequently made on political platforms that the policy of giving increased rights to the non-Whites is nothing but Communism, or the statement that is frequently made that equal treatment for White and Black is Communism, and the fact that the condemnation of colonialism is regarded as an exclusively communistic characteristic. Sir, colonialism is being condemned to-day in much wider circles in the world than in communistic countries only. And we are also making a mistake when, to use the words of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, we associate “sickly liberalism” with Communism. Let us be quite sure what we are opposing, and let us define it precisely. I do not want to make enemies of the rest of the free world which is, perhaps, against colonialism and perhaps in favour of increased rights for the non-Whites and equality of treatment for Whites and non-Whites.

The third theoretical mistake that we make in our approach is to think that, in taking steps to forbid communistic ideas—inter alia, the steps mentioned by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark—we shall succeed in smothering communistic activities. We cannot kill an idea, whether it is good or a bad idea, by simply trying to suppress it, by censorship, by banning books, by wiping out newspapers, by putting members out of the House, or by naming persons under the Act. Those methods are not going to succeed in killing Communism as such. As far as I can recall, there was even a time when people in South Africa were not allowed to read Karl Marx’s book, “Das Kapital ”. I do not think there can be any stronger argument against Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” than to make it available for reading. I cannot think of a more uninteresting book. I have never been able to get further than the first 50 pages of it. In spite of that, however, we see reports in the newspapers to the effect that communistic propaganda is still finding its way into South Africa, and that it is not possible entirely to ban that Russian-inspired propaganda. Here I have a report, from the Cape Argus which reads—

In spite of the Suppression of Communism Act, communist propaganda is still being spread in Africa and South Africa by means of anonymous pamphlets and books. One booklet received through the post by a Cape Town man called “The African Communist” has a plain black cover, and no-where is there any indication of where it is printed.

It is perfectly clear that there are still opportunities for the spreading of such propaganda in South Africa. I am thinking of the danger of trying to use methods of that kind; just think how one could be attacked, perhaps justifiably, by other countries on the ground that one wants to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of thought. Mr. Speaker, as soon as one resorts to a method of that kind one immediately admits that one’s case is weak, that one is afraid to allow the other side to state its case. May I quote the famous words of John Milton from his “Areopagitica ”, in which he says—

Though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do ingloriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?
*Dr. DE WET:

Did he say that about Communism?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

No, he said it about truth. He said that if one allowed truth and untruth, falsehood, to clash openly, with as few restrictions as possible, he believed that the truth would triumph. I believe it, and I think the hon. member should also believe it.

We make a fourth mistake when we think that we can continue with our present approach to our country’s problems and that we can simply trust that, in the event of war, the Western countries will rush to our aid in the struggle against Communism. We place too much reliance on that supposition. In such a struggle there may be developments which may have incalculable consequences for us. A country like America may be forced in this struggle against Communism to choose between India on the one hand and South Africa on the other. Can the Government give any guarantee that, in the event of any struggle in Africa, America would side with South Africa and not with India?

The fifth mistake that we must not make in our theoretical approach to this problem is not to blame Communism for what is very often our own shortcomings. We must not shelter behind Communism to excuse the shortcomings for which we ourselves are very often to blame. If there is really communistic agitation taking place in South Africa on a large scale, let us call it by its name; let us be told about it, and if there are guilty persons, bring them before the courts of this country in accordance with the usual procedure. We have heard stories about communistic influence in the eastern part of the Cape. If there were in fact Russian submarines there, we should be told about it. If communist agents were landed in Pondoland, let us be given the facts and let those persons be brought before the courts. If, as we are told happened in Europe in World War I, there were in fact Russian soldiers in Pondoland with snow on their boots, let us be told about it. But it is the wrong approach to this whole problem to shield behind Communism when, quite possibly, the fault lies with us.

I agree with the hon. member that our problem is to make other countries realize that we are anti-communistic. There are recognized channels through which we can reach other countries. There is our Information Service, for example, and our ordinary diplomatic channels. We also have our trade commissioners as a further channel. I feel that the Government is not fully alive to the possible value that we can derive from our Information Service, as well as from our diplomatic channels. We are spending thousands and hundreds of thousands of pounds on our Information Service, thousands on advertisements in oversea newspapers, tens of thousands on a magazine like Panorama, and we must admit that hitherto our attempts in Africa to make those countries realize that we are their friends, have produced deplorably little success. As a matter of fact, the results have been insignificant. I realize that we have a problem. A weekly like Time, for example, in one edition out of 52 every year can distribute four times as many copies as we can over a whole year through Panorama. But that is not the point. My point in connection with the Information Service is that everything of a constructive nature that they do here in Africa, at UNO or anywhere else in opposing Communism, all their fine efforts, are broken down and rendered nugatory by the irresponsible actions and irresponsible words of this Government itself.

*Mr. VON MOLTKE:

What has that to do with this motion?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

One foolish word may cost us tens of thousands of friends when we are looking for allies against Communism. One statement, such as that made by an hon. member when he asked why more people had not been shot at Sharpeville, may cause us to lose millions of pounds in the rest of the world and millions of friends.

*Dr. DE WET:

You know perfectly well that I did not say that.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I have not even mentioned the name of the hon. member yet. Why does the hon. member think that I was referring to him? Even one of the prominent newspapermen supporting the other side of the House found it necessary to write that he knew of certain acts which had cost our country £5,000,000, and of one act which had cost our country as much as £1,000,000,000.

*Dr. DE WET:

On a point of order, may I ask what this reference to “Dawie ”, the column writer, and his allegation about £5,000,000 has to do with this motion on Communism?

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

When business was suspended I was dealing with the difficulties that we are experiencing in South Africa in persuading other countries, particularly the West, of our value as an anti-communistic bulwark. I indicated that however good our Information Service was, it did not always produce much in the way of results. The other channel through which we can comply with the request of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is the Diplomatic Service. There too I feel that we can do much more than is being done at the present time. The position is that we have diplomats who make the Diplomatic Service their career, but they are very frequently let down by the utterances of professional politicians in the diplomatic sphere. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark made an attack upon UNO in the course of his speech and stated that the time had come when we might as well consider the question of the dissolution of the United Nations. I think his words were, “UNO has failed and may as well be dissolved as far as the West is concerned But does the hon. member not realize that UNO, in which the anti-communistic countries are still in the majority to-day, is one of the strongest bulwarks against Communism, one of the few places where, in the international field, Russia often suffers defeat? On the contrary, I would say that if we are interested in what is happening in Africa, we must realize what a wonderful opportunity we have at UNO to explain our attitude to the rest of the world— if only we would state that attitude correctly!

There is something in connection with the United Nations and our attitude there which seriously perturbs me and that is a statement made there by the hon. the Minister of External Affairs there of a new attitude in connection with our policy. According to a report in the Burger of 27 January, Mr. Louw, the hon. the Minister of External Affairs said this—

Whether South Africa’s policy of consistency and honesty has paid dividends is open to serious doubt. (Daar is ernstige twyfel of Suid-Afrika se beleid van beginselvastheid en eerlikheid vrugte afgewerp het.)

In other words, the Minister of External Affairs says that we must stop adhering to principles, that we must abandon the policy of honesty. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fatal proposition. I can imagine how bitter many of our own diplomats who will have to explain the statement must feel about it; how bitter our friends who side with us against the communists would feel if they considered perhaps that they should vote for South Africa and if they were then asked by communist countries whether they have made some agreement or other with South Africa on a basis of dishonesty or lack of consistency. We are adults and we know what goes on in diplomatic circles. We know that often it is a matter of give and take, but to come along and to say that you have to discard your policy of honesty and of adherence to principles is tantamount to nothing but a political international cheapjack policy.

*Dr. DE WET:

But he never said that.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

We on this side of the House have asked what positive steps can be taken to combat Communism in Africa in a positive way. Let me say in the first place that we must realize that we cannot make Africa anti-communistic. We are a small country at the southern tip of Africa. This country is of strategic value to the rest of the world but by no means of fantastic strategic value. We must realize, however, that with our insignificant White population of 3,000,000, which is smaller than the population of many single large cities in the rest of the world, cannot achieve a very great deal. We can, however, avoid using words such as those used by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark in connection with another small country in Africa when he referred to Liberia as a “miserable little country ”. I beg your pardon, Sir, it was the hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha). Even though Liberia is a small country we will never make her a friend of South Africa if we refer to her as a small miserable little country, particularly since Liberia, as we know, is one of the favourities of the United States of America. It is no sin to be a small country. Some of the greatest achievements in Western science and philosophy have come from very small countries. Just think what came out of Greece, out of Athens, a small city with only 50,000, inhabitants. Two of the world’s greatest religions come from a small country, Israel. I am not suggesting for a moment that we will ever be able to play such a great role in the world as those two countries, but we can do much more than we are doing at present.

Let us see what we can do in connection with this problem of Communism in Africa. In the first place I should say that we should strengthen our ties and our bonds of friendship with the anti-communists or pro-democratic countries throughout the world. We have no hope of joining the Pan-American Union or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the Treaty Alliance of South-East Asia. On our own we can achieve nothing, but as a member of some league of states we can make our voices heard. And it is in that respect that we ought to have the fullest realization of the tremendous importance of our membership of the Commonwealth. There we do not stand alone; we are a member of one of the strongest anti-communistic international organizations in the world, although there may be one or two countries in Africa which show communistic tendencies. Nevertheless the Commonwealth, in my opinion, remains one of the greatest bulwarks against Communism. It is also wrong to do what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark did here, namely to attack the President of the mighty U.S.A. about his attitude in connection with Africa—not on merit but in connection with certain things which he is alleged to have said. If the Americans and their leaders do not think in all matters as we do in South Africa, let us realize that they are the greatest bulwark against Communism in the world.

*Dr. DE WET:

I admitted that.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

In the third place let us also be careful in our theoretical approach to this problem; let us distinguish between deeds and theory; do not let us think that we can prohibit ideas by trying to kill them; or think that come what may we will receive assistance, and do not let us shield behind Communism to excuse our own weaknesses. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says that he would like anti-Communism and the doctrine of anticommunism to form part of the curricula of our universities. I can say this to him that our universities in South Africa in the struggle for freedom will be in a much stronger position if the Government will see to it that they remain free autonomous bodies. Surely when the hon. member comes along and uses the ugly word “indoctrination” and in fact recommends that our young people and our students should be indoctrinated against Communism, then we are resorting to the same methods as those used by the communists themselves. After all, it is tantamount to brainwashing.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

May I put a question to the hon. member?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

The hon. member is incapable of putting a question. I want to ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark why he used the word “indoctrination ”, a word which has now acquired an unpleasant meaning?

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

May I put a question?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Not now. I am sorry I said that the hon. member was incapable of putting a question; I did not mean it in a bad sense and I apologize.

Mr. Speaker, there is one important thing against which we must be on our guard and against which the Government fails to guard, particularly since our problem is how to combat Communism in Africa. We must remember that some of the greatest opponents of Communism in the whole world to-day are non-White nations. Take a great country like India. If India were to become communistic the world would be doomed. Then there is Pakistan. Some of the greatest opponents of Communism in the world to-day are non-White countries, countries like India and Pakistan. That is why it is wrong always to talk about a struggle between the White and the Black nations. In fighting against Communism we are not fighting for White civilization; we are not fighting for a White skin, we are fighting for a certain outlook and a certain idealism. Let us emphasize that and do not let us make potential enemies of non-White countries, such as India and Pakistan and other nations. There are countries like Malaya, Japan, Thailand, Formosa, which are not White nations, and their combined population is greater than that of the whole of Western Europe.

As a further practical step, however difficult and uphill it may be and however much we may be opposed, let us try to promote diplomatic co-operation as well as political economic and scientific co-operation with the other countries in Africa, to an even greater extent than we have done already. I concede that fine efforts have been made but I feel that even more can be done. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has correctly stated that we want to co-operate with the states in Africa. But I think perhaps he went a little too far— perhaps he was a little too ambitious—when he stated that South Africa should be the link between the West and Africa. I think that was what he meant. I do not think that we are qualified, particularly under the present set-up, to fulfil a role of that kind.

Furthermore, let us also try to the best of our ability to build up our Defence Force, which is going to play an important role, for its primary object, namely the defence of our country and not as a branch of the police. Moreover, let us make South Africa a place where, however difficult it may be, conferences of all the states of Africa can be held more often. I admit that it creates many problems but we can certainly try. I understand that steps are being taken in that direction. We are told that year after year Russia invites thousands of students to Moscow, to Leningrad, and that students even go to China. Why is it so impossible and difficult then for Native students from other countries in Africa to come to our own universities in South Africa, not only to Turfloop or Fort Hare but also to the universities of the Witwatersrand and Cape Town? Would it not have been a wonderful bulwark against Communism if we could have shown them the value of democracy in that way—not by indoctrination but by facts.

Let us take a further positive step by making our own country an example in Africa, in the economic sphere as well, by making her strong in capital and strong in manpower by following a dynamic immigration policy. Above all, Mr. Speaker, let us not scorn the intellectual leaders, the free thinkers amongst our people, when they warn us that we are following the wrong policies, when they adopt an intellectual approach to Communism, when they adopt a moral approach to Communism. Do not let us despise them, do not let us reject them, do not let us always call them liberals or unrealistic dreamers.

And lastly, Mr. Speaker—and I think this is the most important—let us show that negative steps are by no means the only steps that we want to take. Let us be positive in our own policy so as to show the rest of Africa what can in fact be done in an anti-communist state.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

I am sorry, the hon. member’s time has expired.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken an hour yet, and I think I still have a few minutes left.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

As the first speaker on this side the hon. member may proceed.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

I am approaching the end of my speech and I shall not be much longer, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has referred in his speech to the negative steps that we have taken—the closing of the Russian Consulate, the Suppression of Communism Act, the banning of the Communist Party, the expulsion of Members of Parliament and members of the Provincial Council and the establishment of a special branch of the police to combat Communism. We know that certain newspapers have also been closed down. These are all steps which are essentially negative. What positive steps have been taken? Is there no other message that we can give the world, materially and morally?

In the communistic state a citizen can be locked up without trial and his possessions confiscated without his having contravened any law. Let us in South Africa be constantly on our guard to uphold our law which says that nobody may suffer harm to his body or damage to his property except for a specific contravention of the law.

In the communistic state the highest Soviet, the Parliament is a one-party body and a one-party state. Let us uphold our parliamentary democracy, as the protector also of the rights of the weaker section in this country.

In the communistic state the Commissar, the constable, the communist group leader, has greater rights and powers than the ordinary citizen. Let us in this country reject such a system by word and deed, so that every official from the highest Commissioner-General in a Bantu area to the youngest constable will know that they have to act within the law and never in contravention of the law.

*Mr. G. H. VAN WYK:

May I ask the hon. member a trap question?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

No. In a communistic state the court of the country is an instrument of compulsion, without any protection for the accused, without any guarantee of impartiality on the part of the Judge who tries the case and who imposes the sentence behind closed doors. Let us do away in this country with the system of having administrative courts which decide behind closed doors what a person’s race is and where certain people have to live.

In the communistic state banning without trial is a political weapon of coercion and it has become a political weapon of force. Let us guard against following that road and creating a gang of resentful exiles in a Siberia of our own. In the communistic state free criticism is punishable with a sentence of imprisonment and even worse and the Press is the lackey of the heads of state. Let us in South Africa, even more conscientiously than other countries, guard the freedom of the Press and freedom of thought.

In the communistic state, the state is everything and the individual nothing. Let us remember both in our official and our personal relationships with even the most humble person on the lowest level of civilization that he is an individual and a creation of God, an individual who has his own dignity and deserves respect. In communistic countries one hears the footsteps of policemen at night, the knocking on doors, the rattling of handcuffs on prisoners on their way to a cold police cell. Do we realize how far we have progressed along that road in South Africa, bearing in mind the effect of some of our laws, particularly our pass laws?

Let us make a start, however small, to get a different spirit here so as to show the world that in this country anti-Communism has a strong moral basis. Sometimes the most insignificant step produces the most far-reaching consequences, and the most softly spoken word the loudest echo. And then perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the prayer contained in the old Free State anthem may be answered—

Bekleed ons klein gemenebes, Op orde, wet en recht gevest, Rang in der Statenry, Rang in der Statenry.
Mr. ROSS:

I second the amendment. On this subject of the danger of Communism to South Africa the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) were, of course, talking to the converted on this side of the House. But our amendment indicates that they have mishandled, and mishandled terribly badly this whole danger. I will proceed to show how they have mishandled this matter.

I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark when he says that our people are not really seeking Communism. But my Very real fear is that they might clutch at it in desperation. And that is the big difference. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark dealt very briefly with the third leg of his motion this morning—

The need for intensifying the realization among the anti-communistic countries that South Africa is an indispensable stronghold against Communism.

Obviously we have to prove this fact, but I am sorry to say that the hon. member gave no assistance in regard to the proving of the point. If we do not prove this realization this danger will come against us more rapidly. My difficulty is that the practical side of this question involves, firstly, that there are far more troops available from 200,000,000 Blacks north of us in any struggle between East and West and, secondly, our whole policy of defence to-day is directed—and must be directed —to our internal defence, to defence against internal troubles. We will keep our ports open, obviously. If we try to close them we would be stopped. Unfortunately, as I say, the hon. member has brought this question up and says that we must all fight, but he has given me no assistance to help me to show, when I speak to people outside, that we are such a stronghold. And it is very difficult to prove this to minds that are inquiring and, in all probability, to-day, inimical. We must try, of course, all of us, in regard to this third leg, in the interests of our own land.

Then the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark quoted Mr. Kennedy’s words, “sincerity is subject to proof ”. And that proof is what the rest of the world wants from this Government in regard to proving all these items in the motion now under discussion. This motion seeks to establish that the Government, in all its actions, is strongly motivated by its hatred of Communism and, therefore, is entitled to the sympathetic support of the Western world that we all so earnestly desire. If only we had sympathy in place of the hatred and the pressures brought to bear on us now, things would be very different. This is a very praiseworthy object, but I do want to point out that the Western world is not without knowledge that this country is anti-communistic. We have to be in the interests of our own selves. But I am afraid the Western world are going to require a great deal of convincing that this Government’s policies and actions are occasioned by their anti-communistic ideals and not by their policy of baasskap apartheid. These Government speakers have pointed with pride to the laws relating to the suppression of Communism in this country, and they have utilized the existence of those laws as an earnest of the sincerity of their anti-communistic feeling and actions. But, unfortunately—and this was touched on by the mover of our amendment and I would like to take it a little further— unfortunately this particular bit of legislation is, without doubt, one of the main causes of the hostility of the Western world from which we are now suffering. It is common cause amongst all of us that Communism exists in this country. And it is common cause too, that it must be eliminated, it must be eradicated, it must be removed root and branch in the interests of everybody in this country, in the interests of every citizen of whatever colour or race he may be.

A few years ago I came by some information showing how Communism had spread throughout this country. I learnt, through a man now dead, how, in practically every non-White organization the communists had infiltrated into the most powerful positions. To say that I was shocked at these disclosures is not to say too much. These disclosures were confidential to me. At that time the chairman, the secretaries and treasurers in their scores, not only in non-White organizations but in White too, were communists. This information was given to me and I know it is correct because I saw it myself. And all of this was known to the police at that time. It is not too much to say that workers’ organizations throughout the country were riddled with communists, and I assume that they still are.

Then this Government started to deal with this danger. They produced laws which, they said, would control Communism, would wipe the communists out, would do what we all want. The United Party at that time pointed out, during the debates on the Suppression of Communism Bill in 1950, by means of amendment that they were going about it the wrong way. The amendment read—

because in seeking to combat communist totalitarianism it creates a fascist despotism in that it clothes the executive with unnecessarily wide and despotic powers, fails to provide for full and effective access to the courts, and makes intolerable inroads upon the freedom of the citizens, including the power to violate the sanctity of his home.

At that time all the speakers for the United Party pointed out that we stood four square in favour of the eradication of Communism by any democratic means available. We told this Government repeatedly that this party accepted the danger to South Africa, accepted the importance of emphasizing South Africa’s strong anti-communistic policy, and accepted the need for intensifying the realization … etc., etc. They all stressed that we accepted that. But we wanted it done to the limit under democratic methods, otherwise we knew and we pointed out that it would bring to us troubles arid difficulties which, at that time, were not even dreamt of. But all the advice that was given to this Government from this side of the House was ignored. When this party pressed for the right of appeal to the courts, they were reviled and, I repeat, ignored. We pointed out in this House that to take away the right of people to have access to the courts would create the impression, true or false, that injustice and not justice was being administered behind closed doors. That was a phrase that was used by a speaker at that time, and a very apt one too. We pointed out that to drive Communism underground would make its disciples doubly dangerous by clothing them in a cloak of anonymity as far as the public was concerned. We pointed out that the knowledge of the general public that a man was a communist would, in itself, weaken his influence. But all to no avail. I repeat here, Mr. Speaker, that at that time there was no shadow of doubt that our people—all the people of this country—were not receptive towards communistic ideals.

I was at a conference a few years ago in Canada when certain Australian delegates pleaded that all constituent organizations should, in their constitutions, prohibit memberships to any communist. They pleaded that to refuse admission to communists would kill off communist influence. Arguments and objections in this friendly conference were raised by Canada. They said that Communism had been suppressed by law and it had sprung up elsewhere. There were arguments from the United Kingdom where tolerance still lives and where, of course, it is incredible to think that Communism could really get a leg in. New Zealand, too, said “You cannot legislate against this sort of thing ”. The Australians went so far as to spend thousands of pounds taking the matter to the Supreme Court, and they were only an organization, not a Government. They did that to get rid of one communist. They finally succeeded in getting rid of that man but it did not help. Every country at this conference affirmed and stressed its abhorrence of the communist creed. I heard Mr. St. Laurent, the then Prime Minister of Canada, say “These communists want to break down everything our fathers have proved wise, and have nothing to put in its place ”. And that is quite true. And so it is necessary for all of us to fight this thing to the fullest extent of our capabilities.

The argument put forward by someone was that it is better to know who your enemies are then to have them secret. That I believe. The counter-argument put forward was that if you allowed the communists legally to exist you would not know who the real top ones, the secret ones, were. I suggest that in either instance you do not know who the real top secret ones are. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) pointed out that communistic literature was still flooding into this country, and we have not been able to find out from whence it comes. So I say that while Communism must be fought with every means at our command this Government has, as usual, chosen the wrong method, or made mistakes in the application of its method.

We then come back to the cardinal feature of all our unpopularity throughout the Western world, and that is that we have taken away from people the right to appeal to the courts of law in connection with most of these new crimes.

Mr. Speaker, not so long ago a wife and mother—non-White—was banished, with her children, from Paarl. Following that, this is what the hon. the Minister of External Affairs said in this House, and I quote from Hansard—

When the Government was obliged to take steps against Mafekeng. the Native woman in Paarl, the Liberals and newspapers of hon. members on the other side immediately rushed to her assistance. But they carefully avoided mentioning the fact that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had acted at the request of the Paarl Municipality. No, that fact was suppressed. The full blame was placed on the shoulders of the Government. And then they say that it is the Government’s fault that such a strenuous anti-South African campaign is being conducted abroad.

Those were the words of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs. Those words show the sorry pass to which we have come in regard to our fear of Communism—and our justified fear of Communism. Who exiled this woman? Was it the Paarl Municipality? Can municipalities now exile people? According to the words of the hon. the Minister of External Affairs as recorded in Hansard, they can. What an explanation for action against Communism! I think that even the Minister must have been ashamed of that particular act, and how he thought of this answer I do not know.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order! The hon. member may not reflect on an Act which has been passed by this hon. House.

Mr. ROSS:

I am referring, Mr. Speaker, not to the Act but to the hon. the Minister.

Mr.Speaker, I must say this: how our fathers must be turning—not turning, revolving very rapidly, in their graves at what we are doing at the present time. In regard to this Paarl incident, from what I have since heard I believe that this woman was a communist. But she was not brought before a court and she was exiled with her children. I ask you, Sir, what you think the reaction was throughout the Western world amongst all our erstwhile friends—and I use the word erstwhile from choice—as a result. The impression created was that she was exiled and her home broken up because she was working, as anyone should be entitled to do, in the interests of her own people. Had she been brought before a court of law and proved to be a communist, the whole Western world would have been behind us in this particular sentence. Let me assure you that that one incident, one of many, did more to convince the outside world that this Government is tyrannical and actuated not only by fear of Communism but, in the main, by its policy of baasskap apartheid; by the maintenance of baasskap no matter at what cost to others. No matter what protestations come from this Government, I am afraid the Western world will never accept these protestations of anti-Communism; it will never accept that they are honest and genuine until all citizens accused of being communists have access to the courts.

I know that the danger from Communism is great, but I also believe that the danger from the Western world’s dislike of our Government policy is as great as far as the White man is concerned, and possibly even greater, and certainly closer in terms of time. This danger from the West will never be removed while our people do not have access to the courts when accused of so many of these new crimes. That is the main difficulty to-day confronting the mover of the motion before us now. It is no use our telling the world that so-and-so was a communist or that such-and-such organizations are communistic if the accused are denied the right of appeal to an open court to prove or disprove the accusation. This Government has done many stupid things, but this policy of punishment without recourse is the most stupid …

Mr. FRONEMAN:

And this is a most stupid speech.

Mr. ROSS:

You are no judge …

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order, order!

Mr. ROSS:

The safety of the White man is one thing, injustice to others behind closed doors is another. And that is the way things are being read to-day. It is no use hon. members on the Government benches jeering at me, we are behind them in this question of dealing with Communism, but we say that the way that they have dealt with it is wrong. Surely, never was it more necessary to debate a motion such as this and its counterpart, our amendment. And surely, never in South African history was it a more opportune or more wise time to say “I told you so ”. We have been telling this Government for so long, but they will not listen. Now they have to bring up a motion such as this. The clouds are growing black. It may be that our problems will be solved to the north of us, partially or otherwise. Or they may not be. It may even be in the future, near or far, that the way of life as we know it now will undergo considerable modification. It may be that these things will happen, and if they do I charge that this Government has the main responsibility and will have the main responsibility for anything that happens. I intend to say “We told you so ”, and I will not apologize for dealing in past words and deeds of this Government in that connection. It is those words and those deeds which have made it necessary to bring this matter before this House for discussion on the basis of this motion, and for us to move an amendment such as we have done.

Let me start by reminding this House of what we on this side of the House have previously said about our Information Service. After all, the Information Service is the spearhead. By no other method is it possible to advise the outside world of the facts of particular incidents happening in this country, caused by our Government’s policy; caused by the flow of events; caused however you like. Without our Information Service we would be even worse off than we are, if that is possible. We have agreed that the Information Service is essential and we have supported its maintenance. We have agreed that it must be financed to a greater degree and that its activities must be extended, but I can never get out of my mind what the thoughts are of those officials when one little act of this Government wipes out in one fell swoop all the success they might have achieved in explaining our position to the world. The Minister of External Affairs said in the Transvaal on 11 November 1959—

Although there will probably be no material difference in the voting on South African affairs, there is definitely a friendlier attitude towards South Africa.

We told him we were surprised and did not agree with the statement. Then again, on 26 February 1960, he said in Hansard—

I do not wish to disappoint the hon. member, but from reports which I receive, particularly from our Ambassador in Washington, there is not the least doubt that that policy is now being better understood and is gaining favourable attention.

Again we did not agree and we told him so. I repeat that we on this side are as fully aware of the dangers besetting our land as members opposite, but unfortunately the coping with these dangers is in their hands and not in ours. If it were in our hands the position would be entirely different. We realize the difficulties. We voted for the recent defence amendments because we realize that we are in such trouble that great powers must be granted. One of the reasons why I personally voted for it is that I believe the present Minister of Defence—not the last one—will never use those powers in any way except in the interest of his country. Some of these powers would not be necessary if we were in power, but with the present Government in power they are necessary. All we got from the speeches this morning was what terrible things were happening in the world. They are happening, but all they did was to accentuate the danger in which we find ourselves. But they gave no suggestion as to how it should be remedied. Our problems may be worked out to the north of us, or they may not, but they will not be worked out under this Government. We have the Information Service. Outside Government circles the South African Foundation was formed by men who desired to put as good a face as possible on South Africa and its problems, including its stand against Communism and its endeavour to be a bastion against Communism on behalf of the Western world. The members of the South African Foundation are right that as our economy dwindles so will the standards of living of the White population. We therefore have two agencies working to explain Government policy to the world, and yet on the danger of Communism we have within the last 18 months the Minister of External Affairs telling us that things are getting better, and that his party, through his private members, considers that it is now necessary to debate the matter and to tell us about the dreadful dangers facing us. We have told them for years about this danger. We must retain the friendship of the Western world. It is impossible to retain the friendship of our friends in the world unless we acknowledge that regardless of colour a man must have a chance, and the one chance which should never be taken away from a man in a democratic country is the right to appeal to the courts. We have told them this so often and we have told them also on more than one occasion that never was there a worse time to tamper with the political rights of the non-Whites when the communists are fighting to get a grip on their minds. We have stressed this and we told them so, and what did they do? While the Information Office was battling to explain to the world what our policy was and that it was directed towards uplifting the non-White, they sat back smugly, awaiting events in UNO, in which the White nations would break away from the Black nations for acting irresponsibly. Of course they are acting irresponsibly, but that does not help us. They just sat back smugly and said they would leave UNO. Then they closed the doors of the universities to the non-Whites and removed the Coloureds from the Coloured Roll. We joined the Commonwealth scholarship scheme to make bursaries available to all. It is extraordinary how at certain administrative levels we always do the right thing, and if you go overseas you hear kindly remarks about the men who are administering the country—but not the politicians. We have done our share and we have been generous in our offers of help, but unfortunately this one was spurned as all our other offers of help have been spurned, because of the actions of this Government. Out of all the bursaries we offered, three people applied, three White people, but not a single Coloured man in the whole of the Commonwealth was prepared to take advantage of our generous offer. I cannot even find out what strings are attached to these benefits, and whether Coloured students are allowed to go to the open universities, or whether they are told to go to the new Coloured universities. That is what we are up against. We try to explain to the world that we are a bastion and we are so essential to them in any war against Russia that they must have us on their side, notwithstanding what happens to the 200,000,000 Blacks to the north of us. That is ludicrous. I only want to compare that with Australia and the Colombo Plan. Australians are joined to hundreds of millions of non-White people by the sea—the sea does not divide them, it joins them. What do they do in regard to the Colombo Plan? They have given not hundreds but thousands of bursaries to non-Whites to take courses in the Australian universities, where they learn to appreciate Australian policy. What happens to us? Not a single non-White has applied for a bursary to come to a South African university, and we could give them so many courses that would be of tremendous use to them in their own countries. We have so much knowledge of conditions in Africa and we can teach them so many things which would be of value to their own people, and that would help to get us out of our trouble and to prove to the Western world that we are anti-communist. We do not believe, and I think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark agrees with me, that Communism would flourish amongst the non-Whites of this country if the conditions did not exist to bring about that growth. We do not believe that such conditions ever really existed. As I said before, this Government chose the opportunity to take away the little that these people had in the way of political rights, and in many ways their human dignity is non-existent. I have touched on all these things to prove what an impossible job we have given to our Information Office, which I honestly believe is doing its best to explain to the world how the policy of this Government is inspired by anti-Communism and not by baasskap apartheid. But they have to explain away things such as one member of this House saying it was a pity that more Natives were not shot at Sharpeville. We all remember that incident and how the Prime Minister had to rush to his assistance. They battle to make friends for us and then some Black man is refused a passport. All that results in is to build him up, a small man who would never otherwise have been heard of, and he is built up to be a world figure and a martyr, and that is used as proof against us that we are not anti-communist; we are only pro-White and to perdition with anyone else. We have told this Government these things so many times. We have explained to them how stupid they are but they would not listen to us, and this is the pass to which we have come. Where the next step will take us I do not know. When a Canadian reporter came here they slapped him in gaol, a most irresponsible man who should have been ridiculed, but they threw him into gaol. Then they deported Bishop Reeves. None of these people had the right to go to the court. How can we prove our sincerity and that our every action is directed towards keeping the communists away from the Western world? The Information Service has to explain all these things, and they are the only weapon we have to convince the Western world that we are not what the Nationalist Party is. What chance have we and how can we expect friendship and tolerance when we have such a Government? Only recently we had Pondoland and it was closed in the interests of keeping law and order, according to the Minister, and according to him also the disturbances there were due to communists who ran over the hills at night and disappeared with the morning mist and they could not be caught. How can you explain things like this, with the Western world watching us like a hawk? This sort of thing is done in the name of anti-Communism. We on this side know infinitely more than the uninformed people outside. We read our sensational Press and laugh and then stop laughing because we realize the dangers behind it. We are well informed in this country, but I cannot believe that all these actions of the Government are directed towards Communism. I say they are acts of baasskap domination. They cannot deny that relations between the Whites and the Blacks in South Africa have deteriorated in the last ten years. One reads these exaggerated reports and it makes one boil and seethe and one wonders sometimes whether it would not be best to pass a law allowing irresponsible Pressmen to be shot, but if you did that the law would also have to apply to irresponsible politicians.

An HON. MEMBER:

Then you would be shot first.

Mr. ROSS:

Everybody must agree that if we could establish fairly friendly relations with the new states in Africa, our struggle to be regarded as the bastion against Communism to the West must be won once and for all. This friendship with the Black states to the north of us is a sine qua non for our relations with the Western world, and what has this Government brought us to? The Minister of External Affairs told us the other day that the day was past when we could have friendship with these states to the north of us and that they spurned our offers of help. Sir, I have great pleasure in sitting down.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has frightened me.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

That is not difficult.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

If what he says is true, namely “that they are behind us ”, when I look around and I see what the hon. member has said to-day is behind us, I wonder how we can put up any sort of showing as far as Communism is concerned. The hon. member frightens me but I do not understand him either. He has pleaded for these people who are being deported and he says that they should have recourse to the courts. Was it not during the régime of hon. members opposite that legislation was passed providing that no one who was to be deported would have access to the courts? Now he condemns his own legislation. But I leave him there.

I do not want to detain the House for long. It is not necessary because the two hon. members on this side, the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) and Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) have both made speeches of a very high standard. I hoped that we would be able to maintain that standard until the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) rose to speak. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark most sincerely on having introduced this motion and the hon. member for Soutpansberg on having seconded it. They have rendered South Africa and this House a great service by introducing this motion and by discussing it in the way they have. Both speeches have testified to careful preparation, to a study of the subject and also to knowledge of the subject. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has often travelled outside South Africa and he was therefore able to discuss these matters with great knowledge and his seconder also spoke with a great measure of knowledge. They have made a study of Communism and they have presented the subject in a way on which I want to compliment them. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has referred particularly to points which I need not discuss any further. He has referred the House to the objects of the deadly danger, Communism, and the methods the communists are using to achieve their objects. He has also referred us to communist activities in Africa. What I appreciate greatly is the fact that he has given suggestions as to how South Africa should combat Communism. Those suggestions will be studied and will receive the necessary attention. It is unnecessary to say the Government supports the motion and that we cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) because the amendment is in such sharp conflict with the attitude of hon. members opposite as revealed to-day. To me this was a disillusionment. I always thought that on one point at least we in South Africa had the greatest opportunity of our lives to present a united front to the world, but hon. members opposite have done nothing to help us. What is the outside world to think of the speeches of hon. members opposite? What was the reply of the Opposition to this motion? Hon. members have complained that we are not going far enough. The amendment says that the House is disturbed at the Government’s failure to make the Union a sturdy rampart of liberty against the onrush of Communism, but they have not offered us any assistance. The Opposition’s difficulty is that one cannot blow hot and cold over so vitally important a matter as Communism, which threatens to throw its shadow over Africa. One cannot adopt a two-faced approach, to put it mildly. One cannot raise one’s hat to Communism to-day and say tomorrow that one condemns it with all the emphasis at one’s disposal. One cannot bitterly oppose the anti-communistic legislation which this Government has introduced in order to combat Communism in South Africa and then blame the Government for not going far enough. One cannot approach such an important matter in so contradictory a way.

It is true as hon. members have said, that there is no part of the world where the seed of Communism will find more fertile soil than amongst the anti-White masses in Africa. The tempo at which Communism is infiltrating into Africa has given the whole civilized world food for thought and discussion because there has hardly been one international conference in recent years where the onrushing danger of Communism in Africa has not been discussed. It may be that the emergent States in Africa will embrace Communism. We hope not. All we can say is that South Africa is and remains the friend of the West and that she is a bastion of Christian civilization, and intends remaining so. That may be why Communism is concentrating so greatly on its drive southwards to southern Africa. Perhaps the communists themselves realize that they cannot conquer Africa until the life and death struggle between Communism and Christian civilization is settled here. This was not always the position. At the end of the second world war there were only four independent States in Africa, while the rest of the Africa was divided into Western colonial areas. A short 15 years ago world trends still passed the Native of Africa by. His sole interest was his simple struggle to make a livelihood. Then suddenly the doctrine of human rights blew over to Africa and with it the slogan of self-determination of which the communists have become the protagonists in Africa. Here they have adopted self-determination as their slogan. The majority must govern, and the majority are the Black masses. In Africa Communism immediately established an anti-White front in order to serve its aims. It has been said that when the British arrive in a new place the first thing they do is establish a club. When the Russians arrive anywhere the first thing they do is establish a front. This has also happened in Africa, and is still happening. The communist pattern is the same everywhere. The achievement of their objects is furthered by the creation of chaos. It is easy to create disorder in primitive communities such as those found in Africa. At the moment we are seeing in the Congo how the communists are exploiting conditions of barbaric chaos. The communists fatten on disturbances which they themselves try to create: Communism flourishes on chaos. Reference has been made to-day to the various ways in which the communists are infiltrating into Africa. I just want to refer to one or two.

In the first place they do so by establishing organizations for promoting friendship between Russia and the African states. Their second method of infiltration is by use of broadcasting services beamed on Africa. Today the anti-Christian voice is heard more loudly over the air than ever before. This process is continuing. The Soviet Union is broadcasting programmes totalling nearly 20 hours per week in English, French, Portuguese and Swahili to Africa and 50 hours in Arabic. Another method of infiltration is economic penetration. This process was started in all seriousness four or five years ago and has gradually been expanded. During 1959 alone 15 trade missions from communist countries visited Africa. As a result of Russia’s recent trade agreement with Guinea approximately one-quarter of that country’s foreign trade is with the communist bloc. As we have been told to-day, Russia is providing financial aid to Africa to an ever-increasing degree. Her loans to Ethiopia already total approximately $100,000,000—this is the figure I have been given; to Ghana $40,000,000; and to Guinea $50,000,000, just to give one or two examples. The amounts may be larger, but these are the figures I have. The communist front organization represent yet another method of infiltration. The Afro-Asian Peoples’ Solidarity Council was established in 1957 in Cairo, and to a certain extent it serves the communists. Both the Russians and Chinese are represented on it. In addition the World Federation of Trade Unions (W.F.T.U.) is working energetically in Africa. Militant trade union leaders from Africa regularly receive training in Budapest. An increasing number of trade union leaders are going to Russia from Africa; bursaries are being given to young students from Africa to study behind the Iron Curtain. Hon. members have also been told that communist China has now made her appearance in Africa where she is very active. According to reports China is already establishing communist cells in certain African states. China has also established her friendship societies in African countries; she has her radio broadcasts, her students’ training programme, her trade relations and her trade union relations. China has already established diplomatic relations with a number of African states. Twenty-five Chinese delegates recently visited Africa and in exchange 84 delegates from Africa visited China. Hon. members have referred to technical aid. China is providing technical aid to Africa. China is already teaching Morocco how to cultivate tea; in Guinea the Chinese are teaching the people how to cultivate rice. The Chinese enjoy the advantage in Africa that they can hold themselves out to be non-Whites. They are not, but they can do so, and consequently they can work more successfully than the Russians amongst the Natives of Africa against the West. In this way, Mr. Speaker, Communism is attacking on two fronts in particular; in this way it is rapidly entering the arena in Africa. For this reason South Africa is faced with a tremendous and weighty challenge. It must be our task to keep the flame of White Western civilization burning in Southern Africa to the bitter end at any cost. Hon. members have referred to rays of light (ligpunte). I do not know why hon. members opposite are now criticizing us for not having acted firmly enough. They know after all what has been done, and I therefore regret that hon. members have not taken the opportunity to-day to close ranks with us in the face of the one danger which threatens us all so that we could present a united front to the outside world. As regards the two speeches hon. members opposite have made, I can only say that they do not present South Africa in the true light in which she should be presented. It is not the correct light and it is not a good light either. Mr. Speaker, let us differ in the political field, but let us, as least as far as this important matter is concerned, see whether we cannot achieve a united front. Hon. members have said that we are not doing enough. I pay tribute to South Africa’s political representatives throughout the world for the way in which they are doing their work without any fanfare; valuable work which they are doing day and night in order, if I may use this anglicism, to sell South Africa to the world; to make the world realize that South Africa means well and South Africa stands firmly on one point, namely that she is the champion of White Christian civilization against Communism in this part of the world. There is our Information Service which has been criticized here to-day. I would have thought that we in South Africa should give our wholehearted support to the Information Service and that we should tell them: “Continue with the magnificent work you are doing in telling the world about South Africa.” But, no, we have a debate to-day on Communism and all we hear is criticism of the way in which we are doing things. I say this is not the opportunity nor the time for criticism. If hon. members must criticize, let them do so in other debates, but the eyes of the world are on Africa and particularly on South Africa when she discusses Communism, and at such a time we must stand together.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that South Africa is faced with a tremendous challenge. There are rays of light. I consider the first to be the fact that a high percentage of the Bantu and Coloureds are hostile to Communism. This gives us hope that in co-operation with them we shall be able to present to South Africa and the world a civilized front against the infiltration of Communism and that we shall be able to say:“If the principle that the majority must govern is accepted, we do not know what is going to happen with Communism higher up in Africa, but all we do know is that this is our bastion.” Now hon. members have said that we are not doing enough. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Western nations are beginning to realize that the Western-inclined South Africa is indispensable strategically and otherwise because we form part of the West and because we have tried to preserve one area for Western civilization here. There are signs that the Western countries are beginning to understand South Africa’s problems; there are signs that South Africa’s honest intentions, as well as her unequivocal opposition to Communism are beginning to earn respect. Our neighbouring states are also hard at work throwing up bulwarks against Communism.

Last year an important resolution was adopted by the Mississippi Legislature in America, and I just want to read part of a resolution dealing with South Africa which was adopted by that state. The resolution of the Mississippi Legislature, “House concurrent resolution No. 67 ”, under the heading: “A concurrent resolution commending the determined stand of the Government of the Union of South Africa in maintaining its firm segregation policy” reads as follows—

Whereas the Government of the Union of South Africa has been beset recently with mock demonstrations and disorders in the effort to overthrow its segregation policies and whereas there exists a definite parallel between events in that country and recent disorders in the Southern States of the United States: Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the Legislature of the Sovereign State of Mississippi, the Senate concurring therein: We commend the Government of the Union of South Africa for its steadfast policy of segregation and the staunch adherence to their traditions in the face of overwhelming external agitation.

This is encouraging support from Mississippi. I wish that it had found an echo here to-day as well. The Cape Argus recently published a report from New York which read as follows—

The West’s feeling is that she must come to the assistance of South Africa. South Africa is at least honest about her policies. It is difficult for the Western nations to stand on the side lines when South Africa is under fire from countries such as Russia.

I hope the United Party will not stand on the side lines either when South Africa is attacked in this way.

*Mr. HORAK:

We never do so.

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

My hon. friend said that they never do, but what has happened here to-day? They say that they do not do so but none the less they do. Mr. Speaker, South Africa is the West’s bastion. We have banned the Communist Party and we are the only country in Africa which has banned Communism. Ever since that time, ten years ago, Communism has had a difficult time in our country. A number of communists have gone underground and are active under all sorts of new names, but because they must work underground, they cannot operate so successfully. It is no longer easy for them to continue their activities.

I am glad that the police and the Department of Defence have taken steps to equip themselves with modern equipment so that they can safeguard South Africa’s internal position if necessary, and so that they can guard against communist infiltration in particular. The Department of Justice has experts on Communism who are of great assistance and value. The Security Branch of the police, which was a subdivision, has recently been raised to the status of a full division. It is now one of seven separate police divisions and is directly responsible to the Commissioner and the Minister. A post of Director of Internal Security has been created to control the Security Branch. We expect much of this division. I should like to say a few words today in praise of our Security Branch. The work which the police and particularly the Security Branch are doing, is work to which publicity cannot be given, but it is work for which we are grateful because it is keeping us fully informed of what is happening in our country. They are keeping Communism under control. Fortunately as a result of the fact that it has been kept under control, it has not developed too far in South Africa with the result that we only have a little more than 600 listed communists. It is fortunate that there are not more. The police are strictly enforcing the orders confining such persons to certain areas. And this is a good thing. It keeps Communism under control when these restrictions are as strictly enforced as the police are doing. Communist-inclined meetings and the meetings of “fellow travellers” are either restricted or completely prohibited, and this hinders Communism. The ringleaders are removed from dangerous spheres such as the trade unions so as to protect industries against disruption. At the moment certain persons are appearing in court on a charge of high treason. As I have said there are rays of light—and with that I conclude. Nothing creates such a sense of unity in a country as when that country has one common enemy or sees one on the horizon.

*An HON. MEMBER:

And what happened during the war?

*The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

Listen to that, Mr. Speaker. Here we are discussing this threatening danger and the hon. member wants to start waving the flag once again. There were circumstances at that time which resulted in our refusing to join in co-operating with the communists. Now we do have a common enemy, and I say there is no factor which creates a greater sense of unity than the existence of a common enemy; and this applies particularly in a country where the conditions are so ripe for the spread of Communism. Our task is to stand together. The deadly danger of anti-Christian Communism gives us this opportunity to stand together, to combat it with all the strength at our disposal, because when South Africa’s turn, when Southern Africa’s turn comes, it will not help us to say “I belong to this or that party ”. We will only be asked one question, namely “Do you believe in Africa for the Africans, or do you believe unequivocally in the continued existence of the anticommunist White civilization in South Africa?” That is the question which will be put to all of us when the time comes. I therefore say: Let us stand together as one man when that time comes. I extend my sincere thanks to the hon. members for introducing this motion. I hope that we shall have such a motion annually and I hope that when discussing such a motion we shall try to present a united front to the world as far as Communism is concerned.

Mr. WILLIAMS:

The hon. the Minister set great store apparently by the statement of the Mississippi Legislature. I think what the Minister said about Dixie is true, but I doubt whether that really represents the feeling of the Western world. The hon. the Minister has praised the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) not only for his motion but the standard on which he introduced it. With regard to objectivity I agree; with regard to teaching us something about the problem with which we are dealing, I cannot say that I associate myself with the Minister, because it seems to me that anyone who has reasonably read the Readers Digest could have given a similar outline of Communism and its activities. [Interjections.] Very well, let me put it this way. He said nothing that was not within the general knowledge of any reasonably well-informed man in the street. I do not consider myself to be an expert on Communism or on the international implications, on the detailed implications of the present struggle for the balance of power that is taking place between the West and Communism in this matter. Sir, this is a very difficult debate to take part in if you are trying to say something seriously, because you are dealing first of all with the core of the whole international situation and you have to be reasonably well informed to attempt to deal with that. Secondly, we have to deal with the whole situation in Africa, and however seriously you may set out to talk, you are in danger of making comments with regard to the internal affairs of other nations, which is a thing that we will not allow in regard to ourselves. Thirdly, you are dealing, when it comes to the strength and the influence of Communism, with information which in the various states is only possessed in detail, in confidence, by the security people and certain higher men of the Governments in those states.

I want to deal with the lines that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark took and I want to deal with his points as they arose. First of all he set out to define Communism and it seemed to me that he made a sufficiently good job for it to be quite capable of incorporation in the Anti-Communist Bill where the definition of Communism is immeasurably wider than the one he gave. To me the cardinal mark of the communist, apart from being a disciple of Marx and Lenin, is the fact that he believes in class war; in other words, he believes in force and unconstitutional methods as the method to right what he considers to be wrong. In other words, he believes that those who hold power will never sacrifice except in the face of force, and I might say in passing that the only people who can prove the communist wrong in that regard, are societies where privilege and power is modified without the use of force. I do not see much indication on the part of this Government to do anything but prove the communists right in that regard, since there is no readiness to modify any of the powers and privileges that the power and privilege class possess in this country. I am not talking now particularly in terms of race. Secondly, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark went on to deal with the international objectives and the balance of power with regard to Communism. I think it is true that it is the general objective of Communism to seek world domination for the ideal for which they stand, but I think the hon. member in his speech rather over-simplified the picture of what is involved. Lenin said 40 years ago that the road to Paris goes via Peking and Calcutta, and he was echoed later by Stalin who said that the back of the British would be broken on the banks of the Ganges and of the Nile, and that is why at the moment Africa comes into the picture as an important pawn in the game. First of all, the big resistance to Communism is the 500,000,000 people who live on the Western marches of Europe and in America, and anything we can do here is chicken feed compared with the resistance that those people can set up. Therefore it is not my policy here to-day to criticize either the United Kingdom or its diplomatic methods or the United States or its diplomatic methods. I am very grateful to those people, acting to the best of the wisdom and the knowledge that they possess, for standing as a bulwark against Communism, in which we may in a small way assist. I think to speak of them in this House in critical terms is perhaps not the wisest thing to do. The reason that Africa becomes of significance in that particular struggle is that the Russians naturally wish to make the Atlantic the dividing line in the struggle. So far the West has held them from there, but Africa can now become a weakness to the West in that it is the source of raw material and power that can be got on the continent of Africa. First it weakens the resistance of the great power of the West in that portion of which I am speaking. Secondly, the infiltration, the attack in this way, of course, is a method of out-flanking on the one hand the bastion that stands to the east of us—India—which after all is standing on the border line of Communism …

At 3.55 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 41 (3) and the debate was adjourned until 10 March.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Orders of the Day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE The MINISTER OF LANDS:

I move as an unopposed motion—

That Order of the Day No. I for to-day stand over until Order of the Day No. II has been disposed of.
Mr. FAURIE:

I second.

Agreed to.

DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH IN SOUTH AFRICA (REPEAL OF LAWS)(PRIVATE) BILL

Second Order read: Second reading,—Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa (Repeal of Laws) (Private) Bill.

*Mr. HAAK:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I want to express my appreciation to the Leader of the House for having given preference to this Private Bill. This is a private Bill which is being introduced as the result of a decision of the Synod of the N.G. Church of the Cape Province. The Bill has only one clause, which repeals four old Cape Ordinances. All four of those Cape Ordinances refer to the N.G. Church. These Ordinances, which were passed in the last century, and which this Bill now seeks to repeal in toto, emanate from the history of that time. The N.G. Church was practically a State Church; the salaries of the ministers were paid by the State; the State approved the laws of the Church, and the State had its Commissioner present at every meeting of the Church to see that things were done in an orderly fashion. That was the position during the régime of the Dutch East India Company. After the Cape was taken over by the Batavian Republic, the then Governor, De Mist, passed an Ordinance in 1804 by means of which he attempted to relax the bonds binding the Church, as a privileged State Church, to the State. He repealed many of the old limitations, but quite a number of them remained in force, and they remained in force even after the British took over the Cape. It was only much later, in the year 1843, when these bonds were again relaxed. Legislation was introduced in the old Cape Parliament in 1843 by Sir William Porter, the then Attorney-General, who was also Minister of Justice. In this legislation passed in 1843 he deprived the State of much of its control, but peculiarly enough it still retained a certain measure of control. In this legislation of 1843, inter alia the Church doctrine was laid down and, inter alia, it was determined how the Church would be constituted, namely Church councils and the Synod. In 1845, two years later, this law was amended, and this amendment provided, inter alia, that when the salary of a minister of a congregation was paid by the State, the Queen had the right to appoint the parson of that congregation. This law was sent to the Queen for her approval, but in 1851, eight years later, it was discovered for the first time that the Queen had in fact given her consent but that the necessary publicity had never been given to it, that it had not been promulgated, and that this law had therefore been invalid for all these years. In 1851 legislation was then passed to make it retrospective. We find that in 1889 there was another amendment to amend the Church doctrine and to give the Cape Church the right to expand beyond the borders of the Cape Province. Those were the four ordinances passed in the last century which are still in force, and this Private Bill now proposes to repeal those Ordinances. The reason for this repeal is that it is the desire of the five N.G. Churches in South Africa to amalgamate, but at present it is impossible to do so; these Ordinances prevent them from doing so. In view of the fact that an attempt is now being made to amalgamate, it is the desire of the Cape Church to repeal this limitation, so that the Church can be free to amalgamate with the other Churches. The repeal of these Ordinances will not in any way bring about a change in the present composition of the Church. When the Synod decided to make representations and to introduce the legislation now before us, they inter alia reaffirmed their own standpoint, and the Synod passed the following resolution—

In order to obviate any misapprehension, the Synod declares that this step (the repeal of the Ordinances) will not result in affecting the essence, the doctrine or the Presbyterian form of government of the existing Church, but that the Church retains its identity, its historical character and form of government, and that the repeal of the Ordinances will not affect the validity of the provisions and rules of the Church for its own government, as amended from time to time.

It therefore does not make any change in the existing position. On the contrary, it simply reaffirms the fact that the N.G. Church is an autonomous body corporate and as such is entitled to make laws and regulations for the control and the management of its own affairs. That is the right which all the Churches in South Africa have, the N.G. Church is therefore now being put into the same position that applies to all the other Churches.

This wish of the Churches to amalgamate is not something new. In 1911, shortly after Union, legislation was passed here to repeal the old Ordinances, but it was never promulgated because it was conditional legislation. It was made dependent on the success of the amalgamation. They did not then, however, succeed in their efforts to amalgamate and the 1911 Act therefore lapsed. The Church also took legal opinion and both opinions were to the effect that if these Ordinances were repealed there would be no change at all in the essence or nature of the Church. This Bill has been referred to a Select Committee on which both sides of the House were represented, and it was approved of without any amendment, and seeing that I understand that there will be no objection to this Bill I hope it will be passed speedily.

*Mr. DE KOCK:

The hon. member for Bellville explained the matter very thoroughly so that it is practically unnecessary to go into further details. It does, however, appear that the main reason why this legislation has been introduced is the desire on the part of the various N.G. Churches in South Africa to amalgamate. It seems to me that that is also the main reason which should influence this House. It is desired on all sides that there should be an amalgamation of what belongs together. We are even trying to amalgamate elements which could not hitherto be brought together. In these circumstances there is no objection to the Bill from this side of the House.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses, Preamble and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendments.

Bill read a third time.

FERTILITY OF ARABLE LAND

First Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on fertility of arable land, to be resumed.

[Debate on motion by Mr. Wentzel, upon which an amendment had been moved by Mr. J. A. L. Basson, adjourned on 10 February, resumed.]

Mr. BOWKER:

When the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Christiana was adjourned on 10 February, I was stressing how the Karoo was visibly extending in all directions, and that this was an indication of desert encroachment. Over a wide area karoo bushes are replacing our grasses which are essential in the building up of our soil structure and holding our top soil from being washed to the sea. Mr. Speaker, in our areas of low annual rainfall, annual grasses are a great asset and rotational grazing brings great advantage to soil cover, in the interests of the farmers, but in areas of average rainfall, permanent grass cover can only be re-established by total de-stocking for a long period. This is a matter that needs the Minister’s particular attention because the present scheme of rotational grazing cannot provide the time essential for the establishment of permanent grass cover, and permanent grass cover can counter Karoo encroachment, and permanent grass cover is essential to retain the moisture in our soils and to maintain our water table. We all know how essential our water table is and if we do not pay more attention to the maintenance of grasses in this country, we are faced with tragedy. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to direct his attention and to direct the attention of his experts to the restoration of permanent grass cover and the introduction of edible pioneer grasses. An endeavour should be made also to displace our “steekgras” which annually brings a loss of millions of rand to our nation through the deterioration of our wool clip. We all know, Mr. Speaker, that however high-class the Free State merino sheep may be, we realize that those farmers in the stick grass areas never receive anything like the price where “steekgras” intrusion does not exist, and any money spent on this particular development would be in the interest of the country. This is a matter of urgency. It has also been authoritatively stated in this debate that a quarter of the original fertility of our soils has been lost since 1914. I accept that, because that statement has the backing of experts in our Agricultural Department. It does bring home to us how serious this proposition is. I say that our civilization will be tested on the White man’s ability to feed our growing population which is estimated to reach 30,000,000 by the end of the century. The future of this country depends on the development of our agricultural resources and not so much on our mineral assets. I say, and I think everyone will agree, that the Minister of Agriculture is carrying a very great responsibility. The Minister has concentrated on the proclamation of soil conservation areas and donga control, but there is an evident lack of soil protection and scientific crop rotation. Sheet erosion and soil destruction is evident over a great part of this country, to an appalling extent. In parts of the Karoo, Mr. Speaker, bare patches actually predominate and there is evidence of wasteful methods of endeavour for reclamation. I often think, Mr. Speaker, that these patches could be covered with shale which is available, in the vicinity, from our iron-stone “koppies” and that in that way we would create a seed-bed. This shale does decompose readily, it is rich in phosphates, it would restrain wind erosion, stop our dust and create a seed-bed at an economical cost. Then our mountainsides and our head water sponges are still subject to the cutting and burning of the indigenous growth. I think it is a calamity, Mr. Speaker, how fire brings about destruction, especially here on Table Mountain, mostly brought about by the uneconomical planting of pine trees, and the removal of our indigenous growth; our indigenous growth is resistant to fire, but these pines that creep up our mountainside, I regard as the most dangerous weeds in existence in this country. Pine needles are full of turpentine and they actually encourage these fires. It would be difficult to see a fire sweep Table Mountain like the recent one did sweep Devils Peak if it were covered by natural foliage. We realize that the natural growth on our mountains used to restrain the rush of water which convey so many tons of our top-soil to the sea annually. As the hon. member for Christiana said, the late Mr. Ross stated that 300,000,000 tons of our top-soil reaches the sea annually. It is an astounding statement, but it is based on facts and we must accept it, and when such astronomical figures are mentioned, it is incumbent upon us to pay due regard to them. Most of our cultivated soils are deficient in humus and these could be restored by compost and scientific crop rotation. We hear of crop rotation, Mr. Speaker, but not scientific crop rotation. It is not practiced here. It is intensively practiced in other countries. In Kenya it is absolutely compulsory that a crop, a legume and a grass has to figure in the system of crop rotation. In this country there is no compulsion. Our soil is a national asset and I have no doubt that if stress is brought to bear on the farmers, they would co-operate with the Government. The Government should initiate a drive for the manufacture of compost. It could be made an evil to destroy waste. The Minister could initiate a campaign for the production of compost and towns could be induced to put all their waste into compost and sell it to the farmers. This is done in many cities of the world. There are many cities in the world which are not threatened with the dangers we are faced with in this country, whose agricultural assets are rich; yet still these cities find it remunerative to produce compost from their waste and sell it to the farmers. The recipe as to how this is done can be readily obtained. I think I recently saw a statement in this regard in “Organized Agriculture ”. I also think that the Minister should initiate more intensive research into combating soil acidity and into trace element deficiency. Trace element deficiency is reflected in much of our stock in this country, in the growth, in the condition, in their lack of resistance to internal parasites and also in our heavy stock mortality. I have not the comparative figures, but I imagine that South Africa must lead the world in averaged annual stock mortality. That is nothing to be proud of, but I have no doubt that if research were made, we would find that we lead the world by a material figure as far as average annual stock mortality is concerned. It is a disgrace! It can be countered by better feeding, by better pastures, by the introduction of trace elements into the water, and no doubt these trace elements would pass through animal droppings onto our pasturage and in that way we would enrich our pasturage and build up our agricultural assets in this country. We have to do something of a radical nature, because ours is a poor agricultural country. We have a low rainfall but as our country is a succession of plateaus from where the rush of the water to the sea is rapid, we have enormous erosion, we have evidence of this in the rapidity with which our dams are silting up. There is no disputing the fact that man in South Africa has been most destructive. In the early days we had the “trekboer” who moved from the dry areas to where it was raining, following the lightning in the sky in search of grazing and water. In that way drought-stricken areas were not trampled and overstocked as they are to-day. Mr. Speaker, when you have a drought like the one in South West, extending over three years, three or four head of a stock on a farm is over-stocking. In times of drought one should remove all stock. As I have said if in our average rainfall areas we want to re-establish the grasses, which is so essential, we must also de-stock over a long period. The farmers cannot afford to do it, but if experts investigate and report on the matter, the Government would have to find a way to restore the soil. I think the hon. Minister should initiate a battle to save our soil and that that should be the responsibility of all South African citizens. We talk about volunteering to fight for our land and to fight for our way of life and to fight for our principles, and we shudder when we talk about Communism, but we should shudder more when we realize that we are losing our national asset, our soil in this country. Within half a century the assurance of our food supplies may be critical. Even if we conserved all our waters in this country, we have not a run-off to produce the quantity of food required for, say 100,000,000 people, and that is a figure which will be attained by our population within the next couple of hundred years, and a couple of hundred years very soon passes. Although we are a young nation, we are well over 300 years old. I would appeal to the Minister to make greater endeavours to induce students at our agricultural colleges to become extension officers. We realize that the Minister has an enormous shortage of extension officers in this country. He has not an extension officer for each proclaimed conservation area, nor has he the sufficient staff for these offices. They are all overwarked. They are putting up a magnificent effort and all my praise goes out to them and to the members of the Department of Agriculture who are doing all they possibly can. They realize how serious this problem is. I even say that the Minister should go further. If he cannot obtain the men volunteers, let him make an appeal to women. I have no doubt that women would come to our assistance. Women are the mothers of our nation and in all national emergencies and at any time of stress or strain, our women have taken a leading part. I do not think that we should say that we cannot provide the staff for our soil conservation schemes, unless we appeal to womento volunteer to assist us in this work. I have no doubt that we would have a gratifying response. I do not want to speak longer. I realize that it is Friday afternoon, and I imagine that many members consider that I have taken up too much of their time.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

Soil fertility has always been a matter of prime consideration to me, but before I proceed I just want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that I am grateful that there is one member opposite who has shown that he has at least seen something in the soil. He has at least seen that there are difficulties which must be corrected and those are the difficulties which this motion proposes to solve. I wish to tell the hon. member that I want to agree with him because he has shown a love for South Africa.

When I listened to the very capable and well prepared speech of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) when he introduced this motion I thought that it would not be necessary to talk any further on the motion. I expected the reaction of hon. members opposite to have been more or less the reaction which we got from the previous speaker. But it was not long before I emerged totally deceived. It did not take very long to observe that the motion was not being viewed by hon. members opposite as it was intended to be. I must explain why I say this. The second speaker on the motion had hardly begun and he just wanted to explain that he wished to express the thanks of the farmers in his constituency for the assistance they have received from the hon. the Minister when, as from one mouth, there came a chorus from the opposite side: “Thank you, Mr. Minister a belittling remark which was certainly not suited to this motion. When the hon. member continued to express the thanks of his constituents some of the hon. members opposite threw back their heads and made audacious and disparaging remarks as a result of the thanks expressed to the hon. the Minister. That was clear proof to me that no matter what came before this hon. House, it was wrong in the eyes of hon. members opposite just because it came from this side of the House. It is regrettable to think that a motion like this, on the fertility of our soil, which is the soil of everyone of us, should be dealt with in this fashion. I so often hear that hon. members opposite are also Afrikaners, South Africans.

*The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Scholtz):

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but with your permission I would like to mention the weapons used to fight the motion.

*The ACTING SPEAKER:

The hon. member must not deviate too far from the contents of the motion.

*Mr. BOOTHA:

I am sorry that I am being restricted like this but I wish to bow to your ruling. The criticism which came from the opposite side was the sort of criticism which proved to us that every bit of it was intended to strike at this side of the House and at the motion. It is very clear that all of us cannot understand or speak the language of the soil. The previous speaker understood the language of the soil but it is impossible for all to understand it. But it is at least the duty of hon. members of this House to convey the language of the soil to their constituents and to the consumers. It is clear that a large section of the inhabitants of our country, the consumers, cannot see what we see, namely the deterioration of the fertility of our soil. We cannot blame them, because by reason of the work they do they have not been trained to understand the question of soil fertility as we do, but it is the duty of hon. members of all sides of this House to convince their constituents of the necessity for the conservation of the fertility of our soil. It is a national matter and should not be made a political issue. All the efforts of the people should be inspanned to conserve that fertility. Let us all realize that there will be nothing if the fertility of South Africa is gone. We can replace all industries, all sources of revenue and all the worked-out mines by other undertakings which will also be remunerative. We have a substitute for nearly everything we can think of. But we have no substitute for the fertility of our soil. There is no substitute which we can employ in order to restore the fertility of our soil so that we will be in a position to feed our country. Every day we talk about having to get immigrants to increase our population and that we should expand our industries. We agree with that and believe in it but we neglect the main thing that will enable us to maintain it. And when we raise such an important matter here then it is not always received as such. One can travel through the agricultural areas of the country and the cry coming from the impoverished and exhausted soil is no longer a cry for help. It is a shout, it is a loud shout containing a warning. It is a loud shout containing a threat. The exhausted soil is shouting for us to do something about it. And while we sit for days on other matters in this House we forget that the greatest of all matters in our country is the conservation of the fertility of our soil. If you ride through the agricultural parts you can close the doors and windows of your car but the starved mealie plant will still shout at you. The only way to stop it is to open one’s eyes. But if the farmer or the agriculturalist with his love for the soil will not shut his eyes then he will hear that voice because the voice will penetrate through his eyes to his ears, through any window and any door. We cannot overlook that stunted plant. I want to explain what I mean by this. A stunted plant or a stunted animal is an animal which, through lack of proper nourishment, grows in such a manner that it develops a larger stomach than is necessary in order that it may absorb more of the less nourishing foods to maintain itself. In order not always to have to give an explanation of how it comes about we call it a stunted calf, a stunted lamb, or kid, or plant in the agricultural language. That stunted plant, Mr. Speaker, is shouting at us. It is shouting at us that it will no longer be able to feed our country if we who sit here do not make some effort to restore the fertility in the soil which must feed it. If you ride over the plains, and that is not very far away, you will find those grey whirlwinds. They are shouting loudest of all. Those grey whirlwinds can no longer gather grass or leaves or vegetation, they cannot even gather dust any more. The ground has been trampled so hard and bare that the whirlwind cannot gather anything and it only makes a grey cloud of dust with the little it can gather. That little whirlwind is shouting at us: Conserve the fertility of the soil. When we do come upon these dust storms which blow away our fertile soil then we press the accelerator right down because it is a painful sight and we want to get away from it. It would appear as if tons and tons of that fertile soil which one loves so were being blown away. It would appear as if one was powerless to do anything. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to waste much time on this. I think the case has been put very strongly. I just want to say that I cannot shout loud enough, like that little plant in the improverised soil is shouting at me. If it was possible for me then I would also like to shout out that warning and at each crossroad, at each farmers’ store, at each co-operative shop I would like to put up a notice: Conserve the fertility of your soil. But because the plant cannot shout loud enough and because no one will hear me if I shout, and because there are also so many who will not understand when we shout, I will just have to talk softly to this House. I want to tell the House: Leaders of the people, listen: South Africa is shouting “preserve the fertility of your soil ”.

Capt. HENWOOD:

It is all very well for the hon. member who moved the original motion to thank the hon. Minister, because that is what it amounts to, for raising the fertility of the soil in South Africa. But what is the true position? The position is that owing to heavy mechanization of our agricultural and arable areas, and the heavy fertilization that is used, our people are now producing grain crops for export. But is that really raising the fertility of the soil? It is most important that we should look at the return per acre for the crops which we do produce in the Union. Our most efficient farmers are those who conduct mixed farming operations and who use the cattle to make sure that the fertility of their soil is built up by using kraal manure and humus. Then the general productivity of that soil is raised by the fact that the humus remains in the soil and the bacteria that work in that soil to make chemicals available to the plant life, are increased. This not only maintains but very efficiently protects the soil and improves its fertility.

Mr. Speaker, when one thinks of the amount of soil that is being washed to the sea every year in this country, it presents a frightening picture. There can be no question that all of our technical experts and specialists have told us time and time again that the dust bowl that is being created in the western Free State and the Western Transvaal is steadily creeping into our productive areas. But the fact is that we are still washing out our soil, even where we have irrigation, through the overuse of water. We use too much water in proportion to what is put back in the way of humus and kraal manure, and that is where we see the wasting assets of the soil. You can maintain your production at a fairly high level by fertilizing heavily and by using mechanization, but in the end that amounts to mining our soil and is not actually raising the fertility of the land. I am prepared to admit that you are getting higher crops, that the grain crops in the Union over the past few years have been becoming higher and higher. We have created records in terms of what has been produced of the same amount of land. But the question is, is the fertility still there? We see that as soon as we are beset by drought we have the wilting of our grazing, of our pastures, and because of the fact that moisture is in short supply the same crop is not gathered as in previous times, and you have lesser crops than if the soil contained a fair amount of moisture through the use of humus. Farmers can stand up to drought far better if the soil does contain a lot of humus.

I think that one of the reasons why these serious droughts that we have experienced over the last few years are having such devasting effect on the carrying capacity of the land and in terms of livestock losses can be said to be due mainly to the lack of fertility of the soil. In other words, our fertility is actually receding and not being built up. I think that the hon. the Minister and his technical advisers should undertake more extensive research into this particular aspect. But the matter does not end there. They have to go further. They have to convince many farmers in this country that the production of crops for sale, such as grain, especially where it is to be exported, is not a good thing for the land. Wherever you see good animal husbandry being carried out by livestock farmers you will nearly always find that those farms are improving year by year, but unfortunately we do not to-day have sufficient animals on our arable land to build up the humus content of the soil. As I said a little while ago, if your soil has sufficient humus deposits in it that soil is better able to conserve moisture. If instead of ploughing so much land we were to plough less and to carry livestock on the balance of the land and went in for proper crop rotation, it would be a great improvement in our farming methods.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that farmers in this country are not going in for proper crop rotation in relation to the bulk of their arable land, and I think that that is a great mistake. As a result of that we are losing the fertility of our land instead of building it up. Let me refer to what the sugar farmer has done. Last night under the Seed Foundation Bill the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) told this House what has been done over the last 20 years by private enterprise through their experimental station and through bringing into being new seeds for sugar cane. He told us how that has raised not only the quantity of the crop per acre but of the huge tonnages now taken off the same land which previously produced very much lower tonnages. That is not only because of the new strains introduced but because they are ploughing back into the land humus, which increases the fertility.

I would earnestly request the hon. the Minister to put his experts and technical advisers on to the task of convincing farmers in other arable areas that it is most important to watch this particular factor of our farming practice. As I have said, over the last few years all our crop records have been broken in terms of quantities that we have produced, particularly of maize. But what do we do? We send that out of the country. Other people are really reaping the benefit of our mining that soil. With wind erosion, particularly in the maize triangle, you see our arable land being spoilt. Then in the summer rainfall areas you see the tremendous amount of soil that is being washed into the sea year after year. It is high time that the hon. the Minister really convinced those people that they have to protect that soil and to put something back into it, the things that nature requires to enable the soil to build up its fertility.

*Mr. SCHOONBEE:

Mr. Speaker, an amendment has been moved to this motion by the official Opposition expressing concern as if the fertility of our soil had been completely ruined. In fact, the last speaker also referred to it. But, Mr. Speaker, I think we should also let another note be heard in this debate. The previous speaker even admitted that during recent years all records in agriculture had been broken because of the larger crops harvested. Mr. Speaker, would that be possible if our soil was as ruined as was alleged? I remember that as a young man in 1924-5 I travelled from the Transvaal to the Cape by motor car and the Rand Daily Mail of that time said—I recall the words—

An all-time record of mealies will be produced in the mealie triangle this season.

I think it was an abnormally favourable year and the crop was the largest of all time, namely between 24,000,000 and 25,000,000 bags. If anyone wants to take the trouble of turning up the records they will find that it was so. This year the estimate is 50,000,000 bags. If our soil is as ruined as is being alleged here then that would not be possible. We are busy virtually reaching a climax. Do hon. members know that we produced 85 bags of mealies per morgen in the Transvaal last year? One cannot do that on poor soil. It was produced on soil which had been used for years. We must also admit that we have learnt the “know how”, as the Americans say, or that we have improved the fertility of our soil to such an extent that this is possible now. I look forward to us eventually having the “know how” to improve the fertility of our soil. I do not for one moment want to suggest that the Department’s efforts to give assistance should be stopped. On the contrary, I would be the first to express appreciation for the tremendous progress we have made. I think, for example, of the cultivation in recent years of the Ermelo-type of grazing and of the tremendous improvement it has brought about in our herds. The original idea that it would improve the soil was later proved to be baseless. That grass does not improve the soil but it is indeed valuable for grazing. What does in fact happen is that the farmer is virtually compelled to introduce the animal factor into his farming.

In view of the increase in the population of our country during recent years the expectation is that the South African population will be doubled by the year 2000. In other words, we will have approximately 30,000,000 people to feed. Reluctantly the question arises: Will the agricultural community of South Africa be able to feed that 30,000,000 people or will food have to be imported? Let me say at once that we have been extremely unfortunate in the importation of foodstuffs. Every time we tried it in the past—I do not want to refer to the experiment of the hon. members opposite with the importation of mealies from the Argentine—it was fatal for South Africa. In view of these facts it is the duty of the Department and of the hon. the Minister to prepare South Africa as far as possible now so that it will in fact be possible for the farming community to feed the country. About the year 2000, when the population will be approximately 30,000,000, our agriculture must be in a position to feed those people. The question is whether we will be able to do it. I have already spoken about the “know how ”. What has happened that farmers who at first got 10, 20 and 30 bags of mealies per morgen can now rise as high as 85 bags per morgen? How is it possible for this to have come about? In the first instance I want to thank our Department and also our fertilizer factories, factories which produce fertilizers but which are also continually busy doing experiments. How is it possible that where we at first had 15,000 mealie plants per morgen we now have 40,000 on the same area; and how can we feed that soil to the extent where 50 bags of mealies per morgen is no longer a rarity? I say that if we can improve the “know how” then it is obvious that the South African farmer will be able to answer the call coming to him from the country.

Allow me to point out that if the price of wheat in South Africa could be increased I venture to predict this afternoon that within a few years we will no longer be importing wheat from Canada or Southern Australia. The wheat farmer has shown that with the increased price now in existence he has come very close to providing all South Africa’s needs. A further increase will automatically bring it about that the farmer himself will find a way of doing it. This is not only true in respect of wheat and mealies. There is in fact hardly any product of which there is not a surplus. That is one of our main problems —surpluses which must be sold at a loss on the oversea market. That is so. That makes our agricultural industry a difficult one. We are suffering from precisely the opposite of what is being aimed at in the amendment of the Opposition. We are suffering from too great soil fertility and too high production. That is the truth. It may sound funny to say such a thing but is it not a fact? Have we not got too much cheese, butter, milk, too much of everything except an item like wheat? We have too much meat. The meat farmers are saddled with it and do not know what to do with it. Mr. Speaker, let us be reasonable. It is the task of the Department, and I as agriculturalist who lives with my nose to the soil and as one who wants to make a living out of the soil want to bring the highest praise where it is due. Where the hon. the Minister has already put his heart and soul into the matter I think I can tell him that the South African farmer appreciates very much what he and his Department are doing in this direction. When I say this I am by no means saying too much. We owe a lot to the Department for teaching us to do things we did not know before, for teaching us to combat diseases among our cattle, diseases from which our stock died in the past; for teaching us to prevent our horses from dying of horse sickness, to prevent our sheep from dying from the many diseases we know, and the same with our oxen. We have great appreciation for the Department which makes all this possible for us. There is appreciation from our people for this having been made possible. In the past, when I was younger, it was nearly impossible to keep a horse alive in the Transvaal during the summer months. To-day there are thousands of horses on the plains of the Transvaal. We have the incidence of blue tongue among our sheep; and the incidence of bloody kidney disease. To-day there are thousands of sheep where no sheep could be maintained before. Gallsickness, red water and heart water were all dreaded diseases but that is no longer to to-day. Heart water was an incurable disease until a few years ago. To-day it is curable. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, let there be a ray of light in this motion. While we want to retain the fertility of our soil and would like to increase it we should not forget that we have in fact progressed far in that direction and have achieved much to the credit of the farmers of South Africa and also to the credit of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. WARREN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) posed the question to this House, was it not a question of too much butter, too much milk, too much maize etc. Well, I think there is only one reply to that, and that is not enough people in South Africa are able to absorb the commodities that represent surpluses in South Africa to-day. The sooner that is brought about the better it will be for South Africa. I think it is one of the greatest essentials in this country that we try to absorb the commodities we are producing on the land rather than subsidize them in order to feed people in other countries.

The motion before the House is one thanking the Government for what it has done to bring about greater soil conservation and to raise soil fertility, and it asks for more research and technical services. I belong to the group of people who support the amendment to that motion, in that I think the fertility of South Africa, while it may have been raised a little, has not been raised sufficiently rapidly. It is the method of approach to the whole subject that is wrong. What the hon. member has said is perfectly correct, that we have more than doubled our production of maize, but is consideration given to the fact that in 1925 the amount of land and the nature of its cultivation in comparison with 1960-61 was very different. We were expecting 50,000,000 bags of mealies, of which at least 20,000,00025,000,000 have to be exported overseas subsidized by South Africa. It is mining the soil, and personally I feel deeply concerned, as is clear from the amendment, at the slowness with which we are trying to restore the fertility of our land. But when I say that I am not trying to cast a slur upon the technical services which we have, and the services being provided by soil conservation. They are doing their best, but are they getting the greatest amount of response from the people for whom they are working? In South Africa we have mined our land for far too long, and let me say that fertilizers, as we are using them, are no remedy for the position. There are parts of this country that are growing almost every one of our cereals, plus maize, on fertilizer. But it is not the raised fertility of the land that is doing it. We must settle down to the fact that we have to put back into that land some organic matter that is going to raise its fertility, and we must employ methods that will bring about still greater fertility, by rotating our crops. The establishment of nitrogent producing crops on land that has been completely worked out is the remedy.

May I suggest to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) that that is the know-how which the Americans employ, the raising of the fertility by raising the organic properties of our soil. In addition, a system of rotation is employed in those countries to which he referred as having the know-how. If we follow their example I think we would know-how in this country as well, and we would make a very great contribution towards bringing about greater soil fertility in South Africa. We have a growing nation to feed. That nation’s attitude to everything in this country is being raised. We are raising their standards of living as a contribution towards putting those people in a position to be able to absorb our surplus products. There will be an increasing demand made on agriculture, and are we in a position to meet it? What contribution are we making as far as waste is concerned in this country? There must be some hundreds of thousands of tons of effluent passing from the towns, which might readily be absorbed to raise the fertility of our lands, but no, it is discharged into the sea. Can we not institute research into the recovery of that particular organic matter in the interest of the fertility of our soil? There are many other methods that we might employ. It is not my intention to weary the House, but I can assure you, Sir, that the fertility of our land is a primary factor and unless we tackle it with a will and with the know-how, our position will be desperate in the course of time.

*Mr. J. A. VAN DER MERWE:

There is one incontrovertible fact, viz. that in large areas of our country the fertility of our arable soil as well as our grazing is deteriorating. I do not want to go into the causes of it which have already been discussed widely, but I merely state the fact. I also want to point out that reference has been made here to surpluses. In my opinion, these surpluses are merely temporary. South Africa’s great problem, and in the very near future, in the agricultural sphere will be to feed its own population. We are faced with that problem. As our population, White as well as Black, attain higher living standards, so its demands for food will increase, and we will have a new eating pattern in South Africa, and the great danger in future, with the natural increase in the population and the higher standards of living, is that there will not be enough food, and the farmer will be faced with the problem of producing food for the people. Therefore, although we may have surpluses, they are only temporary and we must look further ahead. In order to enable us to provide the necessary food for the people in future, it is absolutely necessary to increase the fertility of our soil, because on that will depend whether the population will have enough food, and the task will rest on the farmer to provide the food. This is an interesting motion and it has been discussed thoroughly. I just want to say a few words about two additional causes for the deterioration in the fertility of our arable soil and our grazing.

The first basic reason is the lack of sufficient training for our young farmers. I want to put it this way, that there is no community or group of people in South Africa who are worse off in regard to their training than the farmers, except perhaps politicians and Members of Parliament. But we cannot afford to fail because of lack of training for the farmer. Let us analyse the position. Although we have facilities in the country for training farmers, thanks to the steps taken by the Government since 1948 to alleviate that position to a large extent, my proposition is that we cannot train all the young farmers who enter the profession every year, because we do not have sufficient facilities. I said a moment ago that there was no community which receives less training than the farmers, and I want to prove it. If we take any other calling or profession in South Africa, the inexorable requirement is that the person who wants to practice that profession must be trained thoroughly. Just take a bricklayer. We realize to-day that we cannot take a young boy and give him a trowel and a set square and some bricks and mortar and call him a bricklayer. We require that he should receive a thorough training for at least six years and then he must also receive two years of apprenticeship training before he can become a professional bricklayer. The same applies to a carpenter and to all the other professions. But what is the position in regard to our young farmers? There are facilities, for which we are grateful, but they are insufficient. About two years ago I read in the report of the Secretary for Agriculture that every year approximately 3,000 young farmers leave school to go and farm. How many of them have been trained to cope with the modern requirements of agriculture? This same report tells us only 10 per cent of them —300 out of the 3,000—are equipped with the necessary training to practice this calling. Then we are surprised when our soil fertility deteriorates and because in many cases the farmer is a failure. But we need not be surprised at this position, because I want to state that there is no calling in this country, whether professional or technical, which requires so much knowledge as that of the farmer. We are no longer living in the time when a man became a farmer because he was not good enough to do anything else. To-day the farmer must be equipped with the necessary scientific training and technical knowledge if he wants to be successful. In these modern times there are quite a number of sciences which apply to agriculture. I do not want to go into it, but the farmer has to be a bacteriologist if he wants to know everything about the fertility of the soil. In regard to cattle raising, he must know something about heredity and he must know something about cattle diseases and their causes and how to combat them. There is hardly any science which is not applicable to agriculture. What is more, he must be an economist and an accountant and a bookkeeper and even a meteorologist, and he must be equipped in every way if he wants to be a successful farmer. Therefore I say that there is no other class of people to whom it is more essential that they should receive proper training. I am not one of those who think that training alone counts. One must also have practical experience, and therefore the training given should be scientifically practical. I must admit that there are other facilities also. The 10 per cent I refer to are only the students at the agricultural colleges. Then we still have the agricultural high schools in the various provinces, which will raise the percentage a little. But here again there is a lack of coordination and we are faced with the evil of differentiation in regard to the agricultural training of our youth, and that ought to be remedied. I have not the time at my disposal to discuss how this problem should be solved, but I feel that the whole of our educational policy, also in respect of agricultural training, should be better co-ordinated and made more uniform. Then we also have the agricultural faculties at the universities, which specially train a certain percentage of people to take agricultural degrees, but they do not play any great role in our farming population, because the majority of them are employed either by the Department or by private initiative. My plea is that the Minister and the Government should begin thinking along broad lines in respect of the training facilities for our farmers, because agriculture to-day is such a complicated and scientific subject that the farmer must be fully equipped in order to keep his head above water. We dare not allow South Africa to have a farming community which merely struggles to make a living and then expect them to feed the people of the country now and in the future and to preserve the fertility of our soil. We cannot afford such a large percentage of them going under every year because they are not equipped with the necessary technical knowledge.

I just want to draw attention to the fact that we have our extension services which try to give adult education to the farmer. They do excellent work, but is that the right way? Would it not be better first to train the farmer for his calling and then use the extension service so that the farmer would know what the extension officer was talking about when he came to his farm; then he could interpret the information given to him, but to-day he cannot do so. That will also result in our farmers not only becoming professional farmers, but also farmers who are conscious of a vocation, who will not love the soil and agriculture only for what they can get out of it, but who will feel a vocation which will give them the strength to surmount all difficulties.

I just briefly want to mention a second reason for the deterioration in our soil fertility, viz. the high price of land. The gap between the actual market value of the land and its actual economic value is too large. We are told that when the average farmer wants to equip himself to start farming operations to-day and he has to buy land and all the other necessary things, it costs him from £15,000 to £20,000 or more. He needs a tremendous capital sum in order to farm successfully, and the greatest proportion of it goes towards the purchase price of the land. I say that, taking the prices of agricultural products into consideration, the market value of land is out of proportion to its economic production value. Unless there is a different price policy, or unless we can do something to bring the market value of the land closer to its economic value, I fear that our farmers will be faced with serious problems. I am therefore pleading for means to be adopted to make that gap narrower, because even if we give the farmers all the training and assistance possible we will always find farmers in this country who will fail. We must close the gap between those two things.

*Mr. H. G. SWART:

Mr. Speaker, one must appreciate the emotional fervour revealed by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. J. A. van der Merwe) in regard to matters on which he has strong feelings. I do not want to be as emotionally fervent as he was, but I gained the impression that the hon. member has put his finger on the pulse of the actual troubles of the farmer. The hon. member referred to land values, something which is very important, and to the gap between the market value of arable land and grazing and the actual economic value of that land. There are many reasons for it. The hon. member did not go into the reasons, but there are various reasons as to why there is this gap. I do not think this gap can always be prevented, but one of the most important reasons is something one also sees reflected in the world economy, viz. that in times of prosperity one finds that the prices of agricultural products rise more slowly than the prices of all other products. We then find that whereas any other products, commercial products and also the price of land, show a normal increase in time of prosperity, the increase in the price of agricultural products lags behind, and then one has this gap. The converse is also true. When there is a recession in the economy we find that the price of agricultural products falls fastest, and the price of industrial products and land prices show the least fall. That is one of the basic reasons why one always finds this gap between the market value of land and its actual economic value. There are other reasons also.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member should not go too far.

*Mr. H. G. SWART:

I do not want to discuss the other reasons, such as the devaluation in the value of the currency, but I am glad that the hon. member for Kroonstad mentioned it this afternoon because that is one of the difficulties a farmer has.

He mentioned another very important matter, the training of the farmer. He drew the parallel that in any other profession, except perhaps in commercial life, a man is first trained thoroughly before he is allowed to practice his profession. I do not want to overemphasize this aspect to the same extent that the hon. member did. In my time I have seen some of the best trained farmers, who received their training at agricultural colleges and universities, going insolvent, and I have seen farmers who received no training and who had not even passed Std. 3, becoming rich. Therefore I do not want to over-emphasize it. But I do want to say that as a general statement what was said by the hon. member for Kroonstad is the truth, namely that with the specialization in agriculture and with agricultural units becoming increasingly smaller, it will become essential for the farmer to have more technical knowledge in order to be successful. To that extent the hon. member is right.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) advanced a very strange argument. He came to the conclusion that the motion as well as the amendment had been drafted wrongly; and that the motion should rather have read that the House felt concern at the fact that the agricultural soil of South Africa was too fertile instead of not being fertile enough. He employed a very peculiar kind of logic in order to prove this statement.

*Mr. SPEAKER:

I do not think the hon. member should reply to that.

*Mr. H. G. SWART:

But, with respect, he spoke about soil fertility, but he said that the proof of the fact that our soil was too fertile is that 25 or 30 years ago one found big headlines in the Daily Mail if we expected a record crop of 25,000,000 bags of mealies and this year the estimated crop is 50,000,000 bags. I do not want to go into the matter, but I think the hon. member’s argument is founded on a false premise. In the first place the area planted to maize is much larger than it was in 1924. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Key ter) will support me there. In the second place, during the. last few years in regard to soil fertility and particularly the cultivation of the soil we have seen a different phenomenon in South Africa which causes me concern, viz. that instead of trying to increase the fertility of the soil we are busy on a large scale putting those elements which are lacking in the soil into the soil artificially for just one year. I want to tell you, Sir, that by means of this method of adding large quantities of fertilizer, particularly in so far as maize is concerned, one can practically produce maize in a sandy desert if only one has water. But I want to warn the farmers that I am concerned about this method of adding large quantities of fertilizer to grow crops. I will not follow suit.

*An HON. MEMBER:

It is dangerous.

*Mr. H. G. SWART:

In my opinion, it is more dangerous than planting wheat in the North-eastern Free State, where wheat should never have been sown, because if one has a dry year, and as a result of the tremendous cost connected to the fertilizer used, the costs with cultivating the land and the cost of applying top dressings once or twice afterwards, the farmers of South Africa, and particularly the maize farmers, will have to pay the price if there is a small set-back. In the second place, it requires so much technical knowledge that only the very efficient farmer should do this sort of thing. Therefore I think that the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria (District) is based on a completely wrong premise. But seeing that we are now discussing the fertility of the soil and the deterioration of our soil fertility, in terms both of the motion and of the amendment—we do not differ on the point—I think that in the first place the State should realize its responsibility towards South Africa. Sir, when I cast my mind back 30 or 40 years ago when I was a small boy and I think of the Free State and the Transvaal Highveld and the Western Free State and the Western Transvaal, and when I remember the splendid pastures we had there, I ask myself: Why were they ploughed under? The State should in the first place bear the responsibility for that, because in the 1920’s the State evolved the idea of building up an export market for grain and the farmers of South Africa, particularly those in the maize triangle, were encouraged to increase their production. That was the slogan of Ministers of responsible politicians and of technical officials at meeting after meeting: Produce, produce, produce. And the farmers of South Africa did so. They ploughed those beautiful pastures. Accompanying it was a subdivision of the land, and hand in hand with that we had pirate farming, over-cultivation of the soil, etc., until we reached the stage when that soil could not produce any more. I am convinced that the one great defect in the agricultural set-up, as supported by the State, is that the Soil Conservation Act was passed 26 years too late. That is one of the most important reasons. In 1924 South Africa started with the large-scale growing of grain for commercial purposes, and if at that time the soil Conservation Act had been passed so that the soil conservation could have been applied simultaneously with the large-scale production of grain, we would perhaps not have been faced with the problem with which we are faced to-day. But we only started with the Soil Conservation Act in 1946-7; we woke up 26 years too late, and now we are faced with the position that we have to catch up with a backlog of 26 years. At this stage I would like to move—

That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. EATON:

I second.

Agreed to, debate adjourned until 24 March.

The House adjourned at 5.35 p.m.

MONDAY, 6 MARCH 1961

Mr. SPEAKER took the Chair at 2.20 p.m.

EXTENSION OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL The MINISTER OF BANTU EDUCATION:

I move as an unopposed motion—

That Order of the Day No. XVI for today—Second Reading,—Extension of University Education Amendment Bill [A.B. 33— ’61]—be discharged and the Bill withdrawn.
Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

I second.

Agreed to.

UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE (1959-60) BILL

First Order read: Third reading,—Unauthorized Expenditure (1959-60) Bill.

Bill read a third time.

GENERAL LOANS BILL

Second Order read: Second reading,—General Loans Bill.

Bill read a second time.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

I move as an unopposed motion—

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 169, the Bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4 and 17 only and that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair.
Mr. J. E. POTGIETER:

I second.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

The CHAIRMAN:

The Bill has been committed in respect of Clauses 4 and 17 only.

Clauses 4 and 17 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments made by the Select Committee in Clauses 4 and 17.

Amendments in Clauses 4 (Afrikaans) and 17 (Afrikaans), put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURE BILL

Third Order read: Second reading,—Railways and Harbours Unauthorized Expenditure Bill.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr. DURRANT:

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton).

Mr. EATON:

On a point of order, will the Minister give his comments at this stage?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

I promised the hon. member to give him the information as to what actually happened. This item was financed from the Unforeseen Works Vote. At the time the sanction was issued, that Vote was not overdrawn. The debit for this particular work only came in towards the end of March, and at that time the Unforeseen Works Vote had been overdrawn and consequently it had to be treated as unauthorized expenditure. That is why it should not be placed on the Additional Estimates.

Mr. DURRANT:

On a point of order, I put this question to the Minister.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The hon. member can put it in the third reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

Mr. EATON:

The money we are being asked to vote now in this clause is in respect of unauthorized expenditure for the period ending 31 March 1960. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what has developed in respect of the alterations to the Blue Train coaches. We are now in this rather ridiculous position, that we are voting an amount of money, £25,000, in respect of which this House has already voted an amount of £4,000 by way of additional expenditure. I want to ask the Minister whether we cannot have an improvement in the way in which the estimates are prepared. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates the position which has developed now. The Additional Estimates have gone through this House, and yet we are now voting the principal sum, Sir, in respect of the alterations to the 19 Blue Train coaches. We are being asked to vote the principal sum in respect of Additional Estimates which have already passed the House. I say to the Minister that although we cannot object to the additional amount being voted here, it does appear to us that the procedure followed, i.e. the debiting of this amount of expenditure to the Unforeseen Works Vote, has led to an anomalous position mainly due to the fact that when this amount was credited to the fund there was not sufficient money in that Vote to cover this amount of £25,000. I would ask the Minister whether it is not possible to obviate this sort of thing by coming forward with items of this sort in the Additional Estimates. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the work was sanctioned in May 1959. The Additional Estimates were introduced in the House on 15 February 1960. It appears that there was ample opportunity for this money to have been voted, because by February 1960, a considerable portion of the £25,000 had already been spent, and the fact that it was credited to the Unforeseen Works Vote and not made a separate item in the Additional Estimates appears to be the reason for the difficulty we are now experiencing. I would ask the Minister to go into this question and find out whether it is not possible for a very close scrutiny to be kept on the Unforeseen Works Vote to make sure that items are not debited to it when the funds have already been exhausted. I might mention that on this occasion the provision of £200,000 in the original Estimates was exceeded by an amount of £99,000. That is what caused the difficulties we are faced with now.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

The hon. member is of course aware that all works financed out of the Unforeseen Works Vote are usually listed in the Brown Book, and consequently Parliament is fully aware of what items of expenditure are involved. If the hon. member looks at the Brown Book for next year which has just been tabled he will see a long list of works to be financed out of the Unforeseen Works Vote in the current year.

Mr. RUSSEL:

Was this item listed in the Brown Book?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes, it is in the Brown Book for 31 March 1961, at page 101, Item 170. In other words, Parliament was aware of this expenditure and on what the money was spent. At the time this sanction was issued there was a considerable credit balance in the Unforeseen Works Vote, and there was no indication at that time that this Vote would be overdrawn. It was only when this debit came to hand during March that it was found that the Unforeseen Works Vote was overdrawn, and that is why it was listed as Unauthorized Expenditure, but that does not happen very frequently. When it does happen, usually a Governor-General’s special warrant is obtained. I think in the current year the Unforeseen Works Vote was also overdrawn and a special Governor-General’s warrant was obtained to cover it, but in this particular case it was not done. This is an exception.

Mr. EATON:

The Minister has indicated that this item was covered by way of reference in the Brown Book, but that is not so. The Brown Book which the Minister refers to now is the later one. This expenditure, according to my information, was not recorded in the Brown Book for that particular year. The information came too late for the Department to include it in the Brown Book and therefore Parliament had no knowledge of it at all.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Here is the Brown Book. Look at it. This is the Brown Book for the year ending March, 1961.

Mr. EATON:

But we are dealing with the year 1959-60.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

This is the Brown Book tabled last session and all the items are listed in it.

Mr. EATON:

But we are dealing with unauthorized expenditure in respect of the year 1959-60, which is the year before the year in respect of which that Brown Book has been issued. There is no question about it that the first information Parliament got in respect of this amount was when it was reported in the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report. As I pointed out, we have already passed the Additional Estimates, but we have not yet approved of the Main Account. That is the aspect which should be gone into and considered very carefully because it is most misleading. Full effect has not been given to the financial control which Parliament is expected to exercise. I mention it because I do not know how many other items there are included in this unauthorized expenditure which do not appear in the Brown Book in respect of the year in which the expenditure took place. There are many items covered by the unauthorized expenditure, but it is only because I took particular note of this item of £25,000 that I am in a position to say that this item was not included in the Brown Book for that particular year.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

GROUP AREAS AMENDMENT BILL

Fourth Order read: House to go into Committee on Group Areas Amendment Bill.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain the position in Clause 1 (3) (b), where it says that a statutory body means a local authority, including the Council in any Municipality in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. Why does it specifically include the council of any municipality in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope? Would the council otherwise not be a local authority?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

May I just explain that in the Cape Province the local authority consists of the Council and the voters. Now it is just being made clear that it consists of the Council and the voters.

Mr. MILLER:

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain whether his purpose in amending the definition of “owner” is in order to bring it into line with the common law, because the old definition defines “owner” as follows: “‘Owner’ means in relation to immovable property … the person in whose name that property is registered ”. Now in the amending section it says that “owner” includes in the case of immovable property, property registered in the name of a trustee, etc. In other words, it does away with the definition of “owner” by defining it as the person in whose name the property is registered. I would like to know whether this amendment has been introduced on the advice of the law advisers that the original definition in any event represented the common law, and the amendment now is merely to incorporate an additional provision so that everything will be covered.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

Mr. MILLER:

I would like to move an amendment to Clause 5 (a)—

In line 11, to omit “may” and to substitute “shall and to omit all the words after “Minister” in line 13, to the end of the proposed new proviso.

This amendment seeks to make provision that in respect of certain types of inquiry to do away with the provision which calls for the necessity of a public inquiry and proper investigation and notice to the public. It is my contention that the two particular provisions in respect of which this right is being taken away are very important provisions indeed. The one provision is a determination under Section 16. Section 16 is a very important section in this Act, because it can deal with the limitation of the right of development or occupation of property where property is not being occupied, the right of reconstruction, etc. Because it makes such important inroads in the rights of the individual, I believe that the deletion of the necessity to hold a public inquiry where proper notice is given the public takes away the right of the individual to be fully protected, and diminishes the liberty of the individual. As the result of my amendment it will read that an inquiry shall be held and a report made by the officer designated by the Minister. The purpose of the amendment is to try to retain what was originally envisaged. We believe that it is vital in this type of legislation that the public who are affected should be given every opportunity to state their case before any board. They should have adequate notice of any intended changes and of any matter which affects their rights, and they should have the opportunity to make the necessary representations. This is an extremely complicated Act and it presents great difficulties to the public. It is an Act which in its form is not the most desirable type of legislation because it does not state its purpose in a tangible way. There are far too many vague references. We believe that one should be much more definite in such legislation. Therefore I think that the amendment which is sought in the Bill, instead of helping the individual as it should, makes his lot a little more difficult, and therefore I move this amendment.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) will forgive me if I go on to another subject in order to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

To insert the following new paragraph to follow paragraph (c):
  1. (d) by the insertion in sub-section (7) after the word “under” of the words “sub-section (1) of Section 16bis or by the insertion in that sub-section after the word “affected” of the words “or in a building, or on land or premises other than that affected and by the insertion in that sub-section after the word “area” where it occurs for the second time of the words “or of such building, land or premises ”.

The object of this amendment is to ensure that the Board shall consider the question of suitable alternative accommodation before advising the Minister in regard to a proclamation in terms of the new Section 16bis. In terms of that section, the Minister will be able to limit the purposes for which properties in certain areas may be used, and the effect of the proclamation may well be that people who have lived in an area may no longer be able to continue living there, e.g. if a business is carried on on the ground floor and there are flats on the floors above, and the Minister limits the purpose for which the property may be used to business purposes, the persons living in the flats will have to move. We believe that no one should be moved at least until the Board has taken into consideration whether suitable alternative accommodation exists for them. That is why I move the amendment. That is one question I hope the Minister will deal with.

I also want to raise a query which is related to the one raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in relation to the proposed proviso to Section 5, in terms of which an inquiry may be held by an officer designated by the Minister. This relates to the exercise of powers under Sections 16 and 18, i.e. making determinations as to who shall he able to occupy premises in specified areas and issuing permits. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us, how these investigations are carried out. The point is that in specified or controlled areas you may very well have areas which have not yet been investigated by the Board, and as a result the policy in relation to that area has not yet been considered at all. The Board has no idea whether in future it will establish it as an area for Whites or for Coloureds or for any other race. Assuming that in such an area, where there has been no general inquiry, someone applies for a permit, who conducts the inquiry? If a permit is applied for in an area where there has been no general consideration by the Board, it seems quite wrong that an official in the Public Service should hold the inquiry and then exercise the powers in terms of Sections 15 and 18 as well. Will the Minister tell us a little more about how these inquiries take place in specified and controlled areas where there has not yet been a general inquiry? I can see the object of the Minister where there has been a general inquiry already and the policy of the Board in regard to that area has already been decided. If a permit is applied for, I can see that a public official may well conduct that inquiry. But where a policy has not yet been laid down for the area it seems undesirable that the public official should be able to conduct the inquiry.

Then there is another question. When one reads Section 5 together with Section 15, it seems that the public official designated by the Minister may not only hold the inquiry but he can exercise the powers he holds by virtue of the delegation, i.e. the powers in terms of Section 16 and Section 18. He can exercise those powers without referring the matter to the Board or the Minister at all. He can deal with the matter from start to finish without referring to anyone else at all. Will the hon. the Minister confirm that this is the correct reading of these two section read together?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller), I want to state that it is only advertisements in respect of matters which are of no interest to the general public that are affected. In terms of Section 2 (a) and (b) advertisements are in any event dispensed with in matters affecting only individuals. This extends the same dispensation where inquiries are made by officials.

Then the hon. member also said that this is an extremely complicated Act. I am sorry, but the hon. member did not put his amendment on the Order Paper so that I could consider it properly. It is very difficult for me to decide here in a few minutes on his amendment.

*Then the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) moved an amendment to Clause 5. Here the position is that already in my second reading speech in connection with another clause where evacuation would have to take place I adopted the attitude that it was a common-sense matter, and that no authority would simply leave people in mid-air when it evacuates them. They will not be evacuated unless alternative accommodation has been provided for them. It is a matter of common sense, and to make an exception here in respect of one particular sub-section without doing so in another clause where a larger number of people are affected is unnecessary. It is a question of common sense and of a sympathetic application of the Act. One would be landing oneself in enormous difficulties and make the implementation of the Act quite impossible if one were to accede to what he hon. member asked for. Why make a special exception here? In other words, I cannot see my way clear to accepting the hon. member’s amendment. We first want to see how this thing works. It is a new experiment we are making and the hon. member can be assured that the policy is to make alternative provision.

Then the hon. member asked how the investigations would be conducted. I do not know what he means. The persons concerned are of course notified when such an investigation takes place, and then the matter is either investigated in loco or the person is asked to come and see the official concerned. That is all I can say about that.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Firstly, in regard to the question of alternative accommodation, I cannot quite understand why the Deputy Minister thinks that the proposal which I have made will be an exception. The point is that up till now before one has been able to proclaim a group area, which may entail the removal of people, the Board has had to consider whether alternative accommodation exists.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is my point.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

This too is a section under which people may be removed and where they will have to find alternative accommodation and here too it seems that the same considerations should apply. People will have to move and find alternative accommodation, therefore the question of alternative accommodation should be considered before the proclamation is made. I cannot understand why the Deputy Minister says that this will be an exception; surely it is the same principle. Wherever people have to be moved we believe that the existence of suitable alternative accommodation should be considered by the Board before the proclamation which forces them to move is issued. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now accepted as a matter of policy that no one will be moved until there is alternative accommodation. If that is so then, with respect, there should be no objection to his accepting the amendment; it will only put in terms in the Bill what he has accepted as a matter of policy. The principle has been so clearly accepted and already include in Section 5 of the principal Act, that I cannot see the Deputy Minister’s objection to it being accepted in relation to the new proposed Section 16bis, and I hope the Deputy Minister will consider that further. In regard to the other point that I raised as to the type of inquiry, I meant a litle more than just what kind of inquiry. I can see that it is the Deputy Minister’s intention for an official to summon the party concerned, who has made the application for a determination, to hear his case and to weigh the pros and cons, but the point that I am getting at is this: In terms of the amendment proposed to Clause 19 of the Act, that official will be able to take a decision. What I want to know is this: Where the general policy for a particular area has not been laid down, what is going to happen there? It falls within the specified area but the Board has not considered for whom that particular area is intended. The hon. the Deputy Minister now gets an application for a permit for, say, a Coloured person to occupy premises in that area. The question of whether that area is intended for Coloureds or Whites in the future has not yet been considered, and now the official has to consider one application. I want to know whether he is the person who will decide that or will the application for a permit be held over until there has been a general inquiry as to what is intended for that área. Does this official take a decision on his own, without there having been any general inquiry as to the future intention for that area? I hope I have made myself clear on that point.

Mr. MILLER:

I am sorry that I did not give the Deputy Minister earlier notice, but unfortunately circumstances prevented me from doing so. I do, however, appreciate the point he has made. The Minister makes the point that all he refers to in the Bill is that in such event no notice shall be required, but in terms of the present section the notice is one which sets forth the matter which is being investigated and invites all interested persons to lodge with the board any representations which they may wish to make. I can appreciate the fact that perhaps for the sake of convenience one does not want to issue notices and delay matters, but how then are there to be any representations? If, for instance, it were to add that no notice shall be required but that the owner or occupier shall be invited to submit his representations, one would be satisfied. The purpose of the objection is not because there is an amendment to the present section but because it does diminish the rights of the individual, and I feel that any diminution of his rights, takes from his the privilege of saying that the legislation is inimical to his interests or seeks to circumvent his right in law. That is something which I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to avoid. I know that he appreciates, as all of us do, the difficulties of the Act, and that is why I believe that it would be in the interests generally of this legislation and particularly of the people in the country that they should always know that they have the right to make representations to the relevant bodies in respect of any action at all which affects their rights in any way at all. That is the point I would like the Deputy Minister to consider.

Mr. BUTCHER:

I should like to ask the Deputy Minister whether he can give us some further information about the meaning of the word “officer” in Clause 5 (a). This clause states that the Minister may designate an officer to conduct an inquiry and submit a written report, whereas in Clause 15 mention is made of an officer of the Public Service. There is no definition of the word “officer” in Clause 1 and I should like to know who precisely is meant by “officer ”. Does this relate to officials of his own Department, the Department of the Interior, or is it limited to officials attached to the Group Areas Board and. if so, can he also give us some indication of the seniority of the official referred to. because the duties that are imposed upon this officer in this clause are extremely important. They involve the livelihood and the financial interests of many people and I think we should like to be assured that such officer will be a senior officer capable of exercising the important discretion that is entrusted in him in this Bill.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I cannot give the hon. member full particulars at this stage as to whether it will be a first or second grade clerk; it is impossible for me to say at this stage. We make use of the officers available in the Public Service; that is what is meant here. I cannot help the hon. member by telling him now whether I am going to use a first or second grade clerk or a senior administrative officer.

*The point is that in connection with all these cases where investigations of this kind are instituted a clear policy has been laid down either by the Board with the approval of the Minister or by the Board before they advise the Minister; a pattern has been laid down, and if the Minister accepts that advice then we know how to act. In any case, if people are not satisfied with the decision of that official after such an investigation, they still have the right to appeal to the Minister or to the Chairman of the Board. But it is impossible for me now to tell the hon. member which officials I will employ. We will, obviously, use the the most efficient persons who have had special training along those lines and who have knowledge of the policy laid down. That is also my reply to the hon. member who asked what our standpoint is before proclaiming an area. Before one knows what one has in mind for a particular area, it is often clear what steps should be taken in respect of these individual cases.

*Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

But if you do not know?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If you do not know you will first wait until a proper investigation has been made, and then you can decide.

*Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

And must the applicant then wait?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No, the applicant need not wait. There are means at the disposal of the applicant to get justice if he is dissatisfied.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

I must take the hon. the Deputy Minister up on his explanation to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher). He says he does not know if a first or a second grade clerk is going to investigate this matter and submit a report. Sir, in the course of the second reading debate I raised the principle which I believe is contained in this clause; I think it is a basic principle of justice that when a man’s affairs are inquired into he should have the right to put the other side of the case, and I would like to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that this first or second grade clerk will be advising the board in their recommendations to the Minister on very important matters—the desirability or otherwise of issuing, amending or withdrawing any proclamation referred to in Section 28, any determinations to be made, the amendment of conditions, or the actual issuing or not of permits. I think if the Minister’s approach is such that he cannot say whether a first or second grade clerk is going to make a recommendation to the board, on which its recommendation to the Minister will be based, then our opposition to the delegation of authority in this Bill is more than justified.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But on any decision there is an appeal to the Minister.

Mr. MILLER:

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister not prepared to clarify the statement of his in reply to my amendment, namely that he is only avoiding the question of notice, when I drew his attention to the fact that the notice also contained an invitation to the public or to any persons who are interested to lodge objections or make representations.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

As I understand the matter, it is only in cases where a person alone is affected and where it is not of general public interest that we act in this way. As soon as the matter is of general public interest we will still advertise. It is only where one is dealing with an individual that it is not necessary to advertise his name in the Press.

*Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Will there be discussions with this individual?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, that happens continually.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I wonder whether that is quite right. Section 5 of the original Act which is being amended, in providing for the functions of the board in (b) and (c), deals with the functions of the board under Sections 16 and 18. Surely it is not the case that that only the rights of individuals are affected.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It is not important to the general public.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I understood the Deputy Minister to say that there was no need to give notice where only the rights of single individuals were affected.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Notice in the Press.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Well, notice in the Press, of course, is notice. But those two clauses do not only deal with the rights of single individuals; they go much further than that.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

You are referring here to the advertisements?

Mr. MITCHELL:

Yes.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But you give him notice of the inquiry that is going to be instituted.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I wonder whether the Deputy Minister would explain it further, because I must admit that I have some difficulty over it when you read it with Clause 5 of the present amending Bill. It does look as though the interests of a large number of people may be affected, and for that reason we suggest that notice should be given through the Press so that all the people whose interests are affected shall have the right to make representations. You see, Sir, if you take the original measure and you deal with Section 16, which is one of those in respect of which it is now provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be given, you find that Section 16, inter alia, permits the Governor-General by proclamation in the Gazette to define certain areas in a specified area tor certain purposes. Well, that is a very important matter. In the same way, in Section 18 there is the question of the use of the land in the buffer strips and here again the interests of more than one person may be very vitally affected. It is in respect of matters of that kind that we feel that notice should be given through the Press by publication, so that those whose interests are affected shall have an opportunity of making representations in the right quarter.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

May I just repeat that in all cases where persons are affected they receive notice and can make representations in some form or other at the investigation. All we are providing here is that in respect of these specific cases it is not necessary to advertise in the Press, but they receive notice in any case. They in fact receive notice and the only question is whether there should also be an advertisement in the Press.

Mr. MITCHELL:

But will every person whose interests are affected be known?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, they will see the notice.

Question put: That the word “may ”, in line 11, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided: AYES—70: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel. M. D. C. de W.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

NOES—50: Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Miller dropped.

Question put: That all the words after “Minister” in line 13, to the end of the new proviso, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided: AYES—71: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee. P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. van Moltke.

NOES—50: Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z, J.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Hen wood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: T. G. Hughes and H. C. de Kock.

Question accordingly affirmed and the remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Miller negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. van Ryneveld put and the Committee divided:

AYES—50: Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, L. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, J.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pelwman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

NOES—71: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

Mr. EGLIN:

I wish to move the following amendment—

In line 46, after “specify” to insert “other than the holding of an inquiry referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 5 in line 72, to omit “one” and to substitute “two and in lines 74 and 75, to omit “where such committee consists of more than one member”.

Mr. Chairman, this new Clause 7, which supersedes the original Section 7 of the Act of 1957, is very important. In terms of the original Act, Section 20 (8) laid down that before the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister could issue proclamations, he first has to have the recommendation of the Board. It was a wise proviso that this should come first from the Board, and not merely be at the Minister’s discretion. In terms of the original Section 7, the Minister was required to appoint as an ad hoc committee or a standing committee of the Board to take over the functions of the Board in an area; such standing committee or ad hoc committee consisting of not less than two persons. There was, however, a proviso which said that where one of the members was unable to serve, whether through illness or other cause, the remaining member could continue to form the ad hoc committee. So under certain circumstances, although the law required the appointment of at least two members, one member could continue to do the work, and to that extent the Minister may merely be trying to regularize the situation which existed. We favour very strongly indeed the maintenance of the two-man ad hoc committee or standing committee of the Board, do do not wish to write into the law that this committee can by law, now not merely by accident, be reduced to one member.

There are various matters which an ad hoc committee, or a committee acting in the place of the Board, will have to investigate and to recommend on prior to the formulation of regulations. If one looks at the original Section 1 of the Act, sub-section (4), one finds that before the Governor-General may make proclamations in regard to the attendance at any public place of entertainment or the partaking of any refreshment, he first had to get the considered opinion of the Board. Now it may well be that the Minister feels that one man is sufficient to inquire into such circumstances and that there is no need for two people to do so. Likewise the original Section 10 of the Act, sub-section (2), says that the Governor-General may define the ethnical, linguistic, cultural or other group. Once again the Minister might explain to us, and he might be able to persuade us, that in respect of that type of inquiry one member of the Board is quite adequate. But in respect of the main function of the Board, the important function of the Board, which is the proclamation of group areas, in terms of the original section, Section 5 (1) of the Act, we can see no reason why this should be referred to merely one person. In fact this is the kind of consideration which should be given the greatest possible attention; we would like to see the Minister not to resort to appointing even a two-man commission to investigate the desirability of having group areas or not. But there may be certain practical reasons why the hon. Deputy Minister wants to continue to have the right to appoint a one-man sub-committee to deal with the work of the Board. So we are prepared to concede that if his arguments are valid, he should have that power in respect of all things other than the proclamation of group areas.

The effect of the amendment which I have moved would be that the Minister could have a one-man standing committee acting in the place of the Board to investigate a wide range of matters of a lesser nature, but in respect of the main function of the Board, that is the function of the Board as set out in the original Section 5 (1), which is the kernel of the Act, namely the proclamation of group areas, we believe it is absolutely essential that more than one mind should be brought to bear on the issue. We believe that if you are going to take such fundamental and far-reaching steps as recommending to the Minister that areas should be proclaimed, with all the effects it has on the local community and all the effects it has on the surrounding communities, then at least consideration should be given to it by more than one person. So we hope the hon. the Minister will heed this request. I think he realizes that in sub-section (5) (1) the main functions of the Board are defined and that he will see that at least in respect of the exercise of the main functions of the Board, two people and not one person will act in place of the Board.

Mr. MITCHELL:

During the second reading debate we drew attention to the provisions of this clause and pointed out how much we disliked it. The position is that at the moment this Committee has passed Clause 5 where the question of notice in certain cases has been decided, against us, against the amendment moved by this side of the House. I want to say at once that in my opinion that again strengthens the position of asking for the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) being accepted. Here we feel that it is altogether wrong that one man should be vested with the whole powers and authority of the Board in respect of the very important duties that the Board itself has to undertake from time to time. We appreciate that the Minister may be in difficulty because of lack of personnel. Quite frankly if that is so, I believe the Minister should increase the personnel. He should not hesitate to increase the personnel if that is the trouble. But it seems to us inconceivable that those important functions and duties can rest purely in the hands of one man, more particularly if you look at the concluding paragraph of Clause 7, which introduces a new sub-section (7) in the principal Act, and it says—

Any decision by a committee during the course of an inquiry conducted by it on any question of procedure shall be deemed to be a decision by the Board.

The question of procedure sometimes has been the crux of the whole matter that has come before the Board, and here again the Board may be one person. So the one person has to conduct the whole investigation, he is going to have the quasi-judicial powers to hold the investigation, and where questions of procedure arise, he is going to determine the procedure for himself. We think the whole principle is wrong, and we hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I really think there is some misapprehension on the part of hon. members. The amendment being introduced here is in order to bring the legal position In line with what we have found to work best in practice. There is the Group Areas Board with a number of members. Then there is an Executive Committee, the members of which all serve full time at head office. But there are other members of this Board who are located at various points in the country. So, for example, there is a member of the Board in the Cape Division here, there is one at Port Elizabeth, in Natal there is more than one, there being one for Northern Natal and one for Southern Natal, and then for the Free State and the Northern Cape and the Transvaal there are two members. Now the position is that under ordinary circumstances when an area has to be advertised for investigation and the investigation has to take place, it is these individual representatives of the Board who are stationed at the various points who take the lead in conducting the investigations, and they then report to the Board. But now we also provide for the appointment of ad hoc committees. The idea is that in cases where difficulty is being experienced, or where the matter is complicated, where a serious position exists, or where it will not be easy to obtain a clear demarcation, the members of the Executive Committee will be used as members of such an ad hoc committee, and they then really assist the representative of the Group Areas Board stationed in that area. So in fact we cope with the difficult cases by appointing members of the Executive Committee for the moment as ad hoc committee members. I hope hon. members will not object to this, because in any case when such a one-man committee or an ad hoc committee has made an investigation and submitted its report, this report must in any case be submitted to the full Group Areas Board, because no advice is given to and no report can be submitted to the Minister unless the full Board has approved of it. In other words, this is done merely to facilitate the work.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Why is that not stated here in so many words?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is precisely what stands here. We are making provision for a practice which has been evolved over the years. The original idea was that there should be a board which would travel right throughout the country. That is no longer the case to-day. We have individual representatives of the Board stationed at various points. Then there are the ad hoc committees which may be appointed in special cases. If the hon. member looks at sub-section (5) he will see that it reads as follows—

A committee appointed under this section shall submit to the Board a written report in respect of any inquiry undertaken by it in regard to any matter which the Board is in terms of Section 5 required to investigate, and the Board may thereupon advise the Minister in regard to that matter as provided in the said section as if the Board had itself undertaken such inquiry.

To speed up the work in practice, we have already been following a certain course of action, and this is merely intended to embody it in the Act.

Mr. GAY:

It is quite possible, as the hon. the Minister says, that the amendment he is now introducing will be designed to speed up the working of the Act. It may well be that the original conception of the Board as a board which would travel around, has been found unworkable. I cannot however help repeating that the whole of the proceedings falling under this Act, the whole of the work to be undertaken by the Board is work in connection with one of the most delicately balanced functions of any administration, dealing with human beings, human families and their everyday life, and no matter how well the individual to be appointed as a one-man committee may do his task, no matter how sincere and earnest he goes about his work, it is throwing a terrific responsibility on that one individual to have to submit a report which is of such far-reaching consequences for the lives of the people it affects. No matters whether the report is considered subsequently by the Board …

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

That is why we make provision for this ad hoc committee.

Mr. GAY:

The only evidence the Board will have to guide it will be the report which is based upon the findings of the one-man committee, and in a matter of this sort that is not sufficient to take action upon. It is no good blinding ourselves to the fact that there has been very adverse criticism of many of the actions of the Board and many of the actions of committees dealing with these matters, and you hear all sorts of stories, maybe without foundation, but nevertheless they are said. I do not think it is right to put the members of such a committee or the members of the Board in that position, no more than that it is right to put the individual affected by the decision in the position of feeling that may be justice has not been done in his case. We often hear it said that when you deal with justice, not only must justice be done but should also appear that justice has been done. And I do think that axiom is more necessary in regard to this particular type of administration than in respect of anything that we have got on the Statute Book. Therefore I most strongly support the amendment with regard to the appointment of one-man committees. The principle is wrong. The only thing that one can say in favour of it is that it may expedite the work of the Group Areas Board. That is all to the good, because Heaven only knows that it is work that requires expediting, but this is not the best way to do it. It may be that the individual has this intensive local knowledge, this personal knowledge of a particular area and the people that he is dealing with, but it still puts a responsibility on the shoulders of one individual which should not be placed on one man, and it still puts doubts in the minds of many families who may be affected by the decision reached if their case is being dealt with by one man.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The hon. Deputy Minister has said that the practice in fact is that when a difficult position has to be investigated, a member of the Group Areas Board in whose area it falls is of course on the investigating body, and in addition members of the executive committee come down to take part in the inquiry. Well we feel that every time the possibility of a group area is investigated, it is such an important matter that it warrants more than one member being on the committee. The hon. Minister has said that in fact that is the practice to-day in any difficult case. Well, does the hon. Minister accept that the investigation, preceding the proclamation of a group area is in every case of sufficient importance to justify members of the executive committee coming to join the local member of the Board to make the investigation? Because we feel that there should definitely be more than one member of the Board investigating the matter before any group area is proclaimed. And therefore the hon. member for Pinelands has moved this amendment. The hon. Deputy Minister has said that there are certain safeguards. He has said for instance that in any case the Board has to consider the report which is written by the committee of investigation, which may be a one-member committee. He has to report to the Board as a whole before the Minister is advised. That may be so, and that is to some extent a safeguard, but we do not believe that it is a sufficient safeguard, because obviously the person who is on the spot is the person who is carrying out the most important function, because he visits the area concerned, he is the person who receives the evidence from interested parties. That function is much more important, or at least as important, as the later consideration which must take place before the whole Board. The actual inquiry is most important and therefore we believe there should be at least two members of the Board conducting such an inquiry. As a matter of practice we hope that the hon. the Minister will appoint more members of the Board to be present at such an inquiry. Therefore we urge upon the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands. In fact we have doubt as to whether we should not go further and ask that for all purposes at least two members should form a committee. Would the hon. the Minister give some indication as to other functions of the Board which he believes can be carried out competently by one member sitting as a committee? The hon. member for Pinelands has for instance referred to the question as to which areas Section 1 (4) shall apply, the effect of which is for instance that sitting in a restaurant is regarded as “occupation ”. Another function would be to decide whether a particular sub-group shall be a separate sub-group in terms of Section 10. Would the hon. the Minister tell us of other functions of the Board which he believes can competently and safely be carried out by a single member sitting as a committee? We doubt whether there is any function of the Board which is sufficiently unimportant to warrant its being carried out by a single member. But certainly as far as the inquiry is concerned into possible group areas, we are satisfied that it is undesirable for a single member to sit on such an inquiry alone, even though he has to report to the Board. We hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. In practice I think in almost every case the hon. Deputy Minister will have more than one member sitting to examine possible group areas and I hope it will be written into the laws as a safeguard.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I noticed that the hon. the Deputy Minister several times referred to ad hoc committees. But I want to point out that this clause does not deal only with ad hoc committees. There are two different kinds of committees referred to in this Bill. There are standing committees and ad hoc committees. Quite frankly I think that this amendment could have gone further in regard to the standing committees.

The hon. the Deputy Minister makes great play of the point in Clause 7 (5) that the ad hoc committee, which may be one person, has to report to the Board, and only the Board then reports to the Minister. The Minister never gets a report from an ad hoc committee of one person.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, it is included in the report of the Board, it is attached to it.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Yes, it is included in the report of the Board, but the Board makes its report to the Minister. The Deputy Minister’s point was that it is not simply one person who has comprised the ad hoc committee and who makes his report, and that it does come under the scrutiny of the Board.

In matters of this kind I want to emphasize that the feelings, the concern and the approach of one person can be the dominating factor, not only in regard to his own investigations, but only that one member has access to the Board. Who else has access? The ad hoc committee of one man is the only one who has access to the Board and sees his colleagues in order to put his case forward. His case, for the purpose of substantiating the report that he has put in by way of an ancillary report for the Board itself, is virtually valueless. That report can be of no great substance under the procedure here set out because, one man having carried out the whole of the investigation under this procedure as laid down, now produces that report to his colleagues who know nothing whatever about the circumstances and the conditions under which he carried out his investigation. They see his report and, quite obviously, they are going to be impressed and they are going to be influenced by the report. It seems to me that in practice there will be a tendency for the Board to simply act as a rubber stamp in approving of the report that they have from their colleague. I think that it is unthinkable that it should be otherwise. It is going to be a most extraordinary state of affairs if, without any knowledge of the circumstances, which are well within the personal knowledge of only that one man, the Board should then quarrel with the decisions he has put forward and the conclusions he has arrived at, or any recommendations he may feel justified in making. I go further and say that in those circumstances that man will resign from the Board on the turn if that were to happen. If, in fact, the recommendations he was making and the steps he was recommending were to be the subject of an adverse recommendation by the Board to the Minister, that man would resign.

I do not think there is any great value to be attached to that report. I must admit that with regard to the standing committees detailed in he first part of this clause I am filled with alarm because, if I read the clause correctly, it virtually means that in respect of various areas which will be defined, the Minister—not the chairman of the Board who sets up the ad hoc committee and who appoints one of his own colleagues for the purpose of this inquiry—but in terms of the first part of the clause we are dealing with the standing committee can be a committee of one appointed by the Minister. And that person is a standing committee for the whole of that area in respect of those matters which may, from time to time, be handed to him for investigation and report. I find it very hard to believe that there is real wisdom behind such a decision. You are virtually putting that man into an extraordinary—I nearly said privileged—position but may I say influential position, vis-à-vis the administration of the Act. That man is going to be in an extraordinarily influential position. He would be a permanent kingpin, if I can use the term, around which the whole of the investigations are carried out from time to time in respect of that area. Quite obviously he will be the person who will have to be persuaded in respect of this or that point of view, concerning every matter that comes before the Board for investigation. Because he will be the Board for the purposes of that particular area. So that an individual in an area stays there as a permanent standing committee and builds up round him, ultimately, the whole of the administration of the Act, in practice. I think that that is very undesirable indeed. I go no further than that, but I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have second thoughts about the desirability of having a standing committee of one or an ad hoc committee of one—or any kind of committee of one, notwithstanding that the decisions of such committee may go before the Board for ratification and then on to the Minister, as the case may be. That, I think, is inadequate authority to really substantiate a recommendation or a report coming from a committee of only one person, whether it is an ad hoc committee or a standing committee.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am afraid that hon. members are seeing dangers where none exists. It works effectively to have members of the board stationed at various points in the country where they are on the spot and can deal with problems which arise there. But let me say this now. Before such a standing committee, even though it consists of only one member, can report to the board an investigation must first be made; and before an investigation can be made there must be advertisement of the proposals. Now we take a lead from the reaction to that advertisement of the proposals, viz. whether no objections are raised or whether serious objections are raised to such proposals. Let us take a town like Kuils River as an example. Supposing that certain proposals are publicly advertised viz. how Kuils River should be delimitated and it appears from the objections received that these are contentious proposals, in other words that there are many difficulties and objections to it, then we would not use this one-man committee for it. But in many cases where advertisements appear in respect of towns, hardly any objections are raised. The original proposals are drafted in consultation with the local town council, because the town council knows best what the planning in such a town is, and when the proposal is advertised, not even a single objection is received because the public accepts it. There are such cases. There it is easy for the standing committee of one member to conclude the work. The moment he has finished his investigation and has written his report, that report goes to the Group Areas Board. But it is not only his report which goes to the board, but also all the evidence for and against the proposals. If he has held an investigation in loco, all the evidence in favour of the proposals and all the evidence against it is included with the report which is then submitted to the Group Areas Board. Then when the board has to come to a decision it has all the evidence for and against, the diagrams and the report in front of it. When the board then makes its recommendation, all those documents are submitted separately. The Minister has before him not only the report of the committee, but also the evidence. In other words, the Minister has the full picture, from the advertisement right up to the final report submitted to him by the board. Hitherto this has worked well, and the position is that the standing committees actually work more efficiently because they are on the spot and because they can deal with these cases at once, whereas otherwise they would have had to wait for an itinerant board to arrive there one day. But the moment when, with reference to the advertisement, one gains the impression that there is strenuous objection to the proposals, the members of the Executive Committee are instructed to institute an investigation together with that person, because in those cases one wants to have two or three or even more men to do the job. That is how it works in practice and I can give hon. members the assurance that no difficulty will arise from this. On the contrary, I think it is in the interest of the public and in the interest of those people whose cases are dealt with in this manner.

Mr. EGLIN:

I have listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister very carefully on the two occasions on which he has spoken, but I cannot help having the feeling that he is trying to minimize the important effect of this amending clause. In the first instance, he is doing so by minimizing the influence of the standing committee. I think that one should read Clause 7 (1) very, very carefully indeed. It says—

The Minister may in respect of any area appoint a standing committee consisting of one or more members of the board to carry out in such area such of the functions of the board as he may specify …

It is the prerogative of the Minister to appoint a standing committee to take the place of the board.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But the Minister also appoints the board.

Mr. EGLIN:

That is very important, Mr. Chairman. In other words, when the hon. the Minister does not want the whole of the board to consider a matter he is completely free, in terms of this amending clause, to appoint one individual, and that one individual will not be responsible merely for conducting an inquiry. He will not be responsible for conveying his views to the board. He, to all intents and purposes, becomes the board in respect of a matter to which the Minister has referred. If, in general terms, it is necessary to have a 12man board then I find it difficult to understand the Minister when he says that in certain instances he is prepared to accept the opinion or the advice of one person whom he selects, and who may be in a minority on the board as far as views are concerned.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

But that is not so.

Mr. EGLIN:

That is the position. The Minister, in terms of this clause, might circumvent the board by appointing a one-man standing committee to take the place of the board. I think it is extremely important that the hon. the Minister should realize that while streamlining may be an important thing, while it may be important to have efficiency, almost invariably two men can give a better report based on more collective wisdom than can one man. We think it is tremendously important that whenever important matters are referred either to a standing committee or when the chairman appoints a special ad hoc committee to conduct an inquiry in respect of matters referred to in terms of Clause 5 (1), that at least two men and not one person should act for the board.

I want to support the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), and others, because it is important in this matter that justice not only be done but that people should feel that justice is being done.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But these standing committees have been working for years and years.

Mr. EGLIN:

I am very surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister now tells us that these standing committees have been working for years and years. If that is so, have they been acting out of conformity with the existing law? And if, in fact, they have been acting perfectly well for year after year, why is it now necessary to do what he says he has to do to regularize and to legalize the position? Do I understand that the hon. the Minister is now telling us that, in spite of the fact that the original Section 7 required a two-man standing committee, in practice a one-man standing committee has been acting?

The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. I understood him to say, over the floor of the House, that this has been working practice for years and years. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister not to try to force us too far. We are not at all happy about the idea of having a one-man standing committee, even for these other matters such as contained in Clause 1 (4), or in Section 10 (2). We would like to see even those referred to a two-man standing committee. But we do ask that in respect of proclamations of group areas, in respect of the functions laid down in the original Section 5 (1) which is the prime function of the board, that at least in respect of those he meets us. It is important that where you are dealing with proclamations, with complete changes of communities and the lives of communities, that no matter what has been done in practice in the past, as far as the law is concerned it should be quite clear that not one man but that two men should bring their minds to bear on the subject before the Minister acts. I am quite sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister can meet us in this matter and that it will not seriously complicate the work of the board. I am equally sure that when two people consider the pleas made to the board or to the investigating committee, they are more likely to present a balanced report to the board, or they are more likely to present balanced decisions for conveying to the Minister than one man would be in respect of these important items.

*Mr. KOTZÉ:

I think the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) is trying to be difficult. The hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear to us that it was customary, before an inquiry was held, to advertise that area. Usually, in the case where city councils cooperate, the recommendation of the city council as to the race is used as basis when advertising. As has been said quite rightly, the city council knows best how to zone the area under its jurisdiction. It is quite clear that in quite a number of cases this position is generally accepted by the area concerned. In the past it has been the experience in practice that in a case where there is not a flood of complaints and objections, one person attends and the matter is finalized to the satisfaction of everybody.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Together with the secretary.

*Mr. KOTZÉ:

Yes, and the officials who assist such a member of the board. But the point remains that it makes no difference whether it is one or two people—the hon. member said that two people would submit a more balanced report—the fact remains that the whole board must consider the report of this person. That is the crux of the matter.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Do you know what is happening?

*Mr. KOTZÉ:

Mr. Chairman, the report of this person must be considered by the whole board. I agree that the question of group araes is an important one. But I do not think it is necessary—I am saying this for the information of the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld)—that for the purposes of fulfilling the function of the Group Areas Board under Section 5 (1) of the principal Act more than one person should conduct the inquiry in all these minor cases. It has worked very well in the past. All the Minister is doing now is to put the matter right from a legal point of view, to legalize what has been happening in the past. Furthermore, he wants to lay it down in the Act that, where a difficult case arises, it should not be taken for granted that the standing committee consisting of one person will deal with it and conduct the inquiry but that in such specially difficult cases the chairman of the board may send a member of the Executive Council who is au fait with the whole position and who is twiddling his thumbs at head office, to conduct the inquiry either alone or together with a local member. I do not know why hon. members regard this provision as being such a very bad one. There are instances of small places on the platteland where the game is not worth the candle and where it is unnecessary to send a large number of people and where one person can do the work to the satisfaction of the local people concerned. That, in my opinion, remains the most important thing—if the inquiry can take place to the satisfaction of the people concerned. That has worked well in practice and for that reason I think we should keep it as it is.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) may be correct when he says that there are cases where objections are not raised or that there is general satisfaction. He may be correct when he says it is undesirable that there should have to be more than one member of the board to conduct such an inquiry. I submit that there will be very few of those cases indeed. But even assuming that there are a few of those cases where there is satisfaction with the proposals made, surely it is no great hardship for a second member of the board to be present at the inquiry. It may be that there are cases where a second member of the board would be unnecessary, but that is going to prove the exception rather than the rule. We would like to see that safeguard in the Act.

I do not accept the fact that because there are no objections therefore everyone accepts the proposals. There may be hundreds of cases where people do not actually come and object before the board, or lodge their objections, but nevertheless object most strenuously to the proposals. They may not be aware of their rights or they may not want to go to the trouble of appearing.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No. no! The hon. member knows better than that.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

But surely that is so?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Surely the hon. member knows better.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

But you may get a person who does not know that he has the right to object to the board. I do not agree at all with the hon. the Minister’s interjections. Surely there are many cases where proposals for group areas are advertised and people may have the most strenuous objections but may not actually lodge their objections in writing. So that merely because objections are not actually lodged, it does not mean to say that the proposals are received with general satisfaction.

That is one aspect of the matter. Even though there may be cases where the proposals are not contested, nevertheless we believe that those cases are the exception and we believe that there should be the safeguard of at least two members. I now want to take the hon. the Deputy Minister up on another point where I believe he may well be under a misapprehension. The hon. member for Parow has said that the report has to be submitted to the board and has to be considered by the board in full. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister also said that. But the effect of Clause 7 (1) must be considered in conjunction with Clause 7 (5). It is true that Clause 7 (5) says that the committee which is appointed under subclause (4) must make a written report to the board. But that board may be a one-man standing committee for the area. If the hon. the Minister will show me how he gets round that interpretation then we in this corner will be glad to consider it. But as far as I can see from this clause, the Minister may have a standing committee of one in, say, East London. Now he also appoints that member to undertake inquiries in terms of Clause 7 (4). All that that member then has to do is to report to himself. He represents the board as a standing committee in that area. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please read Clause 7 (1) together with Clause 7 (5).

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I have read it and I have discussed it with the law advisers, and I am quite prepared to accept their opinion.

Mr. EGLIN:

Well, read it now.

Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

It says one or more members of the board.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Mr. Chairman, this is not at all clear. Clause 7 (1) clearly says that the Minister may appoint a single member to be the standing committee to carry out any of the functions of the whole board. And it then says—

… and any such standing committee may for the proper carrying out of such functions exercise all the powers conferred and perform all the duties imposed upon the board in respect of the carrying out of such functions.

So that within a particular area a standing committee of one may exercise all the powers of the board, and surely that includes the right to hold an inquiry.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

For the inquiry. Then you read 7 (5).

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I am reading, first, Clause 7 (1). There may be a standing committee of one to carry out all functions of the board in a particular area. That includes the right to advise the Minister.

An HON MEMBER:

The Deputy Minister is now confused.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Well Clause 7 (1) appears to me to read that way. Then when one reads Clause 7 (4) and 7 (5) together we find that the Minister can appoint a single member as an ad hoc committee to go into a particular inquiry and to advise the board in terms of sub-section (5). That single member has to give a written report to the board. But the board in that area may well be a single member and that single member can carry out the functions of the board and advise the Minister. To me the clause definitely seems to be in those terms and to allow of that possibility. If that is so then we certainly cannot accept the clause as it is. We should like to make quite certain in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), which amends Clause 7 (4), that at least two members shall sit on any inquiry.

*Mr. VAN DEN HEEVER:

The hon. member has read this clause to the House in which (4), for example, provides that the chairman of the board may appoint a committee consisting of one or more members of the board. The immediate impression you get, Sir, is that it will be the chairman of the central Group Areas Board. The Group Areas Board is a central board. It is not the one-man ad hoc committee to which the hon. member has referred. I am not a legal man and I am, therefore, unable to analyze this matter, but I know how it works in practice. Where an inquiry is conducted under the Group Areas Act one, two or more members of the Group Areas Board are appointed—according to the seriousness of the situation which depends on the number of objections that have been lodged—to hold a public sitting similar to a court of law. This clause refers to those sittings. Once these people have held their sitting they make their decision. The whole idea underlying the Group Areas Act is that neither the members who conducted this local inquiry nor the members of the ad hoc committee can make a decision; neither can the central Group Areas Board make a decision. They are only there in an advisory capacity to the Minister. The people who have to decide what is to happen with a group area are the members of the Cabinet who are guided by the recommendations of the Group Areas Board but not by those of this ad hoc committee. The Cabinet is guided by the recommendations of the central Group Areas Board, which is a big body. The various local members, the ad hoc committee to call them that, are all members of the central Group Areas Board, as far as I know. All the members come together and having discussed a matter from A to Z they submit a recommendation to the Minister, a recommendation to which they have come after having considered every aspect of the matter. I want to emphasize this point, Sir, namely that hon. members now try to make us believe that these people who conduct the local inquiry—it makes no difference whether it is one or two or three—make the final decision. That is not the position. They are only acting in an advisory capacity. Then there is another point. If the Government is not satisfied they recommend that a re-investigation should take place. We had the case recently at Paarl where there was a great deal of dissatisfaction and a fresh investigation was instituted. For the purposes of that investigation additional members of the Group Areas Board came from Pretoria to attend the sitting in order to draw up a fresh report jointly, a report which will probably eventually be submitted to the Minister. The important point is that the friends who moved this amendment and who objected to this clause, tried to create the impression that the people who conducted the inquiry also made the decision. That is not the case; the Minister makes the decision.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé). He says “Oh, if there are a few people in a small area, why should more than one man go?” Surely it does not matter a bit how small in number or how insignificant the people are, they are entitled to a fair hearing which is not dependent upon the decision of one man only. Why does a Judge have assessors? Why does a Judge have a jury? Why does a magistrate have assessors? Because then other points of view can be brought to bear even in the case of a man who knows his job as a Judge does.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

But we are providing for that.

Maj. VAN DER BYL:

What the hon. the Deputy Minister is providing for is that the Judge or the magistrate should hear the case and then call the assessors in and tell them what he thinks of the case. How can the hon. the Deputy Minister suggest that to me when he has said “This one man will go then he will report back to the board and the board will be influenced by what he says ”? Any man can be prejudiced. He might be honestly prejudiced. He might be dishonestly prejudiced. He might have certain preconceived ideas. It might be a case of sheer obstinacy. Human nature being what it is no one man’s opinion should really be taken in deciding on a matter as important as this. The fact that it is only a small area does not matter. There may be one person whose interests are heavily involved and he has a right to have justice done to him. Why cannot there be at least two people, because one man may easily be prejudiced? I cannot understand why the Minister is so obstinate about it. Here we are trying to help him and to see that justice is done. It is absolutely wrong to say that it needs only one man to put the case to the board and not the case of the people as such, because they, the board, are bound to be influenced by what he says and base their final decision on the lead he gives them, and the Minister (if it is referred to him) will be influenced in turn by what the board reports to him.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) should not get so excited. I have a great deal of respect for him but he is now entering a field which can be dangerous if he does not know how the law operates. I want to say this to the hon. member. It is not the board but the Minister who makes the final decision.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Who advises the Minister? Surely the board does. And who advises the board? This one man.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

The point is this, that in order to facilitate matters the custom has developed over the years not to concentrate all the members of the board in one place and to make them travel from one place to another. To-day members of the board are stationed at central points throughout the country. Before such a person conducts an inquiry he has to advertise what he intends doing.

*Maj. VAN DER BYL:

Do not think because I was a Minister I am a fool.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Because the hon. member was a Minister he should understand these matters so much better, otherwise I can understand why there was such confusion. The hon. member did not implement the provisions of the Group Areas Act. That was why we were eventually faced with shanty towns such as Windermere. But that is not relevant at the moment, Sir. What is relevant is this that this one-man committee may conduct an inquiry in cases where no serious complaints have been lodged and does the hon. member want to tell me that in many court cases there is more than one Judge on the bench? In this case the hon. member cannot compare the one-man committee with a Judge, because the final decision does not rest with the one-man committee or with the board, but with the Minister. The one-man committee or the ad hoc committee merely constitute the machinery which is at the disposal of the Minister to supply him with the facts. However, the report of the one-man committee who conducts the inquiry does not merely reflect his opinion, but it also contains the evidence which was given by everybody concerned and when the whole board comes to a decision and advises the Minister, what is submitted to the Minister is not only the opinion of the board but also the evidence and suggestions which have been made. It often happens that the Minister is not satisfied with the decision taken by the board, it also happens that he is not satisfied in cases where the board has agreed with the local committee and he then refers it back and orders a fresh inquiry. The final decision rests with the Minister. The hon. member has raised a subject which is not worth getting excited about. The hon. member for Pinelands raised the matter when I said that that had been the custom for years. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. He concluded from what I had said that we had actually been acting illegally. What happened was that the secretary for that particular area was designated for that specific purpose on each occasion and that was a cumbersome method. It is better to have a one-man committee to deal with minor cases and the ad hoc committee to deal with the more difficult cases. Experience has taught us that. I have nothing further to say in this regard except that I do not envisage any problems of this nature.

Mr. GAY:

I do not want to labour the point, but it seems to me that the Minister has still made out no case whatever for the principle he is endeavouring to adopt in the amendment. The Minister has tried to make out the case that the final answer comes from the Minister who has all the information at his disposal. But the original basis of the whole of that information comes back to the one-man committee which carries out the investigation on the spot. If that one-man committee’s report is worth anything at all it must be taken notice of by the local board and the Central Board and finally by the Minister, so that whatever decision the Minister finally comes to, he has had to be guided largely by the foundation on which the information is built, and that is the report of one man. I do not believe that one man in this case should influence the decision on a matter so important as this. I think it is quite wrong that when we are dealing with the lives of the community, when we are dealing with dispossession of their homes and all that goes with it, one man should influence the decision. I see no reason why the scope of that inquiry should not be widened. I do know this, and I have no doubt that it partly actuates the amendments before us, that it is essential for the Minister and the Cabinet to try and bring some light to bear on the administration of the Act, to try to get over the bitterness and the opposition which that Act has created. We are all agreed that there is probably no Act on the Statute Book that requires more amendment and has had more amendment than this Act. But it does not help to make it work any better from the point of view of the feelings of the people who are most affected. That is the basis on which we put our case. It is not so much to make the Act work more smoothly, although any responsible Opposition will do what they can to help there, but what we are concerned about is that the well-being of the people affected should be the prior consideration. It is not only the individual who is affected by the inquiry but a group or class as a whole who will be affected by the decision of one or two people. There again it comes back to the main issue, that in matters so important as this a committee of one man is not likely to give satisfaction to the people concerned and will only cause further trouble in the long run.

Mr. EGLIN:

I feel sure that if this debate has convinced the Minister of anything, it is that there are two sides to every question, because on this very simple clause this afternoon there was a clear conflict of opinion. I can understand that we differ on the argument, but let the Minister help us to get agreement on the facts. I think that where the Minister has become confused, was in not separating the two committees established in terms of Clause 7. One is a standing committee which may take over the functions of the Board, and which committee is appointed direct by the Minister, and the other is merely an ad hoc committee which may or may not be appointed at the discretion of the Chairman to assist the Board in conducting its inquiry. Let us understand that there are two separate committees which are being dealt with, and let us look at the composition and the functions of these committees. I would like to know from the Minister whether my interpretation of the function of the standing committee is not correct, first of all that on the instructions of the Minister this committee can become the Board or take over the functions of the Board in a particular area. This is not a matter of legal interpretation but of basic English. It says that the Minister may in respect of any area appoint a standing committee consisting of one or more members of the Board to carry out in such area the functions of the Board as he may specify. In other words, the Minister may say to one individual: You shall become the Board, and the Board is telescoped from 12 members to one. If that is the case, will not the Minister concede that this one individual has not got to report anything to the Board as a whole, but that he may report direct to the Minister? If that is so—and I wish the Minister would indicate whether that is so or not, because this is the crux of our argument. Am I correct here? It says that the Minister may appoint one man to take over the functions of the Board. One of the functions of the Board is to make recommendations direct to the Minister. Surely one is correct in interpreting this clause as meaning that this one individual who is appointed shall report direct to the Minister as if it was the full Board reporting to the Minister. So the standing committee can become the Board, to all intents and purposes. We have gone a long way in meeting the Minister in this regard. We would like the standing committee under all circumstances to consist of at least two people. The Minister has explained his practical difficulty and we have gone as far, against our inclinations, to agree to accept this, but not in respect of the functions of the Board as set out in Section 5 (1) of the principal Act which deals with the proclamation or deproclamation of areas. If somebody acting for the Board is going to advise the Minister on the proclamation or deproclamation of areas, we suggest that it should be at least two people. In regard to the other functions we will not obstruct the Minister, but in respect of proclaiming areas in terms of Section 5 (1) we believe that the Minister would rather have the advice of two people and not of one. Our earnest plea is not that he increase the standing committee to two under all circumstances, but whenever you are dealing with proclamation of group areas the least we expect is that when somebody is acting for the Board it should be two people and not one.

As far as Clause 4 is concerned, once again we press for two members to form an ad hoc committee. I believe that justice is more likely to be done if consideration is given to an issue by two people instead of one. We accept that as far as Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are concerned that ad hoc committee must report to the Board and the final recommendation will go from the Board to the Minister. But once again we ask that in respect of proclamations at least two people should bring their minds to bear on the subject. I would like to hear from the Minister whether our interpretation of 7 (1) is not correct and reasonable.

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

I do not think the hon. member for Pinelands and other members should try to take the matter too far. When a committee consisting of one man is appointed and a one-man committee is appointed in a certain area I cannot see, the way they argue, that where a single member acts as a board in a certain area the Minister still has to appoint a sub-committee to advise that member. We should not take this matter to the extreme. We should not make the position ridiculous. It is clear to me that if the Minister has the right to appoint a committee consisting of one member who has to report to the board, the board will at least have to consist of more members than merely that member himself, and that is why I think hon. members are tilting at windmills. They put up skittles with the object of knocking them down and I think this is nothing but obstruction.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I think this is somewhat confusing. In terms of Clause 7 (1) the Minister appoints one or more members of the board to form a standing committee. In terms of Clause 4 the chairman of the board may appoint an ad hoc committee to conduct a certain inquiry. There are therefore two committees, one being a member of the board appointed by the Minister who performs all the functions of the board. In other words, the Minister in point of fact appoints sub-boards consisting of one or more members in a certain area. Over and above that the chairman of the board may appoint an ad hoc committee to assist with the inquiry if necessary my difficulty is this, arising out of the questions asked by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), that it is not clear to me whether this sub-board which consists of one man and which is appointed by the Minister has to report to the Minister via the principal board or whether he can report direct to the Minister, seeing that he is empowered to fulfil all the functions of the board. I think the matter will be solved if it is stated clearly in sub-section (5). “In terms of this clause the committee appointed … must report to the board.” This ad hoc committee must report to the board; it cannot report direct to the Minister. The question now arises: What is meant by the board in this case? I take it that it means the full board. The chairman of the full board appoints the committee. But the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has reason to believe that in view of the fact that a sub-board has been appointed in respect of an area, this ad hoc committee may report to this sub-board which consists of one member and not necessarily to the board as a whole. I think the Minister ought to change the wording so that it is clear that where the Minister appoints the sub-board …

*Mr. KOTZÉ:

Nowhere is there any reference to a sub-board; they are standing committees.

*Prof. FOURIE:

Clause 7 (1) gives the Minister the right to appoint a standing committee consisting of one member and that committee has the same power as the full board.

*Mr. KOTZÉ:

He has to report to the full board.

*Prof. FOURIE:

It does not say so. I think there is ground for confusion. It is not clear whether that member who acts as a sub-board has to report direct to the Minister or not, or whether he should necessarily report via the full board, whereas on the face of it, it is clear that where the chairman of the board appoints an ad hoc committee it has to report to the board but it is not clear what is meant by the board. Must he report to the chairman of the full board or to the minor board or sub-board which has been appointed for that area?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Section 1 (1) of the principal Act says that “board” means the Group Areas Board established by Section 2. Section 2 reads—

There is hereby established a board to be known as the Group Areas Board which shall consist of not more than 12 members appointed by the Minister. One of the members of the Board shall be designated by the Minister as the chairman, and one as the vice-chairman …

In other words, the Group Areas Board is defined in the principal Act. When we talk about the “board” it is immediately clear what is meant, namely the board which was established in terms of the principal Act. All we are doing here is to give the Minister the right to appoint standing committees from amongst the members of that board, not sub-boards. The power of the board is also defined. The Minister may ask one of the committees to inquire into a certain matter on behalf of the board but where Clause 7 (5) provides what these committees have to do, it is also clearly provided to whom they have to report. They have to report to one body only namely the board as defined in the principal Act. It says—

A committee appointed under this section shall submit to the board …

And there is one board only, the board appointed in the manner as explained by me. What we are seeking to do here is something which is not provided for in the Act. Assume for a moment that there was a vestige of truth in what the hon. member for Pinelands said. What the hon. member really tried to say was that what we were asking for here was the right to appoint one person to conduct an inquiry, and that we then want an ad hoc committee consisting of members of the board to report to this one member who will then simply report direct to the Minister. Well, everything is possible in life, Sir. It is possible that we may all go insane within a few seconds but it is very improbable that any government will be so stupid as to act like that seeing that they have at their disposal the services of such a board and seeing that Clause 7 (5) specifically lays down to whom that committee shall report—“a committee appointed under this section shall submit to the board a written report ”.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I wonder whether the Minister will allow me to put this to him, because this is the crux of the matter. Will the Minister allow me to put this point to him in regard to Clause 7 (5), where it refers to a committee? May I point out that the Committee does not deal with any matter in respect to which it has carried out an investigation. It only deals with an investigation in terms of Section 5. In terms of Section 5 it must report to the board. It must not report to the board in respect of any investigation carried out. Section 4 says the chairman of the board may appoint a Committee of one or more members to conduct an inquiry under sub-section (5). It is not the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee does not report to the full board when it carries out an investigation under Section 5. It is the ad hoc Committee which is only empowered to act in terms of Section 5 (1), and it must report to the full board. The Standing Committee can carry out any investigation it is entrusted with. It seems obvious that the ad hoc Committee under Section 4 can only be appointed to inquire into matters in terms of Section 5, and sub-sec. (5) says that the ad hoc Committee must report to the full board in regard to its investigation under Section 5, and not in respect of any matter it investigated. I think if there is confusion it arises from the fact that in the commencement of sub-section (5) it says “a committee appointed under this section ”. That looks as if it may mean a Standing Committee or an ad hoc Committee. It obviously does not mean a Standing Committee because the ad hoc Committee can only be appointed to deal with matters under sub-section (5), and it is only in respect of its inquiry under Section 5 that it reports to the full board. If it carries out an inquiry in terms of Section 16 or Section 18 or Section 22, it does not report to the full board, but only in terms of Section 5. I put that point to the Minister.

*Prof. FOURIE:

I want to emphasize that in terms of sub-section (1) the Minister may appoint a member of the board to do certain prescribed work. It will be quite logical for such a member of the board who has been appointed by the Minister for a specific area, to report direct to the Minister. In terms of sub-section (4) the Minister will appoint the chairman of the board and it is quite clear from sub-section (5) that that ad hoc Committee has to report to the board itself, but it is not at all clear, however, from subsection (1) whether that one member of the board, who has the same power as that which vests in the board, should approach the Minister via the board or whether he may approach the Minister direct in order to submit his report. This is the confusion which the hon. the Deputy Minister should try to clear up. In view of the fact that the Minister appoints one member of the board as a Standing Committee, it is logical to expect him to report direct to the Minister and not via the board, unless it is specifically provided otherwise. As far as the ad hoc Committee is concerned, it is clear that it cannot report direct to the Minister; it has to report to the board as a whole.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I told hon. members a few moments ago that when we speak about the board it was clear which board we had in mind, namely the board as defined in Section 1 and appointed in terms of Section 2 of the principal Act. The board has to perform certain functions which are defined in Section 5—

The board shall inquire into and by means of a written report advise the Minister in regard to—
  1. (a) the desirability or otherwise of issuing, amending or withdrawing any proclamation referred to in Section 28;
  2. (b) any determination to be made under Section 60;
  3. (c) the issue of or the amendment of the conditions of any permit under Section 18; and
  4. (d) any matter relating to the administration of this Act which the Minister may refer to it.

In other words, Section 5 lays down the functions of the board. Clause 7 (5) now provides that “any committee appointed under this section ”—Standing Committees and ad hoc Committees—in respect of the functions laid down in Section 5, shall submit a written report to the board. I am at a loss to understand hon. members’ difficulty.

Mr. MILLER:

I only want to make one point with the hon. the Deputy Minister and that is that an appeal has been made from this side of the House for the committee to consist of at least two members. The Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that a number of the amendments which appear in this Bill have been suggested to him by the present board which over a period of some years now has gained a considerable amount of experience with the practical unravelling of the sections of this particular Act, and I think that nobody is in a better position than they themselves to tell the Minister how people look at things from different points of view. The Deputy Minister himself said in his opening address that his purpose was to alleviate some of the difficulties which presented themselves to the various groups of our community who are affected by this Act. The only way in which you can alleviate these difficulties obviously is to appoint people who have had an opportunity of understanding and appreciating what the administration of this Act entails in practice. All that we are asking for is that the responsibility should not be placed on the shoulders of one person. It is obviously better to place the responsibility on the shoulders of two or more persons who can bring their minds to bear objectively on this subject, because if a mistake is made it can have very serious consequences. The hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of all the problems which arose in various areas of the Transvaal when the Act was first implemented with a certain amount of vigour and where there was a certain amount of protest. Even those who sat on the boards of inquiry found difficulty in properly interpreting and implementing the Act. It is because of these problems and difficulties that the hon. the Deputy Minister has had to come along, so soon after the consolidation of the Act, with so many amendments in order as he himself says, to correct errors and to facilitate the administration of the Act. I cannot understand the Deputy Minister’s obstinacy in this matter. All that is being asked for is that the decisions in these matters, which may be almost irrevocable, should be taken by more than one person, because in terms of this particular section that one-man committee will report to the board. I accept that it is the board which will make the recommendation to the Minister, but the board is not prepared at that stage to re-investigate the matter; the board then accepts the report of a one-man investigating committee. Sir, this is a busy board …

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

They need not accept it.

Mr. MILLER:

It need not but it can. If the one-man committee prepares a sufficiently convincing report, the board sitting as it does at its headquarters in Pretoria will make a recommendation based on that report.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

They do not sent it up to Pretoria.

Mr. MILLER:

Where else would the report be considered? The board will not come down to, say, a little town in the eastern Transvaal in order to see what the particular official has been doing. He will present his report to the board and he may present it in person. Let us assume that he goes to the extent of seeing the board personally and that he is a very persuasive speaker. His point of view may differ radically from that of a number of people on the board, except that they do not know the actual circumstances. The Minister himself may then be embarrassed because obviously the protests of the public cannot be silenced. There may be a proclamation but at this stage the protest of the public cannot be silenced. I think the Deputy Minister would be well advised, while he is trying to facilitate the administration of the Act, to allow the responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of more people. I do not think that asking for a two-man committee of inquiry is asking too much. In fact, if anything I think it would be of great advantage to the board to allow a two-man committee to deal with the matter rather than leaving it entirely to the discretion of one man. I do not think it is fair to put one man in this difficult position, where he has to make decisions which may arouse a great deal of criticism. All this could be avoided. After all, this is not a pleasant Act to administer and all one wants to do is to try to coat this bitter pill with as much sugar as possible, because to everybody affected it is a very bitter pill.

Mr. EGLIN:

We have listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister and we still differ from him on the interpretation of the law. I only hope that he is not going to be in the embarrassing position of his predecessor in having to come back year after year to clear up these difficulties which the Opposition pointed out in advance.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

If it is necessary I will do so.

Mr. EGLIN:

Let us rather get the law straightened out now than place the Minister in the embarrassing position of having to come back repeatedly to this House. Secondly, quite apart from his interpretation of this clause which we contest, I want to adhere to the point which I made at the outset, that in respect of the vital matter of proclamation, we still believe, in spite of everything the Deputy Minister has said, that it would be in the best interests of the country and that justice is more likely to be done if more than one mind was brought to bear on this matter before a recommendation was made either to the Minister or to the board. For these reasons I am afraid we have no alternative but to press our amendments.

Amendment in line 46 put and the Committee divided: AYES—47: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Fisher, E. L.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, L; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford. A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn. S. J. M.; Steytler, J. van A.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; van der Byl. P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

NOES—68: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Question put: That the word “one” in line 72, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—69: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, D. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Strydom, G. H. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. von S. von Moltke.

NOES—46: Barnett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; Cope, J. P.; de Beer, Z. J.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Fisher, E. L.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hughes, T. G.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Lewis, L; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Shearer, O. L.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Swart, R. A. F.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

Question affirmed and the remaining amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I have an amendment on the Order Paper but before moving it I wish to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question about the effect of this clause. The effect of my amendment would be to omit the first part of the proposed new clause and to leave the section as it was. The effect would be that the prohibition which up till now has existed in relation to agreements would remain. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s proposal is that the prohibition should now be on the acquisition of property. The effect of the amendment is that the prohibition should remain only on an agreement to acquire. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given an explanation to the Other Place and also when he introduced this measure, and there may well be merit in the object which he seeks to achieve. At present certain agreements are rendered invalid, and in practice I understand that this does create uncertainty and hardship in certain cases. That has been confirmed. But at the same time the amendment of the Deputy Minister, if accepted, would prohibit certain things which are allowed at present and which in my view should continue to be legal. For instance if, in a controlled area, property is inherited, then that bequest would at present be quite legal, even if it took place across the colour line. I think the effect of the Deputy Minister’s amendment would be to render it illegal. Similarly, if an agreement had been entered into before the commencement of the principal Act whereby a person was to acquire property, that would have been legal in terms of the existing section whereas the Deputy Minister’s amendment would render it illegal. I think that that is correct in law. and I think there should be some proviso to safeguard those particular instances. I am in agreement with the Deputy Minister that in the future perhaps the amendment which he has proposed would be an advantage, but I nevertheless think the amending clause which he proposes would render illegal these two things which up to now have been legal. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister say whether that is correct; whether these two types of acquisition which could take place quite legally in the past, by inheritance and in terms of a written agreement entered into before the Act, are now being made illegal, and would the Deputy Minister consider a proviso which would retain those two possibilities.

Mr. BARNETT:

As I read this clause it is going to make the position of the Coloured people much more difficult and much more serious. Sir, a “controlled area” is defined in the principal Act, which says that a “controlled area” means any area which is not a group area … ”, but part of a controlled area does become a group area at one time or another. Now I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to what really has taken place in an area not far from Cape Town where Coloured people applied for permits in a controlled area to acquire property. These permits were granted only a few years ago, and these people acted in good faith and put their savings into these properties, only to find that a few years later the Government declared that area to be a group area for a group other than for those people to whom the permits were granted. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and a lot of Coloured people were permitted under permit to purchase property in a controlled area, and the Minister has come a few years later and declared it to be a group area, in this case for Europeans, and these people had to move again.

This Clause 8 only gives the Minister further powers to ruin people. He can give a permit under Clause 8 as envisaged under this amendment, but there is no security of tenure for these poor people. They don’t know where they are, because in two or three years’ time the Minister can say: “I now declare this to be a group area and I am not interested whether you have got a permit or not, you have got to go out again.” Sir, you can’t play fast and loose with the feelings of people the way this Government has been doing, and I would like to see this clause expunged from the Bill, or otherwise we should get some satisfaction from the hon. the Minister that if he does give a permit in a controlled area, he will see to it that these people shall remain and that they should not be there at the pleasure of the Government. The position should not be that somebody can come along and say: “You granted permits to 18, 20 or 80 Coloured families; we think you have made a mistake.” We know the pressure that is brought to bear on the Government as far as group areas are concerned, and under Clause 7 the hon. the Minister can now appoint one man who will decide whether the Government should not have granted these 20 or 40 or 80 permits and whether these Coloured people have to go. I raise this in protest because we have actual evidence of what happened in the past. I want to add one further example. I am told that many Coloured people bought property under the permit system, on what we call “hire purchase Now the Minister has cancelled all that. These agreements shall be of no force or effect. The status quo must be restored. A man who has sold the property must give back all the instalments he received, and the poor Coloured people who bought homes under the hire-purchase system, have got to go again. Surely the time has come when the Coloured people, who suffer, as we know, very deeply under this Act, should at least know that when they get a permit, they will be there for the future and for life, and that they will not again be chased from pillar to post, chased away as if they are cattle and not human beings. I protest most strongly against this type of legislation.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I want To tell the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that I am informed that the hon. member’s deduction is correct. But how many cases of that nature will arise?

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

What about the cases of hire-purchase agreements to which the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has referred?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I repeat that there are few cases of the kind to which the hon. member has referred, and then they are cases where the people have inherited the property. I will go into the matter raised by the hon. member for Boland and ascertain whether the position warrants that we bring about a change; whether there are as many cases of hardship as he alleges.

Mr. BARNETT:

I shall give the necessary information to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes, the hon. member can let me have the information. I want to say to the hon. member, however, that he should get out of the habit which he has developed of getting up in this House time and again and objecting to something or other. Time and again he gives us instances where people are treated unfairly and being terribly oppressed. That takes the hon. member no further. The hon. member should raise the points which he wishes to raise and we will be reasonable and investigate them, but he should not use the discussion on every individual clause as an opportunity to paint a gloomy picture to the country.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I am pleased the Minister has said that he will investigate this matter, especially the agreements that were entered into before this Act was introduced.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to

On Clause 9,

Mrs. SUZMAN:

Mr. Chairman, this clause substitutes Section 13 of Act 77 of 1957. and the memorandum says that Clause 9 simply corrects errors that were made in the consolidating Act and contains no new provisions. Undoubtedly the wording of the new clause is simpler than the wording in the original Act. I wonder, however, why the hon. the Minister could not try further to improve on the original section, because if one looks at the definition under Section 10 of the original Act of persons belonging to the different groups, it becomes so complicated that the whole operation of the Act must become almost impossible. People assume chameleon-like appearances in South Africa under the definitions of the Group Areas Act. Persons who are classified as belonging to one group or one race according to general associations or acceptance, will change their group if they happen to marry persons of another group, and, of course, as group membership in our social set-up in South Africa is regarded, such a person will then obtain inferior status in this country. Now if at any time in future he divorces that person or perhaps his wife dies, then he reverts back again to the original group from which he stems. Of couse, it is discretionary, but it can happen. A man can change from one group to the other. Take, for example, a Coloured woman who was married to an African in terms of this Act. If the African dies or she divorces him, she can then be reverted to her previous group. This leads to so many additional difficulties where people own property in the correct group for Group Areas purposes, and their status changes, they may have to sell that property, unless they get a permit. Is there no way in which the Minister can obviate cases like this which really must lead to the most incredible confusion?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

In this case I must rely on the law advisers and they say that the restrictions imposed were merely intended to apply to the case of change of group by a person. In drafting an amendment, it was decided to correct an error. It was found that the section which had only been introduced in 1952 had been made retrospective to 1950 and that the section in effect prohibited the disposal of properties concerned to members of the qualified group after the properties had been included in group areas for ownership. In a group area for ownership the legality of a position necessarily depends on the group of the transferee and the group of the transferor is irrelevant. It is accordingly proposed to substitute a new Section 13 in which all these errors had been corrected.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I intended to move the amendments standing in my name, viz.—

To add the following new sub-sections at the end of the proposed Section 16bis:
  1. (4) Whenever the purpose for which a property may be occupied or used has been restricted by virtue of a proclamation under sub-section (1), the owner of the property shall be paid an amount equal to the reduction in value, if any, of such property due to such restriction.
  2. (5) The amount of compensation payable in terms of sub-section (4) shall in the absence of agreement be fixed by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 6 of 1882 (Cape of Good Hope).

I have had notice from the Clerk of the House to say that this amendment is not in order because it requires a warrant from the Governor-General before it is put, therefore, I am unable to put it, but I hope that my intention is clear. The point is that in terms of the proposed Section 16bis, the hon. the Minister can declare an area in which property may be used for a particular purpose only, and I think it is generally accepted that the reason why he is seeking this power is that he wishes business to continue in certain properties, but that those properties should not be used for residential purposes, and that in fact people who live above such properties will have to move out if the section is applied in that way. So far as I can see there is no provision for compensation. The purposes for which the building will be able to be used will be limited. Whereas previously it could be used for business purposes as far as certain parts of the building were concerned, and for residential purposes as far as other parts of the building were concerned, now the hon. the Minister has got the right to limit it to one of those two. The value of such a building may very well be reduced. Very likely it will be reduced; because accommodation which was available for certain purposes, may now no longer be used for those purposes. It is true, that in terms of an amendment towards the end of this amending Bill, building land or premises which has been specified in a proclamation under Section 16bis, may be included in the definition of “group area” for the purposes of the Group Areas Development Act, but I cannot see how that is going to enable the hon. the Minister to provide for compensation, unless he actually buys in that property, unless the Group Areas Development Board buys in that property in respect of which the purpose has been limited. Will the hon. the Minister tell us how the Group Areas Board will proceed? If they limit the purpose for which a particular building may be used, do they intend to buy in that property and then to re-let it, perhaps to the previous owner, to continue his business? Because if that is not done, then I cannot see that the Minister will be able to pay compensation for the reduction in value of the property. It was with that in mind that I wished to move the amendments on page 278 of the Order Paper which provide for arbitration. I am unable to move that amendment, and unless the hon. the Minister can satisfy us that proper provision will be made for the payment of compensation, we shall certainly vote against the clause on that ground alone.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I want to say immediately that apart from the fact that you, Mr. Chairman, have refused to accept the amendment, the hon. member has raised something which is worth while investigating. As a matter of fact I have already asked that it be investigated immediately, but if an amendment is necessary to enable us to take the necessary action, it will have to be made to the Group Areas Development Act. I want to tell the hon. member that we will consider the matter during the recess and if necessary we will amend the Group Areas Development Act early next session.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

I wish to move the following amendment—

To add at the end of sub-section (1) of the proposed section 16bis: “, such purpose to be limited to the purpose for which the said building, land or premises was used before or at the time of such promulgation, save at the request of the owner ”.

During the second-reading stage of this Bill, the hon. the Minister put forward that this was a relaxation. Of course we accept that it does in fact allow people to trade and live away from the area. It has, however, certain objections. First of all, this is an attempt to control the use of land. I mentioned this before to the hon. the Minister, and I mention it again, that it not only controls the occupation of a building but it controls the use of a building, as such it cuts right across the face of town planning. As I explained to the hon. the Minister, in a province such as Natal, if this clause goes through, as it is, you will have three town-planning bodies, namely, the local authority, the province and this body under the Bill. It will cut across licensing because the Minister under other clauses can specify another use for the building than the use to which it is being put at the present moment, with a subsequent upset of town-planning. I believe that this amendment of mine will largely correct the position. It will enable the Minister to allow a building or site to be used for the purpose for which it was being used at the time of the proclamation, and it can only be changed as a result of a request by the owner that it should be used for some other purpose.

Mr. GAY:

This particular amendment in Clause 12 contains another principle to which we take strong exception. We are prepared to admit that the Minister’s idea, and correctly so, is in certain portions of his amendment, to alleviate the position of people occupying for business purposes. I think we dealt with that fully at the earlier stages of this Bill, but it does again impose the principle of occupation by permit. Certain portions of the building can be used for specified business purposes— a permit can be given for the use of such portions of the building for such business purposes. But it will be next door to impossible for any business of an extensive nature to have to exist under permit, a permit which can be revoked at any time, there being no real time limit at all applied to it. There is the question of stock investment, capital investment, all the features that go to make up a successful and a sound business—they must be thwarted by the fact that from month to month the owner of that business is never sure that he is going to be allowed to continue his occupancy. It is laid down quite clearly in sub-section (2) that those premises cannot be used for any other purpose, except as specified under the authority of a permit.

Then there is the other feature that the Minister made it plain in the earlier portion of the debate that only the portion of the premises used for business purposes can be so used, and that where under existing conditions, or prior to that particular change, the owner may have used a portion of the premises for occupation (and the other portion for business purposes) he will no longer be permitted to occupy the residential part of the premises which he previously occupied for this purpose. There is no question about it that the hon. the Minister will again reply that it is still a concession, but the hon. Minister will find that he has put another load on his shoulders, because it is going to be next door to impracticable under the proclaimed areas system, to utilize the residential portions of a large number of premises in this country which were designed purely for residential purposes, for any other purpose than that for which they were designed and built. It will mean again the imposition of a further penalty on the owners of the premises. Although, as a result of the relaxation afforded by this amendment, such a person will be able to continue in business, he will have a considerable portion of his premises completely redundant, and it will be next door to impossible to let it for other purposes, and that portion will lie on his hands for maintenance and all the other things that entail expenditure. It is the type of amendment which appears on the surface to be doing good, but which in practice will be found to be most difficult to administer and is likely to cause a substantial headache not only to the owners, but to the Board and the Minister himself.

The other feature is covered by the amendment just moved. It is dealt with by that amendment in an endeavour to alleviate the difficulty we foresee, but as a whole it is an amendment which will require quite a lot of careful examination and adjustment before it achieves the end which the hon. the Minister himself, I think, has quite honestly set out to achieve: to grant some relief to the owners by not dispossessing them of their livelihood and their business. I would urge even now in this Committee Stage that the hon. the Minister should give more thought to that particular aspect. Once the area is proclaimed as a proclaimed area for a certain class, it is only that class which will be able to make use of the remaining portion of any such building, and in nine out of ten cases, with the exception maybe of very large premises they will find that it can only be used for the one purpose, for which it will be debarred by the permit itself.

Mrs. SUZMAN:

The hon. the Deputy Minister told us that he considers this to be a major concession in the Bill. I must say, however, that weighing up the pros and cons I am not at all sure that the additional disadvantages which this new Section 16bis introduces do not outweigh any advantages in the form of the concession to be able to declare a property an area for business purposes only, in other words, to allow people to continue to trade there, although they are no longer allowed to reside there. The reason I say that, is that in practice—I hope the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that in practice in fact, in the case of Indians who were living and trading in so-called defined areas, they could continue to use those premises for any purpose whatsoever. Up to now as long as they occupied those premises before a certain date, 31 March 1951, they could continue to do so for any purpose whatsoever. So in fact this provision now introduces restrictions in those specified areas where no restrictions previously existed. So where an Indian for instance was allowed to trade in this particular property, if the hon. the Minister now decides to make that area an area for residential purposes only, he loses his trading rights; or if he decides to make it an area for industrial purposes, he will also lose his trading rights. Previously, before the hon. the Minister could do that, he had to go through the whole machinery of proclaiming the area a group area for a special purpose. So it gives the hon. the Deputy Minister greater powers in restricting the use to which property in defined areas can now be put, and there the disadvantages may be greater than the advantages, although I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister intends to use this as a concession wherever he can do so. But I want to say that from that point of view we do not consider this to be a particularly advantageous clause. I also want to point out that the market value of the property is affected by the fact that where previously the property could be used for any purpose whatsoever, now under 16bis, it is to be used for one specific purpose only, and this obviously has the effect of limiting the amount which could be received for that property if it were sold. I think the hon. the Minister himself has realized that because in a later clause, I think 29, he brings all the properties under 16bis under the Group Areas Development Act. In other words, the properties can be expropriated by the Board itself. So that on balance we do not consider this clause to be a particularly “liberalizing” clause. I used the word in inverted commas because of the particular connotation this word has in South Africa, and although the hon. the Minister has kindly said that he will investigate the matter raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) we still cannot agree to this clause.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I just want to say that we welcome the approach of the hon. the Minister on this matter of compensation. The hon. Minister has said that he will go into that question. That meets one of our objections. But another basic objection to this clause remains. When we were dealing with Clause 5 I moved an amendment that a proclamation should not be issued in terms of Section 16bis until the Board had considered the question of alternative accommodation and had advised the Minister on that matter. The hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept that in relation to proclamations under Section 16bis, although it is already in the law in relation to the proclamation of group areas. We say that exactly the same principle applies here: People can be removed for residential purposes from premises which they occupy, and we say that it should be written into the law that the Board shall consider the existence of suitable alternative accommodation before they advise the Minister in regard to a proclamation. The hon. the Minister has not accepted such an amendment and therefore we have a basic objection to this clause. We do also have reservations about limiting buildings for use for one purpose only where a building was used for more than one purpose. It may lead to very great wastage indeed. The alterations may have to be substantial to put it to another use. So we have reservations on that point too. After all it is quite common to find a building used for business purposes on the ground floor and for residential purposes upstairs. That is not actually what the Minister is objecting to. He is objecting to it being done by certain races, and so it is a racial approach here. We are not satisfied that the proper approach has been made to this problem. So one of our basic objections remains. As the provisions in respect of suitable alternative accommodation is not written into the Act although we welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider the question of compensation, we nevertheless must vote against this clause.

Mr. MILLER:

This amendment has obviously come about as a result of the problem which presented itself to the board with regard to the implementation of the term “occupation ”. The board was confronted by the difficulty that it was unable to allow a person to carry on business in an area where occupation was controlled and that person, in terms of the proclamation controlling that area, was disqualified. That was because the term “occupation” meant actual physical habitation. The board was unable, in terms of the Act, as it stood, to create a division of the site for occupation into residential and business premises. The intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing this amendment to the Act is obviously to enable the board, when dealing with the question of Group Areas or the defining of any area of land to, at the same time, permit a specific use for that piece of land or that area of land. In other words, as the Deputy Minister said in his second reading speech, his objective is to enable the board to permit the occupation of a certain area of land for business purposes only whilst, at the same time, excluding its occupation for residential purposes, and so limiting the use of that particular land, premises or area.

In doing so, there has been a fear expressed that the reason for this amendment is also to permit the board to define the use of those premises itself. It may permit the board, following policy from Government sources, to confine the specific purpose of that land or those premises for a particular type of industry or a particular type of trade. And so, in a sense, not only specify a purpose but also to limit that purpose in a manner which conforms not with the desire of the owner or the trader, but with the desire of governmental policy. That, I think, is a fear which the hon. the Deputy Minister should meet, and should certainly allay so far as the affected persons are concerned.

The purpose of this amendment is that when the board does allow land or premises to continue to be used for a particular purpose, it shall be used for the purpose prevailing at the time of the promulgation, or prior to the actual promulgation. So that the individual who makes the application shall at least have the assurance that he will be entitled to continue trading in the same business in which he had been trading previously, unless the owner of the premises would like to change that. Then, only, should the board give consideration to the actual definition of the type of business which may be carried on. If, on the other hand, it is the intention in promulgating any land or premises for a specific use, to use the general term that is made use of in town planning, for instance, for business purposes or industrial purposes, then I think that the clause should be very much clearer and should clearly define that it intends, in providing a specific use, to do so in the broad categories to which we are accustomed under our town planning legislation. Failing this there is a definite fear—which may be a misleading fear or may be a fear which has no basis—but it is a fear which will certainly arise in terms of the wording of this clause.

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has an opportunity in terms of the amendment which has been moved, to set those fears at rest and, perhaps by trial and error, to come back later, in a year or two, and make any change that is necessary. But at least he has the opportunity of giving an assurance to those persons for whom the hon. the Deputy Minister may claim he is providing a certain relaxation of the harsh provisions of the Statute, that they will not lose any of the rights that they have at the moment. This is a very real fear, and the criticism contained in the amendment is not directed merely at the Statute, it is a criticism which is in the material interests of people who earn their daily livelihood from the use to which the land is being put at the moment. If there is a desire on the part of the Government to ease these harsh provisions then, I believe we should be very much more clear and definite in what we are doing. Far too much of this particular Act is so vague that it requires a great deal of ingenuity on the part of the board which has to interpret it and implement it reasonably. That is why we are having these constant amendments. However, one does appreciate that an effort is being made to ease the situation. Cannot, therefore, the effort be in a direction which will lay at rest any question of fear in the minds of the people to whom this means so much? The hon. the Deputy Minister knows, and has had proof as a result of the determinations following on the previous Act, even prior to the consolidation in 1957, of what the literal interpretation of this Act can mean in the financial life of a large community in this country. It is because they have been faced with the stark realities of the implementation of the Act that the Government has come forward with amendments. One does not decry those efforts. But one does hope that they will go very much further because, after all, if we are to administer this law with justice as was foretold at the time of its original introduction, then we must administer it with justice tempered with wisdom. Let that justice not be lightly handled, but let it be enshrined in the law, with a sense of wisdom which will give satisfaction to those affected by this legislation. And let them also have a sense of security as to what the State is providing for their benefit.

I, very sincerely indeed, would like to see amendments made to this Act with that crystal clarity that would leave no doubt in the minds of those persons who are affected by this provision of the Act, that the amendments so made are—as the Minister has put it—ostensibly in their interests.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

In order to meet hon. members to some extent, I am prepared to move the following amendment—

In line 5, after “may” to insert “after consultation with the Administrator of the province concerned
Mr. MITCHELL:

How will that help us?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, it will help to this extent that we hope this will render nugatory the prophecies of hon. members that by declaring these special areas we will unwittingly clash with town planning and other schemes which have been established under the guidance of local authorities. Just as in the case of groups areas where the Administrator has the right to make objections and to try to make them conform with the planning which is taking place in his own province, he will also be consulted in this case and he given the opportunity to object. I think this is a concession which I can make and this is proof that we are seeking co-operation in so far as these proposed areas are concerned. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.

Mr. GAY:

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us how the amendment he has just moved will meet a case of the type we are boggling at. In the early stages the hon. the Deputy Minister made it clear that he was making a concession in regard to business premises. Let me take the case of an Indian trader who is living in a double-storied building, living upstairs and trading on the ground floor. As I understood it, the concession was that upon receipt of a permit that Indian trader could be permitted to continue trading in those premises, but not permitted to reside therein. The premises themselves are in a specified controlled area and, therefore, can only be occupied, for any purpose, by people of that particular race group. In this case it would be the Indian group. Therefore the owner of those premises has to move out to an area set aside for residential purposes for the Asian group. But under permit he can continue to occupy the bottom floor for the purposes of a specified business. This being a proclaimed area, and being specified as a business area, there is no one else who can occupy those premises except another person of the same race. The one who was occupying it, has had to move out. How is the amendment of the Deputy Minister to the effect that the Administrator would be consulted, in any way going to affect that situation? I can understand that it will have an effect when it comes to dealing with new buildings to be erected where, I assume, the relaxation would not apply in any event. But in the case of existing buildings, where a person of a particular class owns the building, lives in it and trades there, how does the amendment have any beneficial effect? I have in mind an actual case of premises of that nature, where the reverse has been the case for over three years. This is a case of a very substantial building consisting of two shops on the ground floor and a residence on the upper floor. The upper floor has been occupied by the owner who js in business in another shop. He has had to rent this other shop while his own two shops have stood empty because he is not permitted to occupy them. For three years they have stood empty, he has paid rates and taxes on them but has been unable to rent them to anyone else. Yet he has been allowed to live above his empty shops. Now we are going to reverse the position. If a man in that position receives a permit he is going to be allowed to trade in those shops but will not longer be allowed to live above them. And nobody else but a person of his race group will be allowed to occupy the premises over those shops. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain how he proposes to overcome a situation of that nature.

There is, of course, another difficulty which arises. In the fairly large businesses of some of these people, it is essential for some protection to be afforded to them during the hours when the premises are closed for business. But the owners have to move and live right out of the area. What protection is going to be afforded their business premises during the hours that they no longer have access to them? However, the main objection is the question of occupation of that portion of the property which has to be vacated in terms of this so-called concession.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

The amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister does not help me at all. My problem is this: This clause is an effort to vest the administration of the Group Areas with the use of land or the use of a building. It is not only the right to declare what particular group shall occupy it, but to what use it shall be put. Once that is done the Minister is vesting the Group Areas Administration with the functions of a town planning board or a town planning authority. I cannot see how that can possibly work, if three different authorities are going to have the right to plan the use of land in one particular area. I have already told the hon. the Deputy Minister that in Natal this will mean that the local authority, the province and the Government will all be attending to town planning. This is going to cause the biggest mix-up that you can imagine. It must do, because each one of those bodies is going to give permission for the use to which that particular piece of land can be put. The fortunate man who goes to the Group Areas Administration for permission will probably be all right, because government authority will over-ride all others. But what about the unfortunate individuals who go to local authorities and get permission to use a piece of land for a certain business purpose? If that individual and his activities do not meet with the approval of the Group Areas Administration, he is going to lose out. He can spend a lot of money on developing his site for a specific purpose—I quoted them in the second reading—such as a drive-in cinema; he can use it for that purpose and suddenly find he has to vacate it. Last week in Durban I saw permission granted, in the Queen Street area, for a huge block of flats with shops underneath, for non-European occupation. But what is going to happen when Group Areas come in there? I believe that that block of buildings, together with the land, will cost £100,000 to £150,000, or more. What is going to happen to that when the Group Areas Administration comes there and says “you can occupy the shop but you cannot occupy the flats above ”? What is going to happen? The town planning authorities are going to issue licences allowing a particular type of trade to be carried on in the bottom portion of that building. The Group Areas Administration can copie along and say “You cannot use them for that purpose you must open another type of business, in the building ”. Where is town planning going to begin and where is it going to end? Why does not the hon. the Deputy Minister come to us and say “I am going to attend to all town planning in every area where you have a colour problem ”? Then he would be getting nearer to the problem, because he might just as well do that and cause less confusion— or more, I do not know which. But at least you would have one body attending to the job whereas here you are going to have three. Frankly, this will result in such a mess that it cannot possibly work.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister must see that the amendment he has put forward cannot possibly meet the case. Why does the Government want to control the use of the land? I know that under the Group Areas Act the Government can control the occupation of the land, but in terms of this clause they distinguish absolutely between the group which will occupy it and the use to which it shall be put. That is where the confusion is coming in. They have never done that before. This is a new line in Group Areas control, where the Government has the say as to the use to which a building shall be put. I believe that the Minister is going to get everybody into trouble and is going to cause a lot of hardship. I ask him seriously to reconsider my amendment which, I believe, will overcome this difficulty. If he will accept that he shall have the right to lay down who shall occupy, but not the use to which that building is put, then I believe he will save everybody a lot of headaches.

*Mr. MULLER:

It is difficult to discuss amending legislation of this nature with hon. members opposite. From the very nature of their position in this House, they must oppose legislation, and it has now become clear that they do not always do so with logical arguments but that they often, as they have done for the whole of this afternoon, come along with arguments that the so-called rights of the individual are being affected. I would like to point out to hon. members opposite that in nine out of ten cases where amending legislation is introduced it is usually done to facilitate the administration and the application of such legislation. Where the administration and the application of the legislation have to be facilitated and made more effective, that is done particularly to ensure that those people who cannot be brought within the scope of the Act and who perhaps find loopholes will also be included and that provision will be made for them also. In such cases it is often quite possible that their rights are affected, but I would like to ask hon. members not only to advance moral but also logical considerations in the sense that the administration of this legislation, the principle of which has already been adopted, must be made effective in practice. With regard to town planning, the hon. member who has just sat down said that the concession …

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

*Mr. MULLER:

I am there now, Sir, in regard to the town planning. The hon. member who spoke just before me said that in his province there are now three bodies who will have a say in the object for which properties are used. I am not sure what the position is in his province, because very often peculiar things are done there. But as far as I know, the local authorities are under the control of the Provincial Administrations. If the Governor-General now makes an award in this case, from the nature of the matter only two bodies would be concerned with it. On the one hand it is the Minister who makes the award by way of a proclamation issued by the Governor-General, and on the other hand the Provincial Administration of the province concerned, which in the final result exercises control over everything done by the local authorities. Now the hon. the Minister has said that he is making a concession, viz. that before anything can be done there should be consultation between these two bodies. If the hon. member now says that this is not a concession, I really do not know what it is. The hon. member will remember that in the second reading I said that he was raising a good point because he said that more than one authority would have to deal with the matter. But, Sir, now there is co-ordination; there is consultation and the possibility that the one authority will make one award and the other authority is being eliminated by the concession made by the hon. the Minister. I really think the hon. member should abide by that and accept that it is really a concession of great importance in regard to the objection he raised.

Now with regard to the former practice, the hon. member moved an amendment that the use of the site or building concerned should be confined to what it was used for before. I think, with respect, that the hon. member will realize that if the Minister were to agree to it the bottom would be knocked out of the whole object of this clause. This clause would then be practically useless, because if town planning is essential then it is also essential to deviate from the present use of a particular site or building. And if that is not necessary, then town planning is not necessary either. I call it town planning because it is in line with the ordinary accepted procedure of town planning which we all know. That is why I feel that nobody in this House should consider that the hon. the Deputy Minister would be able to accept something like this because it would negative his whole object. That is why I conclude by asking that hon. members should not expect the impossible and that they should not merely argue emotionally or sentimentally but also logically and with a view to the practical application of these provisions.

Mr. BUTCHER:

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has set forth two very good reasons for which we object to this clause. But I want to say that they are not the only reasons. There is another reason which, I think, should be explicitly stated, and that is that we in the Progressive Party are strongly opposed, in principle, to the compulsory removal of individuals from their property. This clause, introducing as it does, a new principle in the division of a combined residential and business economy—is one of which we also very strongly disapprove. It is quite obvious that any such action under this clause would have the effect of gradually undermining the economic stability of businesses that have been built up in this manner.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made great play of the fact that he regarded this clause as a concession because it enables him to make a proclamation empowering the Group Areas Board to remove the owner of a property for residential purposes, whilst allowing him to continue to conduct his business at the premises. I am quite certain that no non-European in this country, whether he be a Coloured or Asiatic, who is affected by this clause, would agree that this can in any way be regarded as a concession. After all, I do not think the hon. the Minister has fully taken into account the economic effect on non-European business, involved in the removal of an owner from residential quarters on the same premises. There is, first of all, the question of supervision. Let me say here, Mr. Chairman, that very often these business premises are sited in areas which are conspicuous for the absence of adequate police patrolling and, consequently, the question of supervision, especially at night time, is a very important one.

There is also the question of what will happen to the business if, due to his removal, the owner finds that his insurance rates are substantially increased, or if he finds that because of the lack of supervision at all times, day and night, he is less credit-worthy and therefore finds it considerably more difficult to get credit from the industries and wholesale merchants which supply him in the normal course of business. Surely it must have the effect of eventually depreciating the chances of effecting a sale of the business as a going concern.

Therefore, if one views the operation of this clause from these points of view, one finds that the clause is certainly no concession. On the contrary, what it amounts to is that it will provide for the gradual strangulation of this type of non-European business. Quite apart from the business aspect, there is also the additional aspect that the persons affected are going to be put to considerable expense in removing themselves and their families to some other area for residential purposes; an area in which, possibly, not all services will be available, such as transport.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. BUTCHER:

When the debate was adjourned I was explaining how the provisions of Clause 12 would have the effect of forcing an Indian who had been obliged to dissociate his business premises from his residential premises to carry on his business in such a way that he would be gradually strangled economically, and I pointed out that that would not be the end of the story, because he would be forced to move to a residential area, not of his own choosing, having to eke out a precarious living on a permit from the Minister, and when he got to the new residential area he would there be faced with all the additional costs of running two establishments. He would have to maintain both buildings and pay rates in both instances, and he would certainly have additional transport costs, knowing that in the new area to which he would be forced to take his family there might not even be transport facilities. From both points of view he will suffer. On the other hand, if any European chooses to come into the area which he has recently vacated and erects business premises and builds residential accommodation also on those premises, not only would he not be placed in a position of equality with his European competitor, but the position would actually be reversed.

The Minister, in dealing with the question of compensation, stated that he would look into the matter and, if necessary, make provision in the Group Areas Development Act for compensation. But surely the Minister must have considered the question of compensation arising from this clause. I would like to know on what basis he proposes to adjust the compensation, because there is such an infinite variety of circumstances that can arise, that it seems to me to be a question which would almost baffle the wisdom of Solomon to get a fair basis on which compensation can be assessed.

One comes finally to the question of the motive which prompts the introduction of this clause. I think the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé), with his rather disarming frankness, gave the show away when he said that this provision would assist “in clearing up what was otherwise a predominantly White area and to clear up isolated spots occupied by Asiatic and Coloured traders who cannot easily be moved either because of the high expropriation cost or for humanitarian reasons ”. So this clause is destined to short-circuit these difficulties. Moreover, the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) said: “That in future the Indian will have to compete with the White trader on an equal footing, because, in future, he would also have a home about five miles from his shop, just as in the case of the White man, and he would also have the expense of travelling from his business, and would have to compete on an equal basis with the White man, and he would not have the advantage of living on his business premises with no travelling expenses, and thus be in a position to cut prices.” If the Minister wants to create the impression that he is implementing this legislation with a sense of impartiality towards all races, he should assure us that some simultaneous efforts are being made in other directions to ensure that the Indian and the Coloured population, who are otherwise subjected to all sorts of restrictions, are going to be systematically removed. In point of fact, these disabilities which are being imposed on them by this clause are being added to disabilities in other directions. It seems to me that if the intention of the Government is, as these two hon. members have stated, that the Government wishes to impose certain disabilities on the Indian trader in order to force him into other occupations, I suggest that they would do better by simply introducing group areas rather than strangle these individuals very slowly in this manner. I would remind the Minister of the statement made by the Minister of Bantu Education reported in the Natal Daily News on 22 June 1956, “that the Indians would be only too pleased to get out of the country after the effects of the Group Areas Act had been felt I also quote a statement made by Mr. Theo Gerdener, the then Provincial Councillor in Natal, reported in the Daily News on 12 January 1956, that “the policy of the Group Areas Act would break the commercial stranglehold which the Indians seem to have on some towns and districts ”. I suggest that if the Minister wants to create a favourable impression here and overseas at a time when it is important that South Africa’s standing should be high, he should do something to assure everybody that those objectives I have quoted from Government spokesmen are not in fact the case, and give us adequate grounds for believing that these presumptions that these are the motives of the Government are not true.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I do not think we are discussing under this clause what people have said or did not say. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that we are taking power, after thorough investigation and report to the Minister, to proclaim certain areas for certain purposes. It is a new field we are embarking upon and, therefore, we cannot have the reply to every question which might possibly be asked. No investigation has yet been held. We have not yet seen the implications of the matter as a whole. Those will only be apparent to us when we have made the investigation and have obtained the evidence. The prerequisite for the implementation of this clause is that there should be a public investigation where evidence can be heard and where people can lodge their objections. We will learn from that. The hon. member now expects me to do something which they tell us all the time should not be done, viz. to pass legislation before we have the whole picture. It is not possible to do so before we have held the inquiry and the Minister has received the report. We will probably find ourselves up against difficulties, and then we will come back to this House to remedy them. That is what this House is there for. I am not going to deal with the points raised by the hon. member.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) that it is a pity he did not put his amendment on the Order Paper, because he had enough time to do so, in order that we could have considered it properly. But I have now had to consider it over the floor of the House, and, as I understand it, it means just one thing, namely that, if I accept it, I might as well withdraw this clause, because I would then be emasculating the clause. The hon. member wants us not to use a building for a different purpose from the one for which it was used before or at the date of the proclamation, except with the approval of the owner. But one may find the position where one is dealing with an area, and we know of such areas, where the building is hopelessly inefficient, and for that very reason we want to make the Development Act applicable, so that, in terms of that Act, we can use the building for the purposes for which it is required. There may be an old building or there may be buildings on sites which can appropriately be used for a different purpose, and by applying the Development Act those changes can be made. I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, because that would emasculate the whole clause.

I just want to mention a few points again which were mentioned during the course of the debate. Firstly, I provide in this amendment that there will be consultation with the Administrators. By doing so, we bring this clause into line with other provisions of the Group Areas Act, so that the Administrator will be consulted before a group area is proclaimed. As the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) correctly remarked, the Administrations are there to assist in eliminating a conflict of views. There will be proper consultation. In the second place, I have told the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that I intend reconsidering the whole question of compensation, if the Development Act does not work effectively, and I will then amend the Development Act in order to comply with those requirements. But we need time for that. Particularly when we start investigating such areas will the difficulties become apparent, and we shall be able to amend the Act accordingly. It is not necessary immediately to proclaim an area if it has been investigated. In other words, it is not necessary to do an injustice to people by publishing a proclamation too soon.

In the third place, I just want to say that this clause now gives us the first opportunity to start doing something which we have never yet had the right to do, namely to institute investigations for these purposes. I cannot say more about this clause than this. I can imagine that hon. members would like to ask a whole number of questions. We will take cognizance of that, and, in the light of this discussion, we shall certainly try to proclaim these areas in such a way that the least possible hardship will result. But, on the other hand, hon. members cannot get away from the fact that this is a progressive and practical step in order to facilitate the application of separate residential areas. That is the whole object of the clause.

Mr. GAY:

In the opening remarks of the speech just made by the Deputy Minister, he put his finger right on the fundamental weakness of this type of legislation which makes us as an Opposition oppose it. The Minister conceded that it was quite impossible for him to have all the answers at this stage and for him and his Department to foresee all the implications of this amendment. I am prepared to concede that the Minister is moving in the right direction, that he is making certain concessions, but that fundamental weakness remains. It has been the criticism of the Opposition right throughout that the Government is rushing this type of legislation on to the Statute Book without proper research to ascertain the implications and the repercussions that will develop when they try to put it into operation. The Minister says that when difficulties arise he will come back to this House to amend the legislation. In the name of Heaven, has there not been enough amending legislation yet? Is there any lawyer in the country to-day who can really grasp the Group Areas Act? And the people who suffer under it. what hope do they have of understanding it when you accept as the basis that you pass the legislation and when later you find its difficulties you will come back to amend it. I know that is an accepted principle in many things and that when difficulties do crop up which no one can foresee, the legislation is amended, but in this case we are attempting to point out to the Minister the difficulties we know by experience which exist and the traps he is walking into. The hon. member for Ceres gave us a lecture as to our duty as an Opposition. When the hon. member has been in the House a bit longer, he will probably realize that the Opposition also has a responsibility and that it is our job when we can foresee difficulties to acquaint the Government of them and not to oppose just for the sake of opposition. But in this case the Minister has told us that he cannot be expected to foresee the trouble, but that if it arises he will remedy it. In the meantime the people who are caught between the millstones will be ground into dust. They will lose whatever they have. I will quote a case where within the last three years a magnificent modern building was erected with the permission of the local board and of the local authority, in which there are very fine business premises on the ground floor and a very modern residence at the top. What will happen to that man now when he is forced to move out and live five or six miles away and travel in and out to his business? Again I appeal to the Minister to give this problem further consideration and not force the owner to leave the upper portion of his premises empty. It will be in an area which can only be occupied by a certain specified group and therefore nobody else can live in it. Assume it is a White area. Then do I understand it is Government policy to allow the ground floor to be occupied by Asians for business purposes and allow the upper portion to be occupied by Europeans? These are some of the implications we can foresee from our practical experience, and we are trying to assist the Minister by bringing them to his notice. In regard to the Minister’s suggestion of referring the matter to the Administrator, I still fail to see how it can assist in alleviating the difficulties which will arise.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

I feel the Minister has got a little mixed up here between Clause 12 and Clause 14, because in reply to my amendment he spoke about the state of buildings. Frankly, I do not see that this enters into the clause, although it may enter into Clause 14. What I am trying to do in my amendment is to offset to some extent the uncertainty which the Minister has brought into this Act by now taking unto himself or to the Board the power to determine for what particular purpose the premises should be used. Flowing from that, there will be a great deal of uncertainty, and all my amendment seeks to do is to say that the premises shall be used for the purposes for which they are being used at the time of the proclamation. In other words, they must be licensed, if it is a business, and surely the Minister will not interfere with that. If it is a cinema, I am sure the Minister does not want to interfere with it. So what has the Minister got to lose? All he gives in this amendment is the right to people whom he himself has said he will allow to continue to trade in an area where they will become disqualified persons, but they cannot live there. If he intends to do that, surely he will be prepared to give them a little security and the knowledge that they can continue to carry on the trade they are carrying on at present, and that in a year’s time the Minister will not say: You are carrying on a general dealer’s business now, but next year you must sell silks. I am carrying this to absurdity, but that is the type of thing that can be done. Surely local licensing authorities and town-planning have already decided that the business can be carried on there. I do not know why the Minister now wants to control the use of that land or building when it is already controlled. Why cannot he give these people some security, some knowledge that as long as they carry on that particular type of business they can continue to trade there?

Mr. MITCHELL:

I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown in regard to the reply given by the Minister because it is quite clear that Section 16 deals with the Minister’s powers in regard to the occupation of buildings, whether they are new or old or in the process of erection. There the Minister has full power. What worries me is that in regard to the point made by hon. members on this side, the Minister is now taking power in regard to the use of those buildings. This is a new departure. The Minister has not really explained to us precisely what is in the back of his mind. There must surely have been cases which arose where for some reason the Minister or the Board has felt that circumstances are such that it would be desirable to acquire the power to deal with the use of such buildings, as distinct from the race of the occupant. What are the circumstances which have arisen? If I understand him correctly, the Minister says time will tell and if necessary he will amend it again. But this is fundamental to our objection to the Bill. The position is that there will be permits, permits, permits, and I frankly admit that the extension of that principle from our point of view is extremely bad, but we think that the administration of the Act in this way is also extremely bad. Why does the Minister not issue a proclamation for a group area and deal with it under Section 16 and be finished with it? Why does he want to get at the use of the building so that he can order the use of a building on the ground floor for a certain purpose and the use of the top floors for a different purpose? Why does he want to order the use of a piece of land in an area for a certain purpose, and possibly the use of the buildings erected on that land for another purpose, and by a different racial group, because it follows that under Section 16 it must be a different group? Will he allow an Indian to continue business on the ground floor, and above that there may be residential quarters for other Indians? Under Section 16 he is occupying the ground floor and his race are occupying the floors above. Does the Minister really believe that it is possible in a case like that to allow the Indian to carry on business on the ground floor while residing elsewhere, and bring in Whites to occupy the top floors? Is that what is at the back of his mind? We are seeking information. We have pointed out the difficulties and we have had the difficulties underlined by the Minister himself when he frankly admitted that he cannot foresee the ramifications of this clause. But there must be a history behind this, and what is it? Will the Minister tell us why he takes these powers, which he says will be nullified if he accepts our amendment? Why should it be nullified? It will only be nullified because he will be prevented from ordering the use of existing buildings for a purpose other than the purpose for which they have been used. If he wanted that power, our amendment would be acceptable to him, but the only reason why the amendment is not acceptable is that he is not prepared to permit the continued use for the purpose for which they are being used. He wants to be able to order their use for some other purpose. Why does the Minister seek this power?

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

Hon. members must now tell us what they want. This clause makes a very great concession to the Indians. As I pointed out at the second reading, it is a very great concession to distinguish between their residential areas and their places of business. As regards the determination of the purpose for which a building may be used, the existing legislation already makes provision for that.

*Mr. MILLER:

In which section?

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

I think it is Section 18. I want to say this. Here we are trying to give the Indians or a disqualified race the opportunity to continue with their business activities while we remove them to another area as far as their homes are concerned. The hon. member for South Coast has referred to buildings which have business premises below and flats above and he wants to know what the Minister is going to do. All I can say is that the Minister will have to decide that point at the proper time in the light of the then prevailing conditions. A permit can be issued to the people to remain there. He may also decide that he does not want to allow them to stay there. Seeing that this is an attempt to allow these people to continue with their businesses, which is a very great concession, I just want to ask hon. members what more they want? Hon. members must make their standpoint clear. They must say whether they want disqualified persons to be able to continue living in any area they like, or whether the Minister should have the right to decide whether they may continue to do so.

Mr. MILLER:

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has actually put his finger on the pulse of the whole situation. I can talk with some knowledge of the position in Johannesburg where the city council was obliged to deal with the matter before an inquiry under the Group Areas Act and recommended to the board that certain areas which by tradition had grown up as areas of occupation for certain groups should be preserved. Those areas grew up not only for business purposes but also for dwelling. They have not had sporadic spreading over the city but have in time confined themselves to certain sections of our city and have so maintained themselves in harmony with the rest of the community. You have a very similar situation in Cape Town where you have certain quarters inhabited by certain sections of the community for a long time, which have acquired a certain atmosphere and tradition. The purpose of the Opposition to this particular clause is to try to preserve that particular situation.

Mr. VAN DER WALT:

And maintain mixed occupation.

Mr. MILLER:

No, there is nothing mixed about this. There is mixed occupation, but not necessarily mixed group areas. In Johannesburg you have the situation in Fordsburg, which has been occupied for many years by certain sections for business purposes and also for residential purposes. One of the main fears in regard to the present clause as it is drafted is that there might possibly be an interference in the type of trade that is carried on. The suggestion of the last speaker, however, is that there might be a fear on this side of the House that there might be interference even with the type of general occupancy which includes the residential side. I wonder what harm there would be in the whole matter if, whilst preserving residential separation there was no interference with the traditional form of living, namely of having businesses on the ground floor and residential occupation on the upper floors because, after all, once one has agreed to maintain a certain type of occupancy on the ground floor on land which is expensive, because it is almost in the heart of the city, why should these people be denied the right to develop upwards with regard to the remaining right of buildings on that particular property? That is an important problem, because it can turn an ordinary reasonably priced property into an extremely expensive proposition. I think the main purpose of the amendment is obviously to preserve the status quo in regard to business undertakings, but in view of the speech we have just heard I cannot see why the Minister should fear the possibility even of the residential quarters maintaining themselves in those areas. The reason why I raise this issue is because the Deputy Minister, in introducing the Bill, referred only to the preservation of business premises. Why he should have confined himself only to that aspect in drafting the clause, is something which we do not appreciate. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) spoke about these large blocks of flats which had been built in a place called Queen Street and Grey Street in Durban where, in addition to the business premises on the ground floor, the town-planning board had permitted seven to eight storeys to be constructed for residential purposes. That is the trouble which faces Durban. Johannesburg, on the other hand, has other problems because of the expensive nature of the ground that is involved and which may now, under this clause, be limited to the ground floor or possibly one additional storey for business purposes. I think, Sir, that if the hon. the Deputy Minister realizes that it is time to meet the situation in a realistic manner, he will not only accept the amendment but declare himself immediately, in so far as his policy is concerned, that the board will have complete freedom in the choice of the use to which these premises should be put and not be limited by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement which deals only with the business which is conducted in those premises. I think, Sir, that if the hon. the Deputy Minister were to make a statement to that effect we would be able to understand the position better and this side of the House may have a more sympathetic appreciation of what the Minister intended to convey in the theme of his address namely the desire to bring some laxity into the harsh provisions of the Act and the intention to alleviate the difficulties and the problems that face the groups who are involved in this very involved and complicated machinery of law which is seeking artificially to create barriers to suit the peculiarities of life in this country and at the same time to bring some measure of justice in its application.

*Mr. VAN DER WALT:

It is now quite clear what the hon. member wants. I am very glad that he has made this speech. It is now clear what the whole position is. This new Section 16bis which is now being inserted provides that there can be a specially specified area in which Indians may be given the right to continue with their businesses while they are removed to their new residential area. In other words, instead of removing them together with their families and their businesses to the new area, we are now giving them an area in which they can continue with their businesses while we remove them as far as their homes are concerned. Let me make it quite clear: Such a specified area is not a group area. It is not an area which has been set aside for Indian occupation or as a group area for Indians. This is a temporary concession which is being made to such a disqualified group to allow them to carry on their business The hon. member now urges that we should make the same concessions in respect of their residential rights. In other words, the whole object of this clause would therefore be defeated. Let me say this clearly: As regards existing buildings I can foresee that the Group Areas Board and the Minister will grant permits governing the occupation of those buildings. But I can also foresee that if we were to grant what the hon. member advocates in the case of the Indians, for example, the Indians would say: “Let us now erect seven or eight storey buildings because we shall be allowed to live there.” Mr. Chairman, that would defeat the whole object of this legislation; it would defeat the whole object of the concession which is being made here. It is quite clear that if such a concession were made, instead of the Indians moving to a new residential area, they would erect huge buildings and would live in them in their thousands. Let me repeat that this provision does not deal with group areas; this is a temporary measure to give the disqualified group an opportunity to continue with their business. But if we gave them an opportunity to develop upwards, to erect multi-storied buildings where they would all be able to live together, we would be defeating the whole object of this measure. Then we would not be able to move them. I think hon. members are expecting too much. While we are already making a concession, they are asking for too much in asking for a further concession as regards rights of occupation.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

I want to react immediately to a point made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). He said this was a temporary measure. Is the object of this clause merely to allow these people to remain there temporarily for business purposes? This is an important new thought that has been introduced into the debate. Is the idea that an Indian trader, for instance, shall only be allowed to carry on his business in that building for a certain time?

Mr. VAN DER WALT:

That is my interpretation of the clause.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

If that is so, Sir, then this clause contains no concession whatsoever. The hon. member said not only in his last speech, but in the one immediately before, that this was a big concession. Let us examine to what extent it is a concession. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not have to declare a group area, he can define it in terms of Clause 16bis. There is no provision at the present moment for adequate compensation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has virtually agreed with this in saying that he will consider this aspect during the recess and if necessary amend the Group Areas Development Act. It is quite clear that at present there is no adequate provision for compensation to be paid to those people who have to move and to the owners of buildings who can only only use their buildings for a limited purpose.

Secondly there is no safeguard written into this clause that before a person can be moved out, for one or other reason, the board must consider whether there is suitable alternative accommodation available. Thirdly, the hon. the Deputy Minister has not said that he recognizes the difficulty of the people who run their businesses on the basis that they can also live on the premises. Obviously this is an advantage to those people if they wish to do so. The argument has been advanced that many White people live in Rondebosch for instance and carry on their business in Cape Town, but they do so of their own free will—they have a choice. But in some cases the Indian trader prefers to live on his premises because he prefers to run his business on that basis; possibly for the purpose of keeping late hours, possibly for economic reasons or because he may be able to look better after his business if he lives on the premises. There are many reasons why he may prefer to live on his premises, but in terms of this clause that will now be denied him.

But now a fourth aspect comes into the picture, Mr. Chairman, namely that it is purely temporary.

Mr. VAN DER WALT:

That is not a group area.

Mr. VAN RYNEVELD:

Of course this is not a group area, otherwise this could not have applied at all. I now want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what his intention is in regard to ownership of these properties as defined in Section 16, because Section 16 only deals with occupation. It is quite possible that the Deputy Minister may, while declaring a property in terms of Section 16bis for occupation for a limited purpose by a certain group of people, declare that area a group area at a later stage in which other people are entitled to ownership, so that in due course, at the latest on death and in the case of a company after 10 years, the ownership will pass to another group. And once the ownership must pass to another group there is even less security than the occupier has now. I want to ask the Deputy Minister whether he will comment on this new idea which has entered into this debate that this is only a way of giving temporary relief to these Indian traders and that the ultimate object is to get rid of them.

*Mr. C. V. DE VILLIERS:

The hon. member has argued as though the Group Areas Act contains no provisions in this regard at all. He has argued as though this is a new principle. I want to ask hon. members who have participated in this debate: Would they prefer this amendment to be omitted? Do they prefer the existing provisions under the Group Areas Act? Hon. members lose sight of the fact that under the Group Areas Act the position is that an area in which there are businesses can be set aside as a group area and after a certain period such persons must obtain a permit if they want to continue with their businesses and those permits are of a temporary nature. Eventually they will have to move their businesses. No other provision is made. Hon. members have raised objections because these persons will not be able to live next to their business. But what hon. members refuse to understand is that under the presently existing provisions, it is not a question of their not being able to live there, but if the area is set aside as a group area, they must eventually remove their businesses to another area as well. The Government and the hon. the Deputy Minister have now introduced a provision which represents a concession in that, instead of the persons affected eventually having to move completely in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act, there will be special areas in which they can retain their businesses. And now hon. members are objecting to this provision. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) and other hon. members have objected to the fact that people will have to move and that they will not be able to live next to their businesses. But they forget that under the provisions of the Group Areas Act, once an area is declared to be a group area, such a person must also move his business. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the attitude of hon. members. If it were not for the fact that one has to think of the interests of the persons concerned, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister should not drop this amendment completely. That would, however, be to the detriment of the persons concerned and hon. members opposite are not acting in the interests of the persons affected by acting as they have to-day. Their actions are in conflict with the interests of the persons affected, irrespective of their race. This is a concession; it is in their interest that these special areas should be proclaimed where they will be able to retain their businesses.

Mr. H. LEWIS:

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and the hon. member who has just sat down tried to introduce a different line into the debate altogether. Let us get this thing quite clear. I want to deal with the hon. member for Pretoria (West). He is now accusing me of trying to ensure that if an Indian—he was talking particularly about Indians—wants to build a big building above his shop he should be allowed to do so, so that he can dig himself in and that if my amendment were accepted the hon. the Deputy Minister would not be able to move him because the building would be of no other use. Let me put the hon. member right on this point. What I am trying to do is this: The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he is making a concession by allowing a man to continue to trade on his present trading site. Now, is it a concession if he allows him to trade in a building that has eight floors of flats at the top and a ground floor in which he conducts his business? Now the Minister tells him that he can continue to trade there— that the building is for trading purposes. The Act says “be occupied by or used only for a particular purpose ”. If it is for trading alone, can the man afford to pay the rent for the whole of the rest of the empty building? What we are trying to do, Sir, is to try to find out from the hon. the Deputy Minister what he is going to do with the rest of the building. What is going to happen to it? We do not know. We have no indication about that, Sir. If he makes this concession and allows them to remain there and to trade, we want to know what he is going to do with the rest of the building. The Deputy Minister must not ask us to give him the power and that we must then wait and see how things turn out. The Deputy Minister can tell us now exactly what is going to happen to a specific building, he does not have to wait to see what happens. He knows where the buildings are, he knows what their value is, he knows what accommodation is available in those buildings. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) asked why the hon. the Deputy Minister did not tell us these things. I, too, wonder that, Sir. We have been trying for some considerable time to find out eactly that: What will the Deputy Minister do in cases such as that; what will he do with the rest of the building? But I do not want the hon. member for Pretoria (West) to come and get these two issues mixed. The point is that I have moved an amendment which I still hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept. He has said that he will not accept it, because it is not clear. But it is perfectly clear, Sir. I have explained the purpose of my amendment to the Deputy Minister. Now, if we are going to confuse the issue of the amendment with what is going to happen to the rest of a building, and we have repeatedly asked the Deputy Minister what he is going to do with the rest of the building, then, of course, my amendment does not stand a chance, because we are confusing two issues. I do want to clarify that point. These are things that we know are going to happen. In the area occupied predominantly by Indians in the central city of Durban, which we call a working area, for want of a better name at this stage, that position will arise, and we want to know what is going to happen there. I have not got a clue, and I have not been enlightened during the passage of the Bill hitherto. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in that particular area there are many such buildings. Those buildings do exist; they are not flights of our imagination. They are buildings which exist, and we want to know how they are going to be sorted out. We do not believe that they can be sorted out justly under this clause. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister please tell us, so that we will know where we are, and so that we may know exactly what he intends to do with these buildings.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

This clause gives me the power (a) to differentiate between residential areas and business areas and (b) to have an inquiry instituted in respect of such a proposed area. Evidence will be taken in public at such an inquiry. Only when an inquiry has been held and a report has been submitted and the Minister has been given advice, will he be able to act. Now the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) and other hon. members want me to say what I am going to do before an inquiry has been held. That is what it amounts to. Why then is the inquiry necessary? We have admitted that there will be difficulties. The main object is that we shall have the power to establish such special specified areas where necessary, and before they can be established an enquiry must be held and recommendations submitted, certain difficulties will arise. We therefore say that we shall make use of the Development Act in these areas in order to meet the difficulties. I have gone further tonight and I told the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that if the provisions of the Development Act are not adequate, and we encounter fresh difficulties, we may have to amend that Act to provide for such circumstances as we may have to meet. What more do hon. members want of me?

Mrs. SUZMAN:

Repeal the whole Act.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am most certainly not prepared to commit the Government and the House at this stage on matters of this nature which must still be investigated.

*Mr. MILLER:

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred during his introductory speech to “business purposes ”. He now says that, until the matter is investigated, it is impossible for him to give an assurance as to what he will do about these premises. I agree with him on that point, but I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister did not make it clear in his introductory speech that it was possible that the premises could be used for purposes other than exclusively business purposes. That is the difficulty facing us tonight. We want the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an assurance to-night that the Board will be able to lay down, not only that the premises must be used for business purposes, but for residential purposes as well. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us the assurance to-night that the use of such buildings by the group concerned will not be confined to business purposes alone, we shall be satisfied. Mr. Chairman, that is all we ask.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I am not satisfied that the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeing the position of people, no matter what race they are, who are living in a multi-storeyed building where the ground floor is used for business purposes. Section 5 of the original Act, I think sub-section 7—I am speaking without my book—provides that when a proclamation is issued under Section 20 of the original Act— that is in respect of a group area for occupation or ownership—no such recommendation shall be made until such time as the board has investigated the whole question of alternative accommodation for the people who are displaced. Quite frankly what I am afraid the Deputy Minister is losing sight of is the fact that we are not concerned only and solely with the question of the business premises of the owner of the building who has got business premises on the ground floor, but there are people living in those other storeys up above. They have no relationship with the business on the ground floor at all. They are not associated with the business at all. They may be people who merely have accommodation there. This clause has nothing to do with the declaration under Section 20 of the Act where an area is proclaimed. That was why I said at an earlier stage that I was not sure whether it would not be more fair to everybody concerned if the Deputy Minister were to use the Group Areas Act as at present constituted instead of this clause which the hon. member behind him has said is merely a temporary expedient. This clause deals only with the business premises; it is a temporary expedient. It does not even purport to be an expedient to deal with the people above the business premises and there may be dozens and dozens living in the storeys above the ground floor where the business is. What of those people, Sir? They are not protected under Section 5; they do not enjoy the protection which they would have enjoyed had the area been proclaimed. I would like to see a general clause in the Bill which will provide that in any circumstances provision will be made for the resettlement of people who have been dispossessed. That unfortunately is not the case as the law stands at the moment. I want to ask the Deputy Minister whether in dealing with this group of traders to which reference has been made by members opposite, he is losing sight of the fact that he may be dispossessing people; that they will be losing their ordinary domicile. These people are not interested in trade, they have nothing in common with the traders who will be carrying on their business on the ground floor of these premises.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis put and the Committee divided:

AYES—36: Barnett, C.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Gay, L. C.; Henwood, B. H.; Lawrence. H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Williams, T. O.

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and T. G. Hughes.

NOES—59: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobier, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—59: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W. Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobier, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Mere, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

NOES—36: Barnett, C.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Henwood, B. H.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence, H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Smit, D. L.; Steenkamp, L. S., Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 13,

Mrs. SUZMAN:

I move—

To omit paragraph (a).

In other words I want to omit the paragraph here which is deleting paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section 17 of the principal Act. Now, Sir, if you look at the principal Act, you will find that sub-section (2) (b) of Section 17 says—

The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises—
  1. (b) under any agreement lawfully entered into before the first day of July, 1957, or any written agreement lawfully entered into on or after that date …

The Explanatory Memorandum simply says that Clause 13 is rectifying a consolidating error. I contend that this goes much further than just rectifying a consolidating error, because what it means in effect is that persons who previously were occupying property under a lawful agreement entered into before the first day of July 1957 could continue so to do although it was only a verbal agreement. There are many such verbal agreements which are operating and under which people are occupying premises. Now if this clause is accepted, it means that all these verbal agreements lose force in law and only written agreements from now on will enable people to continue to occupy those premises. So I don’t see how any stretch of imagination can construe Clause 13 as simply being an amendment which rectifies a consolidating error. This clause has particular effect for Indians trading in rural areas, that is to say areas outside the jurisdiction of a local authority. There are many such Indians trading on farms and in rural areas, and many of them trade under verbal agreements.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does this clause mean, if it is passed, that verbal leases will be violated?

Mrs. SUZMAN:

That is precisely what this means. All verbal leases which were entered into prior to the first day of July 1957 now fall away.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

That is a breach of contract.

Mrs. SUMAN:

Whether it is a breach of contract or not, I do not know. But it is certainly more than simply rectifying an error. It is an important amendment to the existing law, as far as I can see. As we have already pointed out, the so-called concessions under this Bill are very limited in scope, and now we find that persons who are trading in rural areas outside the jurisdiction of local authorities, who were occupying premises and running businesses under verbal agreements, now no longer have that right. So this is another restrictive clause. It means in effect that the hon. the Minister is able to achieve a purpose again without going through the necessary machinery of having group areas proclaimed. He can dispossess Indian traders of their rights to trade on these premises. We contend therefore that this is yet another restrictive clause and therefore we will have to vote against it.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I hope that the hon. Deputy Minister will deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Houghton, because if the hon. member is correct then, if this clause is accepted by the Committee, it will mean that solemn agreements entered into by way of contract are violated. True they may be verbal agreements, but they are none the less conclusive agreements, and they would go by the board as I understand the argument put forward by the hon. member for Houghton. Does the hon. Deputy Minister agree with the contention put forward by the hon. member, because this raises a question of fundamental principle, the question of whether this Legislature should seek by legislative enactment to interfere with the sanctity of contract. I am open to correction, and that is why I hope the hon. Deputy Minister will say whether the view put forward by the hon. member is correct. If the hon. member has not correctly stated the proposition, then my objections on this score may fall away, but if in fact this clause, if implemented, means that in future a lessee may not be allowed to rely on a verbal contract for his lease, but must be able to show a written contract-, retrospectively at that, then it seems to me that that is a monstrous interference with the right of individuals and the right of contract in this country. The law of contract is based upon a bipartisan agreement, two parties entering into an agreement, say a lease. There is the lessor and the lessee and in terms of our Roman Dutch Law, it is perfectly competent for any two parties to enter into a lease verbally. It may very well be that the hon. the Minister is not consciously seeking to do so, but the effect of this amendment in Clause 13 would mean that he is seeking to do so, and any man must be presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of his acts. What the hon. the Minister then is presumed to be seeking to do is to violate the sanctity of a verbal contract. This affects everyone, whether he is an Indian or a European or a Bantu; this is not racial legislation, no specific class is referred to. Any man who has entered into a verbal contract may, if this clause goes through unamended, find that that contract is violated by the provisions of the Bill and he is now compelled to produce a written contract and retrospectively. That is how I understand the argument of the hon. member for Houghton. How on earth am I, who indeed leases premises for the purpose of carrying on my legal practice, to produce a contract? My contract is a verbal contract. Suppose I am called upon to-morrow to produce a written contract. I could not do ft, and then I may be evicted from my premises. And that contract must be predated, before 1957. What a monstrous situation would arise! But there is no difference between that possibility and what is postulated by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this clause! It would be a monstrous thing if I could be turned out of the premises which I occupy by virtue of my practice as an advocate of the Supreme Court, merely by virtue of the fact that I cannot produce a written contract going back to 1950. I have got a verbal contract and that is a binding contract in our law, a contract which the Supreme Court of South Africa recognizes. But this clause, if unamended, will mean that there will be this direct violation of the sanctity of contract, of the ability of one member of the South African community to enter with another member into a solemn contract which can be recognized. If the hon. member for Houghton is wrong, my argument falls away. But the hon. Minister cannot sit there silent, inarticulate and hope that this clause is going through by virtue of the majority of the other side. He must get up and tell us whether this is correct or not. Is the hon. member for Houghton right or is she wrong? If the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us that the hon. member is wrong, I may have to revise my opinion. But until the hon. the Minister gets up this Committee is not in a position to vote on this clause.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I hope the hon. Deputy Minister is going to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Houghton. This is not a light matter and I do think that we are entitled to an explanation from the hon. Deputy Minister.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I have discussed this point with the law advisers and they have informed me that an amendment introduced in 1955 confined the exemption here provided for to written agreements, but was expressed to come into operation only on 1 July 1957. Before that date the legislation was consolidated and the paragraph was re-written in a way which so far from introducing this restriction, considerably broadened the scope of the exemption, and opened the door to practices which the Act was largely designed to prevent. The amendment consequently introduces nothing new but restores the status quo as it existed before the consolidation.

Mr. MITCHELL:

What the hon. the Deputy Minister has said surely does not get away from the fact that the consolidated Act which is now being amended, does make provision for verbal contracts to satisfy the law for the purpose of this particular clause, and the amendment we have before us now is demanding that it should be a written agreement.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It restores the position as it was prior to 1955.

Mr. MITCHELL:

Mr. Chairman, the consolidated law which we have now in this particular Section 17 says this in sub-section (2) (b)—

The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises under any agreement lawfully entered into before 1 July 1957, or any written agreement lawfully entered into on or after that date, or under any testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950.

Now if this amendment in the Bill before us is carried, that clause will read—

… under any written agreement lawfully entered into … or testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950.

That is how it will read. So that all reference to an agreement lawfully entered into before 1 July 1957, falls away, and that kind of agreement referred to is of course a verbal agreement, because after that it proceeds to deal with a written agreement. That language is used twice in this long section and in both cases reference to a verbal agreement falls out of the Act. I am sorry, but we cannot take cognizance of what was expected or was not expected in respect of past legislation. We have an Act, a consolidated Act, which presumably—I have got no reason to doubt it— went before a special Select Committee appointed for the purpose of consolidating the legislation. I am sorry, Sir, but in a previous clause in this same Bill we have got in the White Paper reference to the fact that all that was happening in that particular clause was to put right something that was not picked up correctly in the consolidating Act. I may say that these references are being made in that manner to failures in the machinery provided by Parliament to see that the consolidating Act is indeed only a consolidating measure and that it is not a consolidating and amending measure. I go so far as to say this in regard to this particular clause: If this Clause 13 came to us as a Bill, not as an amending clause in an omnibus measure like this, but standing entirely on its own merits or demerits, without other portions of the Bill around it, it would be a hybrid measure. Surely it is of such importance to the people who can be defined, that it would surely be considered to be a hybrid measure. Here you have a group of people who are being denied their rights in terms of this particular Clause 13 which we are asked to pass. They are people who have got perfectly valid agreements which have been recognized by the law in the past. They were not written agreements, but as the hon. member for Salt River has pointed out, agreements are not necessarily valid merely because they are written, and in this case the law recognized them as valid agreements. And we come and simply by “Those in favour will say Aye” and “the Ayes are in the majority ”, deprive these people of their rights. This would be a hybrid Bill, and it would go to a Select Committee and people would have the opportunity to come and give evidence in respect of the destruction of their rights. That is the position, and I view with very deep concern a clause like this in respect of which the White Paper simply says that it merely puts right something that was not picked up when the Act was consolidated. I regret that very much indeed. Let me say that once doubt is cast in this House on whether a measure is in fact a consolidating measure and not more than that when a certificate is presented to this House, then I think we are going to land in very great trouble indeed. I do ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to realize the extreme seriousness with which we must view a situation such as is being created by Clause 13.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I want to get back to what I regard as a very serious aspect of this particular clause. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of levity or unconcern with which the hon. the Deputy Minister regards the sanctity of a contract. At the present time this House is considering a new Constitution for the Union of South Africa and a great deal has been talked about good faith and goodwill and understanding between the peoples of the country, and I want to say that it is of paramount importance that we should observe the elementary precepts of good faith and goodwill and honest dealing between man and man in this country. Let me remind the Committee, because I have no doubt that most of the hon. members opposite have not read this Bill, of the provisions which are being altered. The Act which this Bill seeks to amend says this—

The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises … under any agreement lawfully entered into before 1 July 1957, or any written agreement lawfully entered into on or after that date, or under any testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950.

It is quite clear that the existing Act, unamended, exempts any disqualified person who has lawfully entered into an agreement before 1 July 1957. And a lawful agreement is a verbal agreement, as well as a written agreement. A contract is not invalid because it is not written, signed and sealed. A contract is valid where two persons are ad idem, where two parties come to an agreement and verbally agree to do a certain thing. That is as binding as any written contract may be. And then the section goes on to say—

Or any written agreement lawfully entered into on or after that date, or under any testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950.

Now if this amendment is passed, then the clause will read that the provisions shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy premises under any written agreement lawfully entered into before 24 April 1950. So what the Minister is asking this Committee to do is to violate verbal agreements and written agreements. He asks the Committee to violate any verbal agreement which may have been entered into at any time, and he is asking this Committee to violate any written agreement entered into after April 1950. He is seeking to tear up written contracts and to treat with contempt verbal contracts. We have heard, Sir, in the history of the world of scraps of paper. Here the Minister is seeking by this section to treat as scraps of paper honourable agreements entered into by two parties in writing if they were not entered into before 1 April—it should be 1 April, but it is actually 24 April—1950. I say that that is a monstrous thing to do.

Dr. VAN NIEROP:

Naziism!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. member has Naziism on his brain, because he was an incipient Nazi, he has never become one, he had never the courage to become one. I am talking now as one who believes that it is vital for the sanctity of the state and for our national prestige to preserve the sanctity of contracts. This clause goes very far indeed. It does not merely seek to violate any verbal agreements, but it has also the effect of tearing up any written agreement which may not have been entered into, signed and sealed, before April 1950. In those circumstances I want to move that this clause should stand over to give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider it.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

No.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Then I move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Upon which the Committee divided: AYES—35: Barnett, C.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Butcher, R. R.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, I. S.; Frielinghaus, H. O.; Henwood, B. H.; Hughes, T. G.; Lawrence. H. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; van Ryneveld, C. B.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: C. W. Eglin and T. O. Williams.

NOES—5: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; de Villiers, C. V.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; du Plessis, P. W.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog. A.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, W. A.; Martin, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and J. von S. von Moltke.

Motion accordingly negatived.

Mr. BARNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that the explanatory document which was issued by the hon. the Deputy Minister is most unfortunate, because I think it is misleading. This White Paper indicates that under Clause 13 the amendment now rectifies a consolidating error. I am afraid that the hon. the Deputy Minister, unwittingly—because I do not think he intended to mislead the House— has asked us to accept a very serious amendment. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will be fair enough to concede this argument, that in 1957 when this Act was amended it gave the impression to the Coloured people that any agreement into which they entered as a written agreement up to 1957 would be legal, and that they would be entitled to occupy land in an area and that it would not be affected because of the Group Areas Act. I think it is worth while to read this Act once more. It says—

No disqualified person shall occupy and no person shall allow any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises in the controlled area, except under the authority of a permit.

Then it goes on to say—

The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises—
  1. (b) under any agreement lawfully entered into before the 1st day of July, 1957.

That is an Act of Parliament passed in 1957. That was a consolidated Act, and the people who bought land under hire purchase agreement are now to be prejudiced. Coloured people entered into these agreements, and that is why somebody has now sent me a note on the matter. I regret to say that if the information in this note is correct, that Coloured people have already been told, before this Act was passed, that they will have to go because those agreements might as well be torn up and thrown away as being without any value, then it is a very serious matter.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is a breach of faith.

Mr. BARNETT:

It is a very serious matter, and I will read this note to this Committee. It says this—

A further difficulty has arisen in cases where members of the Coloured group, under the privilege which was granted through the Land Tenure Board in 1956, purchased the property by making a deposit and paying off the balance in instalments. The owners of the property and the Coloured persons who purchased same are now given to understand that sales must be considered as cancelled and the status quo restored.

In other words, these people now find that they cannot proceed with their purchases and it is obvious that difficulty now confronts the owners and the purchasers of these properties in regard to cancellation of the sale, the payment of the deposit and coming to an agreement with regard to compensation to be paid with regard to any improvements which may have been effected to the properties.

It seems that people have already been told, in advance, that these hire-purchase agreements which they entered into before 1957 are now going to be of no force and effect and are going to be cancelled. What I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: Only four years ago, in 1957, we passed this amending legislation and gave out to all these Coloured people that they would be entitled to purchase these properties, and that if they did purchase them before 1957 it would be lawful for them to occupy that land.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It was consolidating legislation on top of that.

Mr. BARNETT:

Yes. Now I am going to ask the Minister, will he not come to the assistance of these people who acted in good faith and upon the laws consolidating our legislation. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot legislate against these people after only four years? If the hon. the Deputy Minister says that as and from to-day there shall be no such agreements entered into, then I can understand it, because people would be acting with their eyes open. But these people acted in good faith and in terms of legislation passed by this House, and now they find that after four years they are prejudiced. The hon. the Minister cannot, with due respect, say that this is merely putting right an error. It is a very drastic error, a grievous error and it will cause a lot of suffering to hundreds of people. I do not want to talk about the tragedies of the Act. I am not talking about the Act, I am talking about this clause. And surely this legislation must have cost hundreds of Coloured people thousands of pounds—or it may cost them that money which they may now lose.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The simple question is, do you keep your word?

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order!

Mr. BARNETT:

I am not going to go so far. I am going to make this appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I am sure it is going to have an effect: Will the Deputy Minister consider allowing the people who have made these purchases up to to-day, in terms of the Act, to keep those agreements in full force and effect. I do not think the hon. the Minister will be so hard that he will refuse that request. I trust that he will give it favourable consideration.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is an old member of this House and one expects him to act in such a way that younger members such as I can retain our respect for him at all times.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Do not forget that I once protected you.

Capt. HENWOOD:

Do not be personal.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

What I object to …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Do not forget that I once protected you.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member cannot help himself. Perhaps we must leave him to his fate. Then hon. members who are front-benchers and former Ministers must behave better than the hon. member has done towards me to-night. If the hon. member wants to fight I can also hit back. He must not think that I shall allow him to shout me down. That is what I object to. I expect the hon. member to behave like a gentleman.

Then the hon. member has done something else; he has tried to move heaven and earth to prove that what we are really doing is to deceive this House. But the hon. member has not done his homework. He is a former Minister of Justice. He is a practising advocate but he has not done his homework. He should do his homework before making accusations of such a nature. I have called in as witnesses the law advisers who have informed me of certain past events. Let the hon. member examine the original Act and I refer him to Section (2) (b) which provides—

No disqualified person shall occupy and no person shall allow any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises in a controlled area except under the authority of a permit … (ii) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy any land or any premises (a) in pursuance of any right conferred by or under any statute …
*Mr. LAWRENCE:

Or leased.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It goes on—

… (b) Under any agreement …
Mr. LAWRENCE:

Does it not also refer to “under lease ”?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Chairman, am I addressing the Committee or is the hon. member? I am reading out the provisions of the original Act to the hon. member.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am quoting from the original Act.

*The CHAIRMAN:

If the hon. member wants to put a question, then he should do so in the proper way.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

May I put a question?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am not prepared to answer a question. The original 1950 Act provided—

The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises … (b) under any agreement lawfully entered into or under any testamentary disposition made on or before 24 April 1950 …

The Act was then amended in 1955. I find that Section 7 of that Act provides—

Section 10 of the principal Act is hereby amended … by the insertion in para, (b) of sub-section (2) after the word “any” where it occurs for the first and fourth time of the word “written by the insertion after the word “any” where it occurs for the first and fourth times of the word “written ”.

And then, if the hon. member will read further. he will find in Section 7 (2)—

Para, (b) of sub-section (1) shall come into operation on 1 July 1957.

In other words, we are quite entitled to contend that when the legislation was consolidated a serious error slipped in. What we are doing here is to revert to the status quo as it existed in 1955.

Mr. BARNETT:

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to the point I made earlier. If we made a mistake then we have to rectify it. That I understand. But the hon. the Deputy Minister must try to understand that I am trying to be constructive and to help the Coloured people whom I represent in this House. If. in truth and in fact there has been a mistake and it has led people to believe that that is the law, shall we not now come to their assistance and say “We will not benefit by our mistake as legislators, we will not prejudice you because we made a mistake ”. Should the hon. the Deputy Minister not therefore put these people in the same position as they got into by virtue of this mistake, and not prejudice them? All I ask is that the Deputy Minister will make it possible for the people who acted in good faith in terms of this Act not to be prejudiced. Surely that is a reasonable request. Surely that is a request to which the hon. the Minister should concede. If he says to me “I will think it over and I will try to help …”

Mr. G. F. H. BEKKER:

That is an English mistake.

Mr. BARNETT:

You must now listen to me.

If the hon. the Minister will give me his assurance that he will not prejudice these people then I am prepared to accept that assurance. But he must not sit quietly and say “We have made a mistake therefore all the people who have acted in good faith should be wiped out in accordance with our mistake ”. This is a most unfortunate thing and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accede to my request.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned with these ribald interjections from the side. I am concerned with the sanctity of contract.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Are you referring to the contract you made with the United Party?

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I entered into no contract with the United Party. I was a member of the United Party but I never entered into any contract. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The hon. gentleman is annoyed to-night, but I do not propose to deal with his impertinence. He was impertinent to me. I did apologize to him earlier but he did not accept my apology for interrupting him when he was replying. Having done that, I will not tell him that he has a lot to learn, as a young Minister, and if he wants to get the confidence of this Committee the sooner he realizes that there are some members of this House …

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I will never take you as an example. [Interjections.]

Mr. LAWRENCE:

The sooner he remembers that there are some members of this House with more experience …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! Will the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) be less personal please.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

You, Mr. Chairman, did not pull up the hon. the Deputy Minister …

HON. MEMBERS:

Order, order!

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Mr. Chairman, I am not being personal, I am merely replying to the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I merely said that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has great capabilities, will do better if he deals with the merits of the case and does not indulge in personalities.

The gravamen of my attack on this clause, and of my support for the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is that this clause is a violation of the rights which were given by the 1957 Act. It is perfectly plain that in 1957 there was an Act, the long title of which is—

An Act to Consolidate the Laws relating to the Establishment of Group Areas, the

Control of the Acquisition of Immovable Property, and the Occupation of Land and Premises and Matters incidental thereto.

That is the Act. It is a consolidating Act. Now what is the purpose of a consolidating Act? The purpose of a consolidating Act is to make clear what the law is. Surely a consolidating Act …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! The hon. member is now going far beyond the scope of this clause.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

No I am not, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Deputy Minister …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! I say that the hon. member is going far beyond the scope of this clause. Will he please come back to the clause.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

With the greatest of respect, Sir, I say that I am not. With the greatest of respect, I say that I cannot refer to this clause unless I refer to the Act which it seeks to amend. Are you suggesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling or resume his seat.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Well, Mr. Chairman, if you will tell me what I cannot say I will certainly abide by your ruling. I have always been under the impression—and I have been in this House for quite a number of years now—that if an Act is amended or sought to be amended, I am allowed to refer to the principal Act. I am now referring to the Act which this clause is seeking to amend.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair. The hon. member may now continue.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I have the greatest respect for you, Sir, and, as a referee, I would like to obey your ruling, particularly in view of the prestige which you enjoy in this House as a referee. But you must make it easy for me to follow the ordinary rules of debate. I find it a very novel proposition that I cannot refer to a principal Act which is sought to be amended by a Bill before this House.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! I am assisting the hon. member. He spoke about the consolidated Act and the purposes thereof. That is not under discussion by this Committee at this stage. Will the hon. member now continue.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I have referred to the principal Act which it is sought to amend. It is the Act which is being amended. I have it in my hands …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! That Act may be dealt with only in as far as it is affected by this clause.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I have referred to the fact that the long title of that Act is to consolidate the law relating to these matters. Then I come to this clause which seeks to amend Section 17. Surely you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to refer to Section 17?

The CHAIRMAN:

The hon. member may refer to that section only.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I am delighted to know that, Sir, because I did think that this Bill was dealing with Section 17 in terms of this clause, and I thought that I would be allowed to deal with it.

Section 17 of the principal Act—and that is a consolidating Act—told the whole world and, incidentally, it told all persons concerned in this country, that they would not fall under the mischief of this section—and I am using that word in the legal sense—that they would not be hit by this section, if they were persons who occupied or owned premises under any agreement lawfully entered into before the first day of July 1957, or any written agreement lawfully entered into after that date. My whole point is that in terms of this consolidating measure, as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) pointed out, various racial groups in this country were told that they had specific rights. They were told that in a consolidating measure. And a consolidating measure is presumed to lay down with clarity what the law is. My quarrel with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he is now going back on what the people of South Africa were told in 1957. It certainly does not weigh with me that the Deputy Minister now comes along and says that the Government made a mistake in 1957. It certainly shows the folly of having to amend the Group Areas Act every year. I have no doubt there are mistakes and we are always going to have mistakes. In the old days of the United Party one said, when this Act was introduced in 1950, that we were going to have amendments every year. And we are having amendments every year. But that is no reason for this Deputy Minister to come before this Committee and say: “The Government solemnly promised the people something in 1957 and now we are going to abrogate that; now we are going to tear up written contracts that were entered into before 1950; now we are going to violate verbal contracts.” That, to me, is a monstrous thing. And it is no excuse to say that it is a mistake. It is no mistake to say it is a casus omissis

The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member must pass on to new arguments now. That argument has been used by him on several occasions.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

But they are the only arguments against the clause we are dealing with.

The CHAIRMAN:

Then the hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

My argument against this clause, Mr. Chairman, is that the Deputy Minister has now come forward with the ridiculous suggestion that because this Government, which we have always said is inept and incompetent and makes mistakes …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! There is a rule in regard to tedious repetition …

Mr. LAWRENCE:

I have not once to-night said that the Government was inept, Sir, but I agree that it probably sounds tedious to some hon. members of this Committee …

The CHAIRMAN:

Order, order! Will the hon. member please resume his seat.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

Yes, I will, Sir.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

May I tell the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) that I have quoted the 1950 Act and the 1955 Act to show that when this legislation was consolidated a provision which was in conflict with the 1955 Act, was embodied in the consolidating legislation. In other words, when the legislation was consolidated a new principle was actually included, which was in conflict with the principle of consolidation. After all, consolidation presupposes that one simply embodies in the consolidated legislation decisions which Parliament has already taken. What happened in this instance was that a paragraph was inserted which was in conflict with the legislation Parliament had already adopted.

Mr. BARNETT:

We admit that.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Then in the second place, this provision deals with controlled areas. It reads as follows—

No disqualified person shall occupy and no person shall allow any disqualified person to occupy any land or premises … in the controlled areas.

It deals in the first place with controlled areas. In the second place it deals with occupation and not acquisition. There is a vast difference.

Mr. BARNETT:

But answer my point.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am not discussing the hon. member’s point at the moment. I am making my own point. Section 17 (2) (b) which we are proposing to amend, only relates to disqualified persons and the Act already lays down who disqualified persons are. The hon. member is therefore wide of the mark. He must remember that we are dealing with controlled areas and with occupation, and that we are dealing with disqualified persons.

*The CHAIRMAN:

Order! The hon. member for Salt River.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Furthermore I want to point out that we are faced here with the position that in fact a new principle slipped in which was in conflict with a decision of this Parliament and which was in conflict with the practice that new principles are not inserted in a consolidating measure.

Mr. MITCHELL:

I think the best that can be said so far as the consolidated Act is concerned is that a mistake was made. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear, and you will be as well or better aware of it than any other hon. member, that when a consolidating measure comes before the House we cannot amend it or change it. The Select Committee that deals with it is in the position to deal with it; to make the position clearer and read plainly and so forth. But we in Parliament can do nothing about it when a consolidating measure comes before us. We have had that consolidating measure in 1957. The point I want to make is this: I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to stand on the law here. Quite frankly, we are dealing with the homes and the properties of people, in most cases people unable to protect themselves. If the Minister is satisfied that as the result of a bona fide belief that the consolidated measure of 1957, in so far as Section 17 was concerned, could be acted upon and was acted upon, will not the Deputy Minister protect the interests of those people who acted in terms of that provision? That, I think, is the crux of the matter. I do not want to argue about the law here and an amendment there, or the meaning of words. Let us get down to the heart of the thing. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can say with certainty that there are no such people, that the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is misinformed, then we must take it that he has carried out an investigation, that he knows his facts when he says there are no such people, that nobody is prejudiced. But I do submit, in all seriousness, that as we in Parliament cannot challenge any clause in a consolidating measure that comes before the House once it has passed the Select Committee, how much less are people outside these four walls in a position to be able to say the Government has gone wrong in that consolidating measure? Can they say “A mistake has been made in that measure, Parliament did not know what it was doing and three or four years hereafter Parliament will try to readjust the position ”. In the case of an ordinary civil contract, if you make a mistake you cannot, three or four years later, come along and suggest that you have been prejudiced by the mistake you made.

We have a Bill before us to-day which is amending an Act of Parliament. This is not a Government Act. This Act does not belong to the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Government, it belongs to Parliament. This is an Act for and on behalf of the people of South Africa. If, in the process of that Act, people have perfectly legitimately and properly read Section 17 as it is in the consolidating measure and have taken legal and appropriate action in terms thereof and have purchased property and are now prejudiced, then I ask the Deputy Minister to do something to protect those people. Will he not protect their interests? It is as simple as that. I hope the hon. the Minister will find it possible to say that he is not prepared to allow private people to be prejudiced by this unfortunate error that has crept into a consolidating measure. I think that that would really be a shameful thing so far as we in Parliament are concerned. It will be a thing that would never be permitted if it seriously affected a large number of European voters in this country. I say that in all seriousness. But it is going to affect people who just cannot afford to get their positions adjusted. In terms of the Consolidated Act of 1957 I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give an undertaking that he will find the necessary means—we do not want to move amendments —to meet these people. Let him discuss it with the law advisers and find some means of protecting the interests of the people who bona fide believed that the law was as reflected in Section 17 in the consolidating measure. I hope he will do something along those lines.

Mr. MILLER:

I should merely like to add to what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has said, that one appreciates his delicacy in refraining from referring to the fact that, were such an error to have occurred in an ordinary commercial contract, then the signatories to that contract, even though they suffered a disadvantage through an error of this nature, would have been bound by the contract. Particularly is that so if that contract had remained undisturbed for a period of four years. As I say, the hon. member very delicately refrained from referring to this particular fact.

I do not think it would be very difficult on further consideration, and perhaps a reference back of this clause until the resumption of this debate, to try and protect those who have been unwittingly misled by the provisions of the Act. There is a further consideration, a danger which, fortunately, the Government has escaped, and that is that if there were to have been any decision of the law courts on this particular section, there is no question but that the courts would have been obliged to accept the actual letter of the law. This type of law which is restrictive must then be observed in its narrowest sense, which means that the law would have been observed literally. In that case, any aggrieved person who had appeared before the courts, on an interpretation of this section would have received a judgment based on the date actually set out in the Act, so that no argument could have been sustained which might have suggested an interpretation that the law had been incorrectly amended in this consolidating measure.

As I said in my premise, it was merely the delicacy of the situation which prevented the hon. member for South Coast from being much more direct in his suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give some thought to those people who are affected. It is not even a question of seeking any amelioration of the law. It is merely a question of this Committee facing up to its responsibilities in that, Parliament having consolidated a measure and finding after four years that it has committed an error, it should not legislate retrospectively as to prejudice people, but rather seek to restore the situation without prejudice to those, who unfortunately may have been adversely affected or may have been led to a certain point of view by the provisions of the law.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

I am glad that the tone of the debate has now changed and that the submission I have made is accepted, namely that this is an error which slipped in. I just want to point out that this Bill is not of retrospective effect.

Mr. LAWRENCE:

It is.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

It is not being made of retrospective effect. My information is that the legal contracts entered into prior to 1 July 1955, are valid and in the second place that written contracts entered into on or after that date will be valid, and that until the present amending Bill comes into operation, such contracts will be valid. That is the information I have been given by the law advisers.

Mr. BARNETT:

Mr. Chairman, I think it necessary for me to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in a book written by Mr. F. P. Rosseau, the 1957 Act is printed. I accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said because in this book the author does indicate that there has been a mistake. He says—

The legislation was actually consolidated before the date arrived, Section 17 (b) (ii) being recast in a form which stated the law at the date of consolidation. A correction of this error would seem to be required with retrospective effect.

The hon. the Minister must therefore appreciate that we realize that there was a mistake. But this book also says that Section 17 (2) provides for a host of general exemptions, the trend of which has been to cause little or no disturbance to the established way of life in the areas concerned. In this book the Act of 1957 is published, and it is distributed throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and people have acted on that 1957 Act. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to appreciate that we concede that there was a mistake. We appreciate the necessity of putting this right. But surely he must concede that certain people have been prejudiced. Will he now help these people who have acted bona fide in terms of the Act as it was then cast?

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.

House to resume in Committee on 7 March.

The House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.