Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of this House, I wish to point out that we shall continue to deal with the items on the Order Paper, as printed. The Committee Stage of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Bill will stand over until Monday, 15 August, when this stage will be taken.

Since the consideration and discussion of the Constitution Bill is a very special occasion for this House, the Government has decided that after the Committee Stage has been disposed of, 10 hours will be allowed for discussion of the Third Reading. Consequently I move without notice—

Agreed to.

QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

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

1. 1. On page 4, in line 38, to omit “daughter” and to substitute “daughter,”.
2. 2. On page 6, in line 8, to omit “as a whole”.
3. 3. On page 6, after line 14, to add:
   (e) in any dwelling in which a lodger’s permit has been issued to that Black.

The hon. the Minister has stated that he is prepared to accept my first amendment in so far as the omission of a comma after the words “unmarried daughter” was evidently a mistake and it was not the hon. the Minister’s intention to interfere in the status of the unmarried daughter. The insertion of a comma means that the “unmarried daughter” is not limited to unmarried daughters under the age of 18 years when it comes to enjoying the privilege of living with the head of the household, i.e. her father, if he qualifies. I will not take that any further.

As regards my second amendment, i.e. to omit the words “as a whole” on page 6, in line 8, the reason for that is that there are occasions when a man is given lodging rights to part of a house. It is our intention, furthermore, to propose to have inserted after line 14 the words “in any dwelling in which a lodger’s permit has been issued to that Black”. What we are trying to obtain is the right of the family of the man who qualifies in terms of section 10(1)(b), and subsequently (c), to share that part of the house to which the man concerned has been granted a lodger’s permit. As the clause stands at present, the man has to have the right to occupy the entire dwelling. I think that the words “as a whole” make that clear. We know that it seldom happens that a man in a city as a migrant worker, i.e. as a single man to all intents and purposes, is ever granted the right to take up lodgings in an entire house in a township. That is the object of my amendments.

Yesterday, in his reply to the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister clarified certain aspects of the rights that have now been acquired since the Rikhoto judgment. I hope that he will also as soon as possible be able to give us information on the two subjects which are still in doubt. The first of those concerns the rights of workers who come from countries which are now independent. Will they have to qualify under section 10(1)(b) before the countries to which they ethnically belong became independent, i.e. in the case of Transkei before 1976 and similarly in the case of Venda, Ciskei and Bophuthatswana? We should like that clarified as soon as possible because, according to my information, the Administration Boards are apparently uncertain about this and some are giving these rights and others not. I think Durban is doing so while Johannesburg is not. The West Rand Administration Board is not doing so.

Then there is the question whether or not a man may exceed four weeks’ leave when he goes home. As I pointed out to the hon. the Minister, there are judgments in respect of periods well beyond four weeks’ leave. There is the Booi case and there is the Matheya case. I think that in the latter case the man was actually absent from work for a period of eight months and later for a period of four months. I know that this is on appeal, but the judge found that the period of leave was irrelevant as far as this was concerned. As long as the man technically remained in the employment of the firm, whether he stayed away longer than four weeks is irrelevant when it comes to the question of obtaining section 10(1)(b) rights.

Then there is the whole question whether the leave is paid leave or unpaid leave. I think it is grossly unfair to leave it to the “generosity” of the employer as to whether he is going to pay for the leave of his contract worker and to make that a decisive factor in deciding whether or not the man is going to be entitled to qualify for section 10(1)(b) rights.

There is a third question which I did not raise yesterday and which I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, namely the position of a man who works for a, say, construction firm which merges with another firm during the 10-year period, and where he now works for what are essentially the same principals in the firm. The firm may have changed its name or may be subject to different ownership. Is such a man then going to be considered to be disqualified because the name of the firm or the ownership has changed? I think that is something that has to be resolved because contract workers particularly are in this vulnerable position. We should be making every effort—here I want to use the words used by the hon. member for Randfontein—to iron out all disputes in connection with this particular judgment. We ought not to give any impression that the Committee of the House is in any way attempting to frustrate directly or indirectly the findings of the judgment in the Rikhoto case.

Mr. Chairman, I am not rising now to reply to all the questions put by the hon. member, because I see other hon. members would also like to speak. It would therefore be better if I reply in full later. However, I am rising now to say that the hon. member for Houghton’s first amendment is quite acceptable to me, as I indicated yesterday. Unfortunately, however, her second and third amendments are not acceptable. I shall reply to them in detail after I have heard what other hon. members have to say. At this stage, however, I just wanted to give an indication of the prevailing trend of thought.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the clause under discussion is concerned I want to state the standpoint of the CP briefly but categorically. Everyone who has had anything to do with the control over and the influx of Blacks to our urban areas over the years is in agreement on a certain interpretation of section 10(1)(b) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. This was the generally accepted interpretation of that Act. I assume that the hon. the Minister also accepted the usual interpretation of this section, as it has been interpreted over the years, as being correct. As a matter of fact, I do not believe it was the standpoint of the hon. the Minister that when Rikhoto brought his case against the East Rand Administration Board he felt impelled to inform the relevant Administration Board that their interpretation of the legal position was incorrect and they should not oppose Rikhoto’s application. I think the opposite is more likely to be true and that the hon. the Minister and his department felt that the usual interpretation of that provision was the one which should be implemented. For that reason the court application was opposed and the case was taken as far as the Appeal Court. Now we have the strange argument that over the years a certain application and a certain interpretation of section 10(1)(b) was valid, and then there is the final judgment of the Appeal Court. However, before the Appeal Court passed judgment the Transvaal Supreme Court handed down a similar judgment and the hon. the Minister was warned in good time that he would have to contend with the consequences of that decision if judgment went against him and the Administration Board. We were all under the impression that the hon. the Minister was preparing legislation to rectify any possible detrimental effect of the judgment going against the Administration Board.

We have been asked whether we accept the decision of the Appeal Court. I do not dispute the right of the Appeal Court to interpret laws as they appear on our Statute Book and give its interpretation of them. However, this does not mean that if that interpretation leads to obstacles being placed in one’s way in the administration of one’s country as one sees it in future, one simply has to accept that interpretation of the Appeal Court as being the norm for all times for what is correct and what has to be done in the interests of the future of our country. I should like to put this question to the hon. the Minister: If the East Rand Administration Board had won that appeal instead of Rikhoto, what would the hon. the Minister have done then? Would he then have returned to this House and told us: The Appeal Court has now decided that the East Rand Administration Board was correct and therefore Rikhoto does not even have a moral right to a residential permit? Something must have happened to the hon. the Minister and his view of the relevant case. This case did not catch the hon. the Minister unawares. In the first place he was warned in good time by the judgement of the court. He had more than two years to rectify matters and he either did nothing or did not want to do anything. Now, however, the hon. the Minister comes along with his amendment contained in clause 4 which is to a certain extent aimed at toning down the practical consequences of the Appeal Court’s interpretation of section 10(1)(b). We now have fine-sounding words to the effect that we do not want slum conditions around our cities and that provision therefore has to be made for providing housing for the families and the dependants of such an employee who is then allowed to come to the urban area. This sounds fine, but it is only a short-term solution. It is not the long-term answer because the fact remains that even if one adds the requirement that the dependants of that contract worker may only come to the White urban area if provision is made for proper housing for then, the hon. the Minister is now accepting through his behaviour that he will not rectify the provisions of section 10(1)(b), although the judgement of the Appeal Court is going to have the effect that thousands upon thousands of Black contract workers are now going to qualify for permanent residence in White South Africa. Not only will they qualify but many more thousands of their families and their dependants will also qualify. Our question to the NP is: What has caused them to do an about-face in this regard too? What was the reason for this? I also want to repeat my question to the hon. the Minister: If the Administration Board had won the appeal case instead of Rikhoto, what would he have done then? Both cannot be correct. Either the interpretation of section 10(1)(b) as it has been implemented over the years under the guidance of the hon. the Minister and his department was wrong, morally wrong, or, if it was right, morally right, why is it suddenly wrong now? We want a reply to this. I want to state our standpoint categorically. This measure by the hon. the Minister may bring about temporary alleviation of the problem of an uncontrolled influx of Blacks to the White area but it will not offer a permanent solution. As a matter of fact, judging by the hon. the Minister’s record—he is proud of his record—it would seem that he is telling us that it is one of his declared aims to provide housing for Black people in the White area on a massive scale. It is therefore the declared aim of the hon. the Minister, his department and the Government to provide these additional Black people, as well, who are now entitled to stream in with special housing. Consequently the Government is finally accepting now, through its unwillingness to take action in this connection, that the influx of Blacks to White South Africa can no longer be controlled or can only be controlled by means of temporary measures.

For that reason I want to express our objection in the strongest possible language. We maintain that the measure is totally inadequate. We are of the opinion that the only correct way to behave would be by amending section 10 so that it could be interpreted it has always been interpreted as regards people who would be able to qualify. For that reason the proposal of the hon. the Minister does not satisfy us at all.

We read in the newspapers during the past few days that the Administration Boards dealing with the actual administration of this matter are not satisfied with the hon. the Minister’s behaviour either. The hon. the Minister must therefore give them instructions because they are not satisfied with the behaviour of the Government and the hon. the Minister in this connection. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the member for Barberton made the standpoint of the CP very clearly, but what he did not do was to put forward any particular proposals on their part. Apparently the hon. member is going to vote against clause 4, but to what effect? The effect would of course be that the court judgment would remain as it was and there would be no control over the family members of contract workers in certain cases. If this is the attitude of the CP I must say they are very far removed from the reality of South Africa.

Simply voting against the clause is in fact going to indicate how inconsistent the hon. members of the CP are. Let us take this a step further. If the hon. members really feel strongly about this and if they really accept the court judgment I would expect them, in order to tone down or in some way alter the court judgment, to move an amendment, but there have been no amendments from the CP. We have the legal position therefore that the court judgment is accepted by the CP and because they are voting against the clause, there will be absolutely no effect on the court judgment if the clause is not accepted.

This is a clever advocate talking!

I cannot help it if that hon. member thinks I am clever. In any case, thanks for the compliment. However, he must not blame me if he is stupid. [Interjections.] It is really not my fault if he is stupid.

Rex versus the truth. [Interjections.]

Let us be realistic now. Let us see what the actual situation is. Let us use our intelligence. Let us become receptive to the problems of South Africa so that we can solve them. Let us not adopt an ostrich-like approach to politics as the CP does by burying their heads in the sand and imagining there are no problems. If there is one hon. Minister who is aware of the problems of South Africa and is trying to solve them as best he can, it is the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. We are aware of our country’s problems, but we have to approach them in a realistic way. What is the reality? We interpreted the provisions of section 10 in a certain way. However, the Appeal Court decided that the interpretation of the relevant section was different. We therefore tried to be realistic and asked ourselves what the effect of that court judgment would be. The effect of that court judgment is that no additional Black people will enter the work situation. All that is happening is that the presence of people who have already worked for 10 years in a White area and have already become involved in the economy of South Africa and have already proved that they are reliable by working for the same employer for 10 years has changed from a de facto presence to a recognized de jure presence. That is all that is happening.

Why did you wait 35 years to do this?

From where I am standing I could not hear what the hon. member was saying. I do not think I am missing anything either.

We have to be realistic towards the people outside this Chamber. The fact of the matter is that no new rights are being allocated to the Black people but that certain rights which have already been acquired are merely being confirmed. This is the factual situation. The hon. member for Barberton referred to detrimental consequences. The detrimental consequences the hon. member referred to are in fact contained in the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton. The detrimental effects are inherent in the second and third amendments to this clause moved by the hon. member for Houghton. In terms of these amendments three or five families may reside in one house so that the infrastructure can be overloaded as a result. This will create chaos and slum conditions. This is the problem with the hon. member for Houghton’s amendments. These are the detrimental effects. It is precisely these detrimental effects which we are trying to eliminate by means of the statutory amendment in clause 4.

I want to tell the hon. member for Barberton that this Government is not unshod on the ice. There is other legislation in terms of which influx and settlement matters can be dealt with. The hon. member will know that at the moment a Bill is before the Select Committee on the Constitution, namely the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill. We do not foresee any problems in the application of this clause. If problems do crop up there is still the possibility that the matter can be dealt with in the near future. I want to point out at once that the interests of the Black people are also important to us. It struck me that the hon. member for Kuruman said rather vindictively and enviously yesterday that we wanted the Black people in South Africa to have the best of both worlds. He was rather envious that they should have the best of both worlds and not us.

We only want the best of our world.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Kuruman that our approach is not a vindictive and envious one. Our policy is one of realism in connection with the interests of the Whites and we want to treat both Whites and Blacks fairly. [Interjections.]

I want to say at once that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development was certainly not caught unawares.

Order! There are too many interjections. The hon. member may proceed.

This court judgment did not catch the hon. the Minister unawares. This court judgment was considered in detail and there were long discussions on it. The hon. the Minister and the entire Cabinet decided that the right way to deal with this matter was, in the first place, to accept the court’s judgment and interpretation. In principle people should not be deprived of their rights. That is the reason why those hon. members of the CP do not want to move other amendments, because as soon as one wants to move other amendments one has to deprive people of their rights. I challenge hon. members of the CP to move amendments. Do not only be destructive, but try to be constructive as well.

We also reject the two amendments of the hon. member for Houghton for the above-mentioned reasons. We feel it is in the interests of everyone involved, specifically the Whites and the Blacks in the cities. For that reason it gives us great pleasure, except for the amendment accepted by the hon. the Minister, to support this clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enter the debate between the hon. members of the CP and the hon. member for Pretoria West at this stage. I may do so later if I have the time. I want to return to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton. However, before I do so I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I shall reply to him during the Third Reading on what I consider to have been an extremely unfair attack he made on me yesterday in his reply to the Second Reading debate, in which he accused me not only of reprehensible behaviour but also of abusing the rights of this Parliament. I object very strongly to this and I take the greatest exception to this. If I had mentioned individual officials here by name and had accused them of irregularities, the hon. the Minister would have had every right to level such an accusation at me. I spoke about his department and about Administration Boards. But I shall return to this matter in the Third Reading in any case. Then I shall reply to the accusation the hon. the Minister levelled at me.

As regards the hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Houghton and also in consequence of the reaction of the hon. member for Pretoria West, allow me to point out that what the hon. the Minister rejected was the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, namely that the words “as a whole” be deleted. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this. Circumstances may arise where families may reside with other people without that entire house being allocated to one person. If, for example, there are large houses under the 99-year leasehold system, what objection could there be, if accommodation is available, to other people also residing in that house? My problem concerns the hon. the Minister’s rejection of the lodger’s permit. The hon. the Minister knows that cases may arise, for example where a house is allocated to a person whose spouse subsequently dies and he is left living alone, and is prepared to let his son and his son’s family live in the house with him. What human and moral objection could there be to an arrangement whereby that man is allowed to bring in members of his family to live with him in such a case? It is lodger’s permits which are at issue here. I am replying here to the objection of the hon. member for Pretoria West. After all, the expression “lodger’s permit” implies control by the officials, and so obviously the position the hon. member for Pretoria West mentioned here of four or five families residing in one house which can only accommodate one or two families, cannot arise. If it were to arise this would be a reflection on the effective functioning of the administrative machinery; in other words the objection that it could lead to overcrowding in a specific house in terms of the lodger’s permit is not valid if the work is done properly. The crux is that occupation of a house may only take place in terms of a permit. Thus, in both cases, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his objection to the amendments does not convince me.

In the second place I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider—I did not prepare an amendment—deleting the reference to section 9(2)(f) in paragraph (d) of the new subsection (1A). Section 9(2)(f) of the Act of 1945 refers to the Act of 1911, which has since been substituted by the Black Labour Act of 1964. Paragraph (d) of the proposed subsection (1A) covers two types of cases. In the first place it covers family accommodation provided by an employer for a Black labourer, as defined in the Act, viz. a Black labourer working on any mine or works outside a Black residential area and in the second place it covers accommodation provided for him inside a Black residential area. The hon. the Minister is shaking his head, and I do not believe it was his intention to restrict it to this extent. However, this is my interpretation, and if I am wrong I should like to hear why I am wrong. I assume that what the hon. the Minister had in mind here was the provision of accommodation by any employer to any labourer. However, as it stands here my interpretation is that it does not apply to any Black labourer or to any employer either.

I apologize for not discussing this aspect with the hon. the Minister in advance, but I would be glad if he could go into this matter. I feel that the entire matter could be rectified by deleting the words “section 9(2)(f)”. The Government is constantly insisting on greater participation by the private sector in the provision of housing. For that reason I think that any obstacles preventing employers from helping to provide housing for their employees, should be removed. In my opinion this can be achieved by deleting the reference to section 9(2)(f) in this paragraph.

Mr. Chairman, the selfstyled clever hon. member for Pretoria West tried to reply to the argument of the hon. member for Barberton. However, I want to put it for consideration that the hon. member did not reply to any of the arguments of the hon. member for Barberton. All the hon. member did was to fire a few random shots. He did not reply to any of the arguments of the hon. member for Barberton.

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that intensive attention had been given to the Appeal Court judgment in the Rikhoto case and that there had been a very wide-ranging consultation on its implications. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister with whom he held widely-ranging discussions and what implications he found in the process. From this side we asked the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading debate to give us an indication of the numbers of people who will be affected by this judgment. The hon. member for Pretoria West argued that all that is being done here is that something which was illegal is being declared legal. I am asking the hon. the Minister to make it quite clear to us what those numbers are, and also how correct his information is in connection with these numbers. In the second place the hon. the Minister must also tell us to what extent those numbers are expected to increase in the future. After all, those numbers cannot remain static.

I should also very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister what the implications of influx control will be in this situation. The hon. the Minister must tell us what the implications will be, not only as far as the numbers are concerned, but also as far as accommodation and other matters which form part of the process of the settlement of these people are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik kicked up quite a fuss about influx and influx control, and alleged that influx control would allegedly disappear altogether. He also alleged that the mere application of the provisions of clause 4 of the Bill, as proposed by the hon. the Minister, would give rise to a major influx of people. He referred specifically to those persons acquiring rights in terms of section 10(1)(b) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945.

The hon. the Minister referred to that himself. I merely asked the question about it.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Rissik would just learn to keep quiet when other people are speaking, it would be of great assistance to us in this House. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member for Rissik would just try to picture things as they really are. People applying for rights in terms of section 10(1)(b) are people who are already here; people who have been here for 10 years or longer; people who are legally here, and who are now merely applying for legal recognition in terms of section 10(1)(b). This involves the idea of permanence. Of course, this is what is actually worrying the hon. member—the idea of permanence. This immediately brings me back to the hon. member for Barberton.

The hon. member for Barberton said that an Appeal Court judgement did not have to be the norm applying for all time. In this respect I admit that he is correct. Of course this should not be the case. After all, circumstances and times change. However, what the hon. member for Barberton is doing, is to determine the norm on the strength of a labour regulation of 1968, not on the strength of the Act itself. He wants to elevate a labour regulation to a norm for all times. Section 10(1)(b) makes provision for the acquisition of rights by people as soon as they have been legally present in a specific place for a period of 10 years. In 1968 a labour regulation was published in which certain requirements were laid down in connection with the return of those people. I am not quite sure—I was not part of this at the time—whether the motive contained in that regulation was to make it impossible to qualify in terms of the said Act.

Now you have it right.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says I now have it right. However, he is the one who referred to morality when he reacted to the hon. member for Pretoria West. What morality is there in wanting to do things in a roundabout way by way of regulation, while the existing section of the Act remains as it is? [Interjections.]

That is a good question.

Yes, it is a good question. The hon. member for Rissik was a member of this House at that stage. Did he object at that stage to that regulation being made.

We discussed that matter at length. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I was not a member of this House in those days. However, the hon. member for Rissik was. If he did discuss this at length, he was in any case apparently satisfied to do one thing administratively by way of regulation, while suggesting something completely different by way of legislation as far as the acquisition of rights by people was concerned.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to make a second statement in this connection. The hon. member for Barberton complained here about the idea of permanence. Has he ever thought how many people have been present here permanently for years now in terms of the said Act—in terms of section 10(1)(a) and (b)?

No, he is still dreaming. [Interjections]

If it is then supposedly so immoral—according to the CP’s view—to admit those people, is the hon. member for Barberton suggesting that he wants the provisos to sections 10(1)(a) and (b) deleted so that those people may no longer be permanently present here, so that they have to go back to wherever they came from, or be sent away to places where they have never been? If the hon. member has this in mind, he should tell us frankly; he should not complain about petty matters here in this House. [Interjections.]

Then there is a third matter I should like to discuss briefly here. Hon. members have to remember that this regulation was in any case promulgated in 1968 …

What did Hennie van der Walt say about section 10?

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Rissik wishes to speak, I shall resume my seat for the time being and take another turn to speak later. [Interjections.] The regulation was proclaimed as long ago as 1968, against the background of a perception that there would be a reversal in the entire influx to the metropolitan areas as a result of a natural outward movement which would accompany the development of the national States. Hon. members should also remember that it took place against that background.

There is a final matter I want to touch on. The hon. member asked about numbers. In the Second Reading debate I pointed out that I had made inquiries last week and found out that in the entire Witwatersrand area, in the area of two Administration Boards, there had been 7 500 applications for recognition under section 10(1)(b). This is the number that had already been approved and processed. The hon. the Minister can give the hon. member the figures that apply today. Of those 7 500 applicants not a single one had at that stage applied to bring in his family. If the hon. members are speaking about a tremendous influx, they are making a big mistake as far as the present situation is concerned, because all that has happened to date, is simply that people who are physically and legally present, can exercise their legal presence here under one provision instead of another.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions in relation to this matter in the hope that he will attend to them in his reply, because so much of what is being discussed here is vital for the stability and also the mobility of labour in terms of the regional development strategy which is an essential aspect in the accommodation of the urbanization process. Instead of workseekers honing in on the existing urban areas, the existing commercial and industrial centres, it will be possible to distribute them in other areas which are better situated in relation to the existing large population groups. It will also enable them to fit into the scheme of things as far as uplifting certain undeveloped areas is concerned. The question I want to raise in respect of the rights under section 10(1)(b) is whether in fact they are in any way transferable. Consider the situation where an entrepreneur seeks to involve himself in regional development by moving a large industrial enterprise to another area. He may want to take with him semi-skilled or skilled members of his staff, who only qualify in respect of certain areas under section 10(1)(b), and have them remain with him for some years while local people are trained. To what extent would he be affected by that? Would those rights be transferable? If such workers went back to an area which was the area of their own national group or tribe and subsequently preferred to remain there under such a process of regional development whilst being involved in training people there, would their rights be transferable to that area and would every possible step be taken to prevent any sort of obstacle being placed in the way of regional development as far as permanent rights are concerned?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the various questions asked here. I wish to point out that there must be no mistake about the fact that what the Rikhoto judgment amounts to is that a contract worker who has worked for one employer for 10 years, on the understanding that he will continue to be employed by the employer, who has gone, on his annual paid leave, to his home outside the prescribed area where, on the basis of a call-in card, he has again negotiated a new service contract with the same employer, who has been attested there, and who has then returned to resume his employment, is recognized as a person referred to in section 10(1)(b) of the Act in question. We said that we would adhere strictly to the judgment of the court. That is what we shall do. In reply to the question by the hon. member for Houghton it must surely be understood now that it is important to know what relationship there was between the employer and the employee. That was the judgment of the court. The relationship must be such that there is a clearly evident intention that the employee works for the employer for an unbroken period of 10 years and that the employer accepts it as such. I stated this clearly yesterday at the request of the hon. member for Randburg. The Government has consistently adopted the standpoint that it is necessary to act fairly and justly and on a firm basis, i.e. a court judgment. Thus this will undoubtedly be taken into account. On behalf of the Government I requested that it be interpreted in this way. Accordingly it will be interpreted in this way.

One thing is very clear from arguments raised by hon. members of the CP, and that is that we are dealing with an important matter. There is not the slightest doubt about that. This will be even more evident from what I am about to say. It is reasonable to expect that initially there will be growing pains. However, efforts are being made on all sides to act fairly and justly and on a firm basis, as I have already indicated repeatedly, and as I shall now try to indicate once again in the course of my reply. We shall keep hon. members informed from time to time, as I shall again do now, concerning the number of people we are dealing with here. We should like to have this matter dealt with sensibly and intelligently in the interests of all involved and in the interests of the country. If we co-operate we can succeed in this. I have no doubt whatsoever on that score.

I also wish to make a second point. Taking into account the socio-economic aspects, particularly with regard to the acute shortage of housing for Blacks—this is a matter that is discussed repeatedly in this House and throughout the country—the Government has the responsibility to guard against unrealistic expectations being aroused among contract workers and their wives and children with regard to residence in prescribed areas. After all, it is only fair and just if the Government takes such action, and I personally take such action. Make no mistake, I have seen what has happened to a stable Black community that is subjected to illegal newcomers who are unable to obtain accommodation. The people who suffer first are the established Black communities. There is no question about that. The Whites, too, suffer, due to chaotic conditions that develop. The whole country suffers as a result of these conditions that develop. Therefore I honestly make no apology for taking rigorous and firm action in line with our approach that we do not tolerate squatting under any circumstances, particularly in view of the sociological and health dangers it entails. People must not be made to expect that they can bring their families if the necessary housing is not available for them.

What are we doing here? I think the Government is being very fair. We say by way of clause 4 of this Bill that the wives and children of workers who at present reside outside urban areas can only be admitted to an urban area if the head of the family is given permission. It must be a person who has worked for one employer for 10 years. We contend that such a person is a stable worker. He has shown himself to be so. Moreover, this is what the court found. In the process he has become an asset. I do not believe anyone can dispute that. One need only read the court judgment. However, a person who has worked for different employers for 15 years has also proved himself to be a stable employee. We say that the head of such a household can bring his wife and children as long as the following requirements are complied with: Firstly, he can be allowed controlled self-building, if an erf is available. I think that is very fair. That is stated in clause 8. Secondly, if he can obtain a rented house; that is the ordinary 51/7 house of a local authority, if it is available. If it is not available, there is no possibility that such a person can bring his next of kin. Thirdly, he can obtain a board dwelling. That is an ordinary house under the 30-year house ownership scheme. It is also this ordinary 51/7 type house. Fourthly, he can obtain a 99-year lease if an erf is available. Finally—and I shall reply to this in greater detail when I come to the hon. member Prof. Olivier—he can obtain family housing provided by his employer outside a Black residential area, in terms of section 9(2)(f) of the Act. I want to tell the hon. member Prof. Olivier here and now that the intention of this fifth category is not to make it restrictive but to afford that kind of employer, who needs key staff on his factory floor, the opportunity, if the necessary approval is granted to him by the department and the Minister, to provide the necessary accommodation for such an employee. Therefore I think it would be a mistake to accept its deletion as proposed by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, and for the reason I mentioned, because this provision is not intended to be restrictive, as the hon. member interpreted it. That is really not the intention. The intention is to accommodate a case in terms of section 10, 10 years or 15 years, and to help his employer to accommodate him if it is really a deserving case. I have thereby replied to the representations of the hon. member for Houghton and those of the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

What about the man who changes his employer?

Yes, I shall come to that now. I have also replied to the question of lodging permits. The fact of the matter is just that this Bill does not prevent lodgers’ permits for being issued where there is adequate accommodation. The important question therefore arises: Why should a person obtain rights in terms of section 10(1)(c) purely as a lodger? For that reason I really do not see my way clear to complying with the hon. member’s request. We went into the whole matter in depth and this is really not in the interests of such a family. It would not be in anyone’s interest if I were to comply with that request, and for that reason I have explained at length what all the implications are and how fairly and justly we are acting in this regard. The best evidence with regard to this whole situation was provided by the hon. member for Randburg on the basis of the facts made available about the true situation in this case, and in regard to the correctness of the Government’s actions after we had investigated this whole matter in depth. I therefore think that we must give this matter a chance. If we act fairly and justly then I honestly believe that the court has done this country a great favour and I am convinced that considerable security and stability will result from this situation as long as we succeed—as we said from the outset-in abiding by the court judgment, in acting fairly and justly and, in the process, ensuring that numbers are limited in all circumstances.

I want to say here and now, particularly to my colleagues in the CP, when they accuse me and this Government of throwing in the towel as regards so-called influx control, that they are being unfair to me and to the department. We do not intend doing that, and in fact, and in essence, we do not do it. That it is a difficult question, I concede. That at some places it is more difficult, I would also concede. At the places where it is more difficult were are carrying out in-depth investigations. This morning, for example, we again conducted important discussions with a view to overhauling the machinery and ascertaining how, in present circumstances, we can improve, on the basis of present situations, methods which 20 years ago were effective in the implementation of influx control.

I do not apologize for speaking about this so forthrightly; it is in the interests of everyone in this country, particularly the Black people, that there should be proper influx control geared to modern requirements in this country, because they are then able to build up stable communities. Then we shall be working towards peace and stability in our country. Of particular importance is the fact that the Black parents—who often speak to me about this problem they are saddled with—will then be able to educate their children as they would like to educate them, viz. to be law-abiding and hard-working and to strive to get ahead in life.

Therefore we must not be accused of things of which we are really not quality. We do not wish to do away with influx control because we believe that that would not be in anyone’s interest. We are investigating the opposite, viz. how to make influx control most effective in modern circumstances, as it applies today, but at the same time we want to determine how we can implement it in a fair and equitable manner so that people are not unnecessarily antagonized and brought to court when in fact it is unnecessary to do so. We do not want to remain in the situation we find ourselves in, in which we are milling around like cattle in a kraal without really managing to achieve what we want to do. What I ascribe this to is that methods that worked well in the past are now no longer as effective as they were then, due to new circumstances.

Therefore we are investigating the matter, and I hold out the prospect that within the next eight to ten months, this country will be in a position to succeed in this aim as well, when the third Bill, after having been referred to the Select Committee, comes before Parliament. The Select Committee will have a very difficult task, and I honestly believe that a totally new dispensation will be created which will give rise to greater stability, and this also applies in respect of the whole matter that we are discussing now.

I should like to furnish the latest figures relating to this Rikhoto matter, because the hon. member for Rissik, quite justifiably, asked me for the figures. The fact of the matter is that towards the end of July and the beginning of August, approval had been granted in terms of the Rikhoto court case to 9 322 cases throughout the country—I am referring to section 10 cases, both 10 year and 15 year cases.

The hon. member for Randburg is quite correct. It is unnecessary to put the country’s back up and conjure up spectres of overcrowding which will ostensibly take place. We are convinced that this will not be the case to an excessive extent but we shall provide the figures from time to time.

I should like to reply further to the speech by the hon. member for Houghton. As far as the TBVC countries are concerned, the facts are as I stated them yesterday, namely that if section 10 applies to a citizen of a TBVC country, he can claim to be a Rikhoto case. I can give the assurance that from the outset the Government and I, on the basis of the evidence before us, adopted the standpoint that the citizens of the TBVC countries would be dealt with as I have just outlined. Therefore I see no reason for uncertainty in this regard. Yesterday, because I know from experience that I must provide for all contingencies, I added that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information and the Department of Internal Affairs also had a share in this matter, particularly as regards section 13 of the Blacks (Urban Area) Consolidation Act. I stated very clearly this morning during a Press conference that in the contact situation in which a Black man approaches an Administration Board and states that he is a Rikhoto case and a citizen of a TBVC country, such citizens of one of those countries need not be exposed to any uncertainty. If he can present evidence—and I assume he will be able to, or else he would not have gone there—that he is a section 10 case and that this applies to him, then all the official of that administration board has to do is to determine whether it is true. If it is true then the answer is crystal clear. The Rikhoto judgment then applies to him. Therefore there is no reason for uncertainty about this matter. Purely in order to cover my colleagues, and in the event of possible confusion that could arise, I may have made a mistake by dealing with the matter in too great detail. I am sorry if that was the case but if it is so then at least I did cover my colleagues fully in this regard.

As far as the second matter is concerned, viz. that of leave, I hope that I have replied to that in full. Therefore I can leave it at that.

What about different employers?

If a firm changes its name, the answer is very clear. If the firm continues to exist, but only changes its name, and an employee has worked for that firm for 10 years, then the department and I will definitely adopt the standpoint that such a person is not disqualified because the firm has changed its name. I hope that is very clear. At any rate, it is now recorded in Hansard.

As far as the hon. member for Barberton is concerned, I want to say that if the judgment of the Appeal Court had been in favour of the East Rand Administration Board, then we should of course have done the same as we are doing now. We should have accepted it. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Whatever the judgment of the Appeal Court may be, a responsible Government will surely consider, in the first place, what it can learn from that judgment and, in the second place, be filled with pride that the courts in this country have built up a very good name world-wide. The Government will take that proud name into account and make doubly sure whether it cannot learn something from that judgment. In this case I can honestly say that I personally found that judgment of the court very instructive. The Government has a high regard and great respect for our courts. Therefore, if I am asked what we would have done if the judgment of the court had been in favour of the Administration Board, I can only say that we should have accepted it. Because we are a responsible Government we did exactly the same thing after the court had found in favour of Rikhoto. We studied the judgment of the court in depth and reached the conclusion that the judgment was acceptable to us. All we have to do is ensure that this finding of the court is strictly adhered to. We reached the conclusion that if we implemented the finding of the court strictly, after due consultation—I shall mentioned in a moment with whom we consulted—it would certainly be in the interests of the country, with a view to permanence, peace, progress and the economic development of everyone in this country, if the Government were to accept the judgment of the court. If the Government does that, then there are sufficient possibilities as regards maintaining discipline. All we had to do, on acceptance of the finding of the court, was to deal with one remaining socio-economic fact, and that socio-economic fact is the inadequate housing situation in South Africa. We had then to consider how best to deal with that colossal problem that we were battling with. The legislation at present before this House arose from that. We say now: Very well, a person can be accepted after 10 or 15 years, but he cannot bring his family along unless he complies with the requirements that are spelt out clearly in this legislation. The fact which the hon. member for Randburg emphasized yesterday, and again today, is a very significant one. It underlines the investigations carried out by Prof. Schlemmer and the investigations carried out by Prof. Flip Smit. On that basis we must recognize that there is a far greater degree of realism among both Black and White people in South Africa than is generally assumed and recognized. It is that those people themselves, of their own free will, do not bring their families if they are not sure that their families can be accommodated in the urban areas in favourable circumstances. There is a considerable element of that in this whole process. I hope that I have thereby furnished the hon. member with an effective and sufficient reply.

I have already replied to the hon. member prof. Olivier.

As far as the hon. member for Rissik is concerned, I have already replied in regard to numbers. I have also replied in regard to the implications for influx control.

He is not listening.

The hon. member only listens with one ear.

I just want to reply to the hon. member on one other point. I think it is the only point that remains to be replied to, and it is this: With whom did we consult? I can tell the hon. member that our consultations covered a very wide field. I personally consulted very widely and it was not only myself; the Government, too, consulted very widely. In the first place, we consulted with the department. In the second place, we consulted the Reference Bureau. I was in constant communication with the Reference Bureau for virtually an entire week. In the third place, we consulted every individual Administration Board in this country, not only for a day, but over a period of weeks. In the fourth place, I requested the chairmen of the Administration Boards, after we had consulted these in-depth investigations and obtained reports, country-wide reports, from them, to come to Cape Town, and, together with the Director-General and the other gentlemen, I conducted discussions in my office until all hours of the night with the executive committee of that board of chairmen. They represent the position countrywide. After that we discussed the matter extensively in the Cabinet Committee, not once, but repeatedly. Only after that did I take it to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet took a decision, subject to my addressing an invitation to the chairmen of all the Administration Boards and their Directors of Labour. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that this was a group of people numbering approximately 100. They came from all over to Germiston, where I, together with the senior officials of the department, held lengthy discussions with them (a) to obtain their inputs and (b) to achieve uniformity with regard to decisions to ensure that this matter was properly, soundly and uniformly dealt with country-wide. Therefore I really do not know who else the Government and myself should have consulted with. In the meantime, Assocom came to see me, and there were consultations with them, as with the FCI and the people of the Handelsinstituut. The Urban Foundation was consulted, too. I personally consulted several lawyers, apart from the Government law advisers, some of whom were involved in this matter. Therefore we have been thorough in this regard and as a result of the thoroughness with which we have gone about this, it has been possible to take sensible decisions, even though hon. members opposite may not agree with them. I respect their standpoint. But I say that the country has benefited greatly by the fact that the Government has transformed this matter—a major challenge in difficult circumstances—into a triumph. Let there be no doubt on that score.

Finally, I wish to reply to the hon. member for King William’s Town. The position is that rights acquired in terms of section 10(1)(b) in a prescribed area of one Administration Board are transferable to another prescribed area of that Administration Board. Those rights may also be exercised in the territory of a different Administration Board if work and housing are available there and are arranged in advance by the employer. If the employee returns at a later stage to his original place of residence, exactly the same applies.

I think I have now replied in full to all the questions asked by hon. members. Although we differ in this regard, let us at least agree on one thing, and that is that the Government has been given credit, both at home and abroad, for acting sensibly in regard to an extremely difficult matter that had to be dealt with. Let us at least concede that.

Mr. Chairman, I concede at once that this is a very sensitive matter and that it is a very difficult problem that must be dealt with. Nevertheless, I think it is important that in studying this problem the hon. the Minister should take cognizance of the fact that section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, when it was placed on the Statute Book, was one of the most important provisions relating to influx control. That we on this side hold against the governing party is that the hon the Minister has known for many years that section 10 no longer has the desired effect as far as influx control is concerned. The fact that we are not moving an amendment here is due to our being of the opinion that an amendment in this regard would be in conflict with the principle of the legislation. If that had not been so, we should indeed have come forward with an amendment. But there will be an opportunity to discuss this matter in the Select Committee on the orderly settlement of Blacks, and we shall make use of that opportunity. However, what we take amiss of the hon. the Minister is the fact that he has been advised by the department and the caucus that the 1968 regulation was not valid. It was a regulation aimed at preventing too great an influx. At the time our advice to him was that this regulation was not valid and that section 10 should be abolished. One person who advocated this most strongly is today the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs, and I am sure that he is still in favour of it, because section 10 no longer serves its purpose. The hon. the Minister had the benefit of the very illuminating judgment of 22 September 1981. It is now already almost September 1983. Two years ago the Appeal Court in Bloemfontein passed the same judgment, almost word for word, as the Witwatersrand judgment. The question is what the hon. the Minister has done since September 1981 to counter the possibility of an unfavourable Appeal Court judgment. This is what we take amiss of the hon. the Minister. Only now has he convened all the Administration Boards; only now has be brought together all his advisers. But why did he not take the necessary steps in 1981 to deal with this sensitive matter? This matter is now snowballing. We saw in the Sunday papers that the hon. the Minister is having problems and that he said that the 15-year cases can also be dealt with in this way. Sir, this situation will have a snowball effect and our charge against the Government is that in the light of the advice received, he has not taken the necessary steps in good time. It is for that reason that we shall be voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member realizes what an irresponsible statement he has just made. He said that section 10 of the Urban Areas Act should be repealed. I am entering the debate merely to outline for the hon. member some of the consequences if section 10 were to be repealed. Section 10 forms the basis on which Black people can obtain the right to live in White areas. At the same time it is the basis of agreements between the Government of the Republic and the four independent Black States: Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. Those agreements provide that the rights possessed by citizens of those States by virtue of this legislation will continue to exist. If the hon. member is asking that this section should be terminated unilaterally by the Government of the Republic, this would amount to a unilateral termination of bilateral agreements with four countries. It would be irresponsible in the extreme of the White man in South Africa to break his word and his contract with the Black people unilaterally. This is yet another example of the irresponsibility we can expect from members of the CP, from people who do not care a whit for good relations between Black and White in South Africa or across international borders.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring an aspect to your attention, an aspect of which the hon. the Minister and his department are undoubtedly fully aware. It is that if we want to arouse resistance among our Black urban dwellers, we must tamper with the limited rights afforded them in terms of section 10. By doing that we should be opening a Pandora’s box, and the end result of that I could not foresee. Let me just come back very briefly to another important matter. I find it a pity that the hon. the Minister did not regard as acceptable the idea of the deletion of section 9(2)(f) in the 1945 Act. I just want to move a formal amendment so that it may be placed on record and so that the Minister may in fact give consideration to this. I therefore move as an amendment—

I just want to point out that I accept that the hon. the Minister did not mean that all those cases—9 000 cases; and there are more to come—are to be accommodated by employers on their premises. Of course, this is a question not of the employee, but of his family. I was honestly under the impression that it was the policy of the Government to encourage employers to make accommodation available to their employees. When I look at the cases referred to here, and also consider the proposal in section 10(1)(a), it is evident that provision is not being made for those cases in which an employer, as far as the new cases are concerned, is able to provide accommodation to his employees in terms of section 10(1)(b) within a Black residential area. The hon. the Minister himself spoke about cases outside the Black residential areas. However, I am not speaking of cases outside the Black residential areas. I am speaking of cases of a completely different nature. I assumed, in all honesty, that it was the policy of the Government to enable employers to provide housing to their Black employees on a far greater scale than in the past.

I earnestly request the hon. the Minister to give careful consideration to this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the hon. member Prof. Olivier here and now because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this matter. That is quite unnecessary. The law advisers of the department are present here, and I have just consulted with them. It is our contention that section 9(2)(f) is not of a restrictive nature. In any event, it is not the intention that it should be of a restrictive nature. That is by no means the intention. I hope that is very clear.

My law advisers do not want me to accept this amendment. However, if there is a technical point they are overlooking, then they are prepared to re-consider the matter so that we may bring the provision—and this is exactly what we want to do—into line with our will and conviction that it should not be of a restrictive nature. I hope that that, too, is very clear.

I now wish to refer to a second aspect, and there should be no mistake about this either. During the Second Reading debate yesterday I appealed to the private sector to take the opportunity now to help provide accommodation for their loyal workers—workers who have worked for a single employer for 10 years or for more than one employer for 15 years. In that way we shall be able to establish stable communities. Therefore there must be no misunderstanding about one thing, and that is that at least as regards the provision that an employee may obtain an erf and build his own house on it on a controlled basis, there will be absolute freedom for an employer, if he qualifies for it in terms of the legislation, to obtain a 99-year right, which will enable him to obtain a building society loan. In this way employers can be assisted to provide their employees with the necessary housing. I hope that that, too, is very clear. In terms of the clause concerned in this Bill an employer is certainly not being deprived of the right to help his employee to build his own house. The employee can then pay him back over a period of 30 years, or even longer—depending on the agreement between them. There must be no mistake about this.

Then, too, there is a matter which was touched on by the hon. member for Brakpan which I wish to react to at this point. Since I am on my feet I shall react to it now, in any event. The hon. member for Brakpan accused me of certain things. He also proposes that we repeal section 10 of the 1945 Act, and I do not know what else. The hon. member wants to know what I have done about this matter, but I shall tell him what I have done. I have certainly not let the grass grow under my feet. In all this time I have done everything possible to preserve peace in extremely difficult circumstances in this country, and we have also maintained the best possible relations. That must not pass unnoticed. It is very difficult to do that. If I were to do what those hon. members want me to do as the responsible Minister, then I can say to the hon. member now, with all the conviction at my command, and against the background of the experience I have, that it is a recipe for rebellion, conflict and trouble from morning till night. Nor would it take months, but only weeks to take hold if the CP’s recipe were to be implemented. We should then have it on a large scale. I have done everything in my power to prevent that, and that recipe that the hon. member prescribes to me would mean the end for this country and would mean untold misery for my children, his children and everyone’s children in this country. Let there be no mistake about that.

Mr. Chairman, I agree entirely with the last statement the hon. the Minister made. My information is exactly the same as his and I want to remind the hon. members of the CP that when the Soweto riots broke out in 1976 their leader had been warned twice by members of this party that there would be serious trouble if he persisted with making the medium of instruction Afrikaans in Soweto. He paid no attention to that warning and we all know what happened to South Africa as a result.

He acted on the instructions of the Cabinet.

Never mind the Cabinet. The hon. member completely disregarded what he was told. He said it was a lot of newspaper nonsense and that his information was different. On two occasions he was reminded by the then hon. member for Parktown who had been informed by the Institute of Race Relations that extremely serious trouble would break out if he persisted.

Now this hon. member, in his irresponsible way, is suggesting something that is going to cause even greater unrest than the unrest experienced in 1976. I ask those hon. members as responsible South Africans not to pursue this course. I want to remind them too, since they revere the memory of Dr. Verwoerd almost unto sainthood, that it was Dr. Verwoerd who introduced section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act in 1952.

And Mr. M. C. Botha.

Yes, and at the time when Dr. Verwoerd introduced that, he also moved an amendment which introduced section 10(1)(c).

Yes.

In so doing, he said it was not the intention of the government to separate families but that the families of husbands who qualified should have the right to remain.

I bet you voted against that.

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member. That was in 1952 and I was not here then. I arrived only in 1953, while that took place in 1952. However, I can tell him that I would have voted against any such thing introduced by Dr. Verwoerd because it concerned influx control. It is those hon. members who revered the memory of Dr. Verwoerd, not us. I just wanted to say that.

The hon. the Minister has just made a point about the provision of housing, saying that he wants to encourage employers to provide housing. Is he doing everything possible to see that adequate serviced land is made available? At the present stage that is the main drawback for employers who want to provide housing for their employees. I hope the hon. the Minister will do something about that.

Finally, I want to return to a small point which was raised by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Anyone who knows Soweto will know that perhaps one-tenth of the houses throughout Soweto are occupied by single families. All the others are occupied by more than one family because of the acute shortage which has arisen over the years because not enough houses were built in terms of policy. A lot of men, contract workers, occupy a room in a house. If such a man has a wife but no children, I cannot understand why he should not be allowed to have his wife join him. Is the hon. the Minister listening to me?

Yes, I am listening.

Why is the hon. the Minister then not looking at me? It is very awkward talking to him like that. [Interjections.] Only yesterday I was told I was the most attractive member in the House. So it ought not to be very difficult for him to look at me!

If a man has a wife whom he wishes to bring in to share the room with him, why should there be any objection to that? I hope there will be some flexibility in the application of this clause. We are going to oppose this clause despite the fact that the comma has been reinserted, because our other amendments have been rejected.

Before calling upon the next hon. member to speak, I should like to point out that this clause does not provide for the deletion of section 10. Consequently any further discussion of that cannot be permitted. The discussion must be confined to the content of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, looking at the effect of this clause, particularly after having listened to the hon. the Minister’s reply, I do not think there is anyone in the House, or in the country, who is worried or is saying that in regard to the presence of Black people, particularly those to which this clause is applicable, the Government wants to create any kind of chaos in the country or in our urban areas. The mere fact of the housing that is needed, points to this. The hon. member for Randburg and the hon. the Minister indicated the exact numbers involved. I therefore do not want to touch upon that point again.

We have just paid a visit to Lebowa. There are a large number of Black people who qualify as contract workers in terms of section 10(1)(b), and a large percentage of them will consequently be obtaining rights of permanency. My plea to the hon. the Minister is to meet the problem which, in the opinion of hon. members of the CP, is going to arise out of the implementation of this clause. I want to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister and his department to attempt to make accommodation available in urban complexes and in residential complexes in the Black States on a much larger scale so that the families of Black contract workers affected by this clause can also be settled there. I believe that the effect of the provision of this clause could be considerably ameliorated if we could achieve the dispensation needed to maintain proper order and necessary from a humanitarian point of view, i.e. the provision of accommodation in Black cities in Black States. In Lebowa we have seen houses allocated to a large number of Black contract workers on the East Rand. The families of those contract workers are also living there very happily. I think that we could do a great deal to meet both sides of the problem.

There is also a second request I want to make to the hon. the Minister. I do so because in practice, as a humble employer, I have had experience of the problems experienced when Black contract workers who have been working in the city for a long time have to go back in terms of their labour contracts. I want to make the point by asking whether it would not be possible to have representatives from the various Black States in the residential areas so that contract workers do not individually have to return to amend their contracts in terms of this clause.

There is a final point I should like to make. It is in connection with this point that the hon. member Prof. Olivier made the remark about the officials, specifically in relation to the implementation of this clause. [Interjections.] I had the honour and privilege of being, for many years, an official in the Department of Co-operation and Development.

Why did they fire you?

The hon. the Minister does not have to worry. I voluntarily took leave of what was a very good job. In the light of what the hon. member Prof. Olivier said, and in the light of the hon. the Minister’s reply, I very emphatically want to make this point here today. In regard to the implementation of this specific clause I also—and I believe the same applies to all hon. members in this Committee—have nothing but the highest regard for the officials in the Department of Co-operation and Development and the utmost respect for the way in which provisions of this nature are implemented. I should like to state publicly that I have the utmost confidence in the regard these officials have for human dignity in the way they deal with Black people in general. I have the utmost confidence in the competence of these people when it comes to the implementation of these and similar provisions. It is with regret, at times, that one sees some of these officials being given what I consider to be a slap in the face when they are busy with the execution of their duties.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate yesterday I said that the CP was going to vote against this legislation. This was met by a chorus of voices saying: Yes, you vote with the Progs. When the hon. member for Houghton said a moment ago that they were also going to vote for this clause, I heard the hon. the Minister saying: Yes, you are again voting with the CP. [Interjections.]

I just want to repeat what I said. Why is the CP going to vote against this clause? Because the hon. the Minister and the NP as a whole is doing exactly what the PFP and the Black Sash want them to do. That is why we are going to vote against it. [Interjections.] I should like to put the following question to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs: Could he ever have dreamed that the hon. member for Houghton would be taking up the cudgels for the NP? [Interjections.] The fact of the hon. member for Houghton taking up the cudgels for the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. member for Springs marks an historic occasion in this House of Assembly. I could never have dreamed of this ever happening. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Pretoria Central said the hon. member for Brakpan was being irresponsible when he said that section 10 should be deleted because it could not effectively deal with influx control. I want to ask that hon. member whether he also wants to allege that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs is irresponsible [Interjections.] If the hon. the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs were to say exactly the same thing, would he be irresponsible or would he not be irresponsible? [Interjections.]

Order! I have already indicated that I will be restricting discussion to the provisions of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to reply to a statement made by the hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order! I have made it very clear that I am now going to confine the discussion to this clause.

The hon. member spoke of realities, and I want to point out the realities of this clause. The reality of this clause is that this legislation makes it possible, after a period of 10 years, for thousands upon thousands of Black workers, together with their families, to gain certain rights in this country where they come to sell their labour. From available statistics we know that before the end of the century 19 cities the size of Soweto will have to be built, and this legislation is making it easier and easier for Black people to settle in their thousands—if not their hundreds of thousands—in the White man’s heartland. The potential for conflict, which the hon. the Minister says he wants to avert by way of his peace initiatives, will only be made that much greater.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kuruman said that the fact that the hon. member for Houghton was taking up the cudgels for the NP made this an historic occasion. What would the hon. member for Kuruman say if I told him how often his hon. colleague sitting there next to him had voted with the PFP in the Select Committee on the Constitution, from the preamble of the legislation right through to the last clause? [Interjections.] We shall see this happening here again, because in a moment they are going to vote on this clause. They will then be voting with the PFP again. He is therefore quite obviously just dishing up politically motivated stories devoid of all truth. That hon. member is so verkramp, however, that he can look with both eyes through one keyhole. [Interjections.] He and his colleague are so verkramp that they cannot put a pair of trousers on—so firmly do they stand with both feet rooted to the ground. [Interjections.]

I want to reply to what the hon. member for Houghton said about the land issue. It is true …

Is she also as verkramp?

Perhaps that is the reason why she is not verkramp. [Interjections.]

Is it true that the land issue is a very difficult one. We are doing everything in our power to make land available. In the densely built-up areas it is not all that easy, of course, because land is expensive. There are, naturally also political implications. There one must hold very wide-ranging consultations before one can reach a decision. That assurance I can give. What we must not ignore, however, is the fact that exceptional progress has been made. The whole Bronkhorstspruit development is an example of land having been made available for such development on a considerable scale. Khayelitsha is another example. Is that not specifically being attacked so vehemently by the verkrampte hon. members over there? I could also mention other examples. In the Durban area and in the Eastern Cape area we are also busy. We have investigations in progress in the Johannesburg area. The hon. member for Randburg has also lodged a strong plea for this. We are therefore looking at the matter. Hon. members are right—it is a very delicate matter.

I should like to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Innesdal. His plea for us to make much more housing available is, of course, a very valid one. In this country we simply have to succeed in doing so. If we were to succeed, the result would be twofold, a result, determined by the extent of our success. We would be establishing steady and stable communities and we would be promoting peace. We would thus be averting the possibilities of revolution in the country.

The person who, in this country, deserves the greatest credit for having done this effectively is the late Dr. Verwoerd, who did it so very effectively in the ’fifties and ’sixties …

But he is said to have made so many mistakes.

No, just give me a chance.

He did it so effectively that at the time of Dr. Verwoerd’s death it was said from Opposition ranks—I can attest to this—that one should not erect a statue to him because he had brought a Republic into being in this country, or because of any of his other great achievements, but rather because of the great housing campaign for Black people that he launched in the ’fifties. He was the father of this 51/7 house. He was the man who had hundreds of thousands of houses for Black people built in this country. At the time I was a research officer and I therefore know full well what I am talking about. When he did so at the time, there were many people in this country, in NP ranks, who labelled him a negrophile for having done so. They ridiculed him by calling him a Dutchman, adding an expletive when they said it. The degrees of comparison for the word “verward”, they said, were “verward, verwarder, Verwoerd.” That is how they carried on, and merely because he had the wisdom and the insight—in all humility I can say that today the Government has the same wisdom and insight—to do the right things to preserve peace in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member was therefore quite right. We must do it. In doing so we would be following Dr. Verwoerd’s lead, as manifested in his actions, in the example he set this country, an example this country still cherishes today in the brilliant success. Dr. Verwoerd achieved in the ’fifties when he was being called every conceivable name under the sun because he was supposedly doing too much for the Black people and too little for the Whites. Hon. members know that what I am saying is true. History is merely repeating itself.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

The hon. member may do so at a later stage.

Lastly I want to say something to the hon. member for Innesdal, because he has said a few very important things. He is a young member who is making his mark here. He thinks about these matters and speaks from a wealth of background experience of matters involving the Blacks. That is why I take cognizance of that hon. member and of other young members in the House, and those verkrampte hon. members of the CP can learn something from them.

The hon. member for Innesdal’s proposal embodies, amongst other things, the question of housing within the Black States. That is, in fact, in line with our policy. A short while ago I did, in fact, announce in the House that we hoped to be in a position to amend the relevant regulation by the end of the month. All that remains is for us to clear up the matter with one of the national States. In terms of that dispensation, a comprehensive housing campaign will be launched in the national States, and this will consequently be giving effect to the hon. member’s request.

Mr. Chairman, I have now replied to all the questions hon. members have asked, and I propose that the question now be put.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. At the moment there is a Bill before us and there is one before the Select Committee. The latter is the Orderly Movement and Settlement of Black Persons Bill. The intention of the Bill, which was drawn up by the hon. the Minister and submitted to the Select Committee, is to regulate the influx of Black people. Can we accept the fact that the content of that Bill meets with the hon. the Minister’s approval?

Mr. Chairman, I have stated my views on this trilogy of Bills very clearly indeed, but I shall do so once again. I am not one to say one thing today and something else tomorrow. [Interjections.] I said that the intention behind this trilogy of Bills was to create a new dispensation for Black people outside the national States. It is a very difficult challenge that the Government has accepted. When it was not found possible to carry through the initial legislation by way of the normal channels, I proposed that it be referred to a Select Committee. The CP is serving on that Select Committee. What happened? The first Bill was despatched with great success. As far as the second measure is concerned, the legislation pertaining to the development of Black communities, we are awaiting the results now, and consensus has undoubtedly been reached as far as this is concerned. This Bill will also be dealt with successfully. If I am right in my calculations, two-thirds of the objectives stated at the time have thus far been achieved, in spite of all the vileness that I have had to endure in the process.

The hon. member is now inquiring about the third Bill. As in the case of the other two Bills, I submitted that Bill to the Select Committee. The third Bill is the most important of the three. With this third Bill the Select Committee will be doing the country an incalculable service, because it is an excellent Select Committee. I think I am right in saying that I accepted 54 amendments on the first Bill in the Select Committee. I also accepted approximately the same number of amendments on the second Bill. In the Select Committee we put our heads together in order to achieve the best possible results in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member has asked me whether I am in favour of what is contained in the third Bill. As in the case of the first two Bills, this Bill is now before a Select Committee. If the Select Committee were to propose 100 sensible amendments to that Bill, or even 200, I would be prepared to accept them. Personally it is my aim, by way of this legislation, to be of service to this country, in all honesty, and to help the country to bridge some of its most difficult problems. We want to have justice and fairness for all population groups. We would thereby be doing our children a service. I therefore cannot say a priori what I am in favour of or am not in favour of in that Bill. I accept responsibility for the fact that the Bill has been submitted to the Select Committee so as to achieve the maximum benefit for South Africa by way of the combined intellectual efforts of those individuals.

The hon. member put a straight question to me and I have given him a straight answer. I now want to put a question to him. Since I have been prepared to do so, what I want to know from him is whether he is so verkramp—as I indicated a moment ago when I said that he could not put his own trousers on because his two feet were rooted to the ground—that he will not accept the Bill. I hope that he will be inspired by the same ideal that inspires me, i.e. to do what is in the best interests of this country. I hope that in that Select Committee he will conduct himself in the same spirit. Then we would be making some progress in South Africa. I am beginning to think, however, that hon. members of the CP are in no way imbued with or inspired by any such ideals. They are only imbued with the desire to make cheap politics out of the smallest of trifles. They do not care one iota about whether this is in South Africa’s interests or not. We on this side of the House have a completely different slant on things. We believe in the motto “South Africa first” and it is our aim to act fearlessly in the interests of this country. The electorate will take note of this and reject those hon. members. I told that hon. member yesterday that I hoped that I would not be present when the voters of this country passed judgment on some of those hon. members and the vile and beastly way they have acted in the political arena, towards me, the hon. the Prime Minister and our fatherland. Those hon. members are engaged in scandalous behaviour in South Africa.

Order! I want to make it very clear once more that discussions must now be confined exclusively to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the ruling you have just given, may I just put a question? You have given the hon. the Minister an opportunity to launch an attack on the hon. members of the CP, and I should just like to know whether we may reply to that. [Interjections.]

Order! It is true that the hon. the Minister did range more widely than was necessary, but at the same time it was quite unnecessary for the hon. member for Brakpan to put a question that had nothing to do with the clause. I just want to make it clear that I shall be allowing no further discussion that does not have a bearing on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the hon. members of the CP may reply to the attack launched by the hon. the Minister?

Order! I shall be allowing no further arguments that are not related to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: Is it therefore a general rule that the hon. the Minister may make a personal attack on us and we may not reply? The hon. the Minister is not entitled to have rules solely applicable to him.

Order! I have already given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to contravene your ruling. Nor is it my intention to reply to the hon. the Minister’s ridiculous insults. It is not worth it. Apparently the idea has taken root in some circles in this House that insults are a good substitute for one’s inability to put forward a sound argument. I am still waiting for a reply from the hon. the Minister. At the very beginning of this debate on this clause I said that two years ago Mr. Justice O’Donnovan pronounced judgment in the Rikhoto case in the Witwatersrand Division of the Supreme Court. The hon. the Minister and his department were aware of that judgment and its implications. They were aware of it and I believe it had their blessing, but if not, they must tell us that the East Rand Administration Board lodged an appeal with the Appeal Court in an effort to reverse the decision of the Witwatersrand Division of the Supreme Court. I now want to know from the hon. the Minister: Was it his standpoint, at the time, that the East Rand Administration Board’s interpretation of section 10(1)(b) was correct? The hon. the Minister does not want to reply. If it was his standpoint that that interpretation was correct, but that it has subsequently been found to have been wrong by the Appeal Court, the hon. the Minister must not piously tell us here that because that was the Appeal Court’s finding, and because he has great respect for the Appeal Court, we must reconcile ourselves to the Appeal Court decision. That is no argument. All of us in this House—at least all of us who have a legal background—have the utmost respect for the Appeal Court, for all our courts, and it goes without saying that we respect the decisions of our courts. It has never been the task of the Appeal Court, however, or of any other court in South Africa, to make the laws of this country. When Acts have to be amended, it is the task of this House of Assembly to amend them, not the task of the Appeal Court. The Appeal Court interprets the laws. That is its field. What, however, was the hon. the Minister’s reply? For a very long time now, under his control and supervision, the Act has been interpreted in a certain way and certain rights consequently withheld from people in terms of the Appeal Court decision.

According to the figures the hon. the Minister himself furnished, in a very short period of time recently, more than 9 000 people have had such rights granted to them. Those are people who would not have obtained those rights if the Appeal Court decision had been different.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No. Please give me a chance to speak. I am busy with my speech. [Interjections.]

What reply do we receive now from the hon. the Minister? From him we get a rearguard skirmish; a rearguard action. Whilst it has always been our object that the maximum number of Blacks should be channelled to their own areas and their own States and settled there, a rearguard action is now suddenly being launched. In fact, this very afternoon the hon. member for Innesdal lodged a plea for such a channelling and settlement process. I must say that it is almost strange, in this day and age, to hear him saying something like that. The hon. member now acknowledges this new interpretation. He is not, however, prepared to advocate that the law be improved. What he is now supporting, however, is merely the principle that the families of those now gaining permanent rights should not enter the White areas unless there is accommodation for them. I want to know—and I am waiting for an answer—what moved the hon. the Minister to decide that the interpretation, as implemented by him and by his department—in fact until just the other day—was now suddenly an incorrect interpretation because of an Appeal Court decision to the effects that the hon. the Minister and his department had interpreted the Act incorrectly.

Mr. Chairman, as far as this is concerned, I have already given the hon. member a reply, and I am therefore merely going to react very briefly to what he has just said. I have already told him what our standpoint would have been if the court decision had been different, and I also told him what any responsible Government would have done in such a case. The Appeal Court decision, however, took a different course, and the Government is still acting responsibly in its handling of the case.

This brings me to the second statement the hon. member made, and I should also very briefly like to reply to that. If he is accusing the Government of having deviated from the policy of influx control, it is my contention that he is not telling the truth. If, what is more, he is accusing the Government of not doing everything in its power to have the Black people settled in the national States, and to have them remain there, if he is accusing the Government of not doing everything possible to encourage development in the national States, let me say that the facts themselves refute what he is saying. The facts indicate that in the first place the Government is doing everything in its power to stimulate economic development in the national States. That is, after all, the surest way to keep people settled there. I have already told the hon. member what the Government is busy doing, as far as housing is concerned, to settle people in the national States and to keep them there.

The third fact I want to present to the hon. member is the following. Those hon. members are even now, from platform to platform, using the fact I now want to refer to. Their argument involves the large sums of money that Parliament has voted, under the NP Government, for the development of the national States.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In the light of your ruling earlier today, may the hon. the Minister continue with his present argument?

Mr. Chairman, I promise you that I shall continue to abide by your ruling. With your permission, however, I should just like to make one last statement. As I have already stated, the Government is doing everything in its power to keep the people settled in the national States. This is confirmed by the success of the policy of deconcentration and decentralization being implemented by the Government. An amount of R3 000 million has already been set aside for that, and more than 800 applications have already been received from various people. That is my reply to the two statements made by the hon. member for Barberton. I hope that I have now given the hon. member effective and satisfactory answers to his statements.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2 to 4 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will be happy to know that this is one of the few clauses in the Bill that we will be supporting. I believe I can also predict that this is one of the clauses in the Bill that the CP will not be supporting. [Interjections.] I predict the hon. the Minister will also have a rough passage with this clause. We will certainly not be voting with the party on my physical left but political right.

The Bill we have before us amends the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. The purpose of the amendment is that it excludes people who are participating in any sporting events from the provisions of the Act. This represents a step in the right direction as far as this party is concerned. We have given an undertaking that we will support any step in the right direction. Normalizing sport we all know has been a long and agonizing process. In fact, I believe at one stage an hon. Minister, the current Minister of Transport Affairs, had to consult with the then Minister of Sport every other day to find out what the sports policy of the Government was. However, I believe since I have been in this House some important steps have been taken, and I should just like to briefly mention them. In 1981 we saw amendments to the Liquor Act regarding sports clubs. In 1982 we saw amendments to the Group Areas Act and those excluded sports activities from the provisions of that Act…

Order! This clause deals with attending certain sports functions. It is not as wide as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South interprets it.

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the normalization of sport. I am just trying to …

No. It deals only with attending certain sporting functions.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: This is our first speaker and usually the Chair allows the first speaker … [Interjections.]

Order!

That custom does not apply to this clause. It only applies to the first clause of a Bill.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: It cannot be said that a ruling only applies to the first clause and not to clause 5. Clause 1 could in appropriate cases merely be a formal clause. Therefore, with great respect, to try to attach a ruling … You are not even listening, Sir.

I am listening.

How can you apply a ruling on a question of whether a principle can be debated and restated, on whether a clause is clause 5 or clause 1?

Order! For the benefit of the hon. member for Yeoville, I shall read Standing Order No. 63. It states—

The meaning of this Standing Order is that only the details of any specific clause should be discussed and that is my ruling in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order …

Order! I have given my ruling.

But surely, Mr. Chairman, you are now introducing a new custom, the practice not to hear people. With great respect, you have not dealt with the point. You cannot attach your ruling to a clause by reason of its number. The Standing Order which you read out does not support you at all. I ask you to reconsider and to be broadminded enough to allow the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to state what this party’s policy is on this.

Mr. Chairman, the Standing Orders are very clear in this regard, and if the Chairman, at his discretion, makes a concession from time to time with regard to the discussion of principles in Committee Stage, that does not change the Standing Orders. I contend that it is a matter for the discretion of the Chairman how he implements the Standing Orders, and not a matter for the discretion of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Do the conventions of Parliament no longer apply to this House? [Interjections.]

Order! I want to make it quite clear that the Standing Orders are very clear in this regard. I certainly cannot permit a Second Reading debate to be held on each separate clause. The Third Reading of this Bill is still to come, and in that debate principles may again be discussed, subject to certain limitations.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise another point with you with regard to your ruling. What occurred was this. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was in fact merely referring to two occurrences, two dates, on which certain things had happened. He had hardly developed an argument of any kind at all. He was merely placing this clause in the background of particular fact of Government policy. With great respect, Sir, you hardly gave him the opportunity to make an introductory remark. I say with great respect, Sir, that you stopped him virtually in the middle of his first sentence. I am not asking you to change your ruling, not at all. With great respect to you, Sir, I agreed with it. However, I ask you please to allow the hon. member to complete his sentence. With great respect, Sir, I say that you were not fair to the hon. member within the context of your own ruling which I do not question.

I did not stop the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South from continuing the discussion or participating in the debate. I merely pointed out at an early stage that he was tending to deviate from the ruling I had previously given, and I stand by that ruling. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I shall abide by your ruling. It was not my intention to debate the provisions of any other piece of legislation. I was merely trying to place this particular piece of legislation in its historical context.

As I was saying, with this Bill we now have further legislation which is aimed at normalizing sporting events in South Africa. The legislation before us is another step in this direction. There is little doubt in this country that sportsmen have in fact done a great deal themselves to normalize sport. Many of them may have done this for reasons of expediency. Many of them may have done it for the wrong reasons but it is happening nevertheless. I believe however that the vast majority of sportsmen have a genuine desire to keep race out of sport. For that reason I think that sportsmen will welcome the clause that we have before us here today. The one fact that remains, however, is that while steps are being taken such as the one we have before us today to normalize sport, unfortunately the society in which sportsmen operate remains as abnormal as ever. We find the situation that sportsmen are trying to practise normal sport. While this will become easier in terms of the clause before us, they are still hemmed in by many of the restrictions imposed upon them in society. We in this party have always believed in sporting contacts contrary to many other individuals and groups here and overseas who are against sporting contacts. Once again, I believe that the clause before us will in fact assist to a certain extent to promote those sporting contacts. I should like to make it very clear that it has always been our goal to have a free, non-racial society in South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that I shall be very brief, because the CP does not support this clause. Here we have a further illustration of the “step by step in the right direction” which is welcomed by the PFP. Here we have another instance of sport, our people’s obsession with sport, being used, right down at grass roots level, to fragment traditional policy.

As this clause is worded, it is as wide open as the heavens. If someone, whose declared intention is to attend a sports function where the sole object is not in reality the playing of sport, in effect attends such a meeting which is also a social occasion held on behalf of a sports club or a sports body, these laws are no longer applicable to him. The proposed new section 43(2) reads as follows—

The onus of proof therefore rests with the accused, but we know, do we not, how a court will evaluate the evidence of an accused in such a case.

What about subsection (3)?

Let the hon. member look at subsection (3) if he wants to. The accused will not need to do anything more than say: I was on my way to Loftus Versfeld, but my bicycle broke down along the way. He would need nothing more than that to have the court find him not guilty. He can even say that he got stuck at the President Hotel.

I want to warn the governing party that this is again a question of “steps in the right direction” being taken, and it goes without saying that they are welcomed by the PFP because they fit in with the PFP’s view that each and every field or facet of South African society should not only be opened up, but should also be multiracial. It is tragic that the once mighty NP, which for decades now has striven for increasing separation, has now become the instrument for gradually increasing integration in every sphere of life.

I should like to know from the governing party why this exception is only necessary for sports functions.

Do you also want it for church functions?

That is an interesting question the hon. member has just asked. Why only for sport and not for church attendance too?

What about shopping?

I think that is a ridiculous statement the hon. member is making now. [Interjections.] Yes, let the hon. member laugh at his own absurdities, but I want to know why this exception is only being made for sport. What is the governing party’s basic view of this matter? Why do they stop at sport? Is it perhaps, as the PFP says, “a step in the right direction”? I think they were right. We have, after all, seen the course that the governing party has been steering over the years—first a small step which ends up as a clamouring stampede towards integration. That is why we do not hesitate to say that we are opposed to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton is now arguing—I am quite convinced of that—against his own better judgment. With all due respect to him, his arguments are senseless arguments. What his argument amounts to is that because the onus of proof now rests with the accused, the accused would merely have to say that he was pedalling along on his bicycle to Loftus Versfeld and that that would settle the whole matter. What difference is there between that and the position that prevails at the present moment? At the present moment they could also be riding past Loftus Versfeld. Does the hon. member have any objection to that? Does he have any objection to a Black man being able to ride past Loftus Versfeld on his bicycle? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Virginia is speaking and hon. members must give him an opportunity to continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

No, let the hon. member rather listen. Perhaps he would then gain a little in wisdom.

The hon. member for Barberton wants to know why specifically only sport. The hon. member and all hon. members on his side of the House know that the sports policy was changed into what it is now whilst they were all still on this side of the House. What is more, at the time those hon. members supported this. They did not oppose it. During the various NP congresses they did not offer any objection. [Interjections.] This is a question of people being able to attend sports meetings. The hon. member for Barberton asked why sport was the only exception being made, adding that those people could now attend sports meetings or sports functions being held for the promotion of sport.

Is that a step in the right direction?

I wish the hon. member for Kuruman would shut his mouth and give one a chance to see his face.

Order! Does the hon. member for Kuruman want to put a question?

Yes, Sir.

Does the hon. member for Virginia want to answer a question?

No, Sir.

The hon. member for Virginia may proceed.

Let us continue by telling the hon. member for Barberton that that is the reason why that is now applicable to sport. He knows as well as I do what the problems surrounding sport are, including attendance at sports functions. According to Government policy, people of colour can, in fact, participate in specific sports meetings. The hon. member, however, is trying to score a few debating points here in connection with this matter. If we want to try and conduct a debate along those lines, we shall not be achieving anything.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation that the hon. the Minister responsible for sport is here so that he can listen to the nonsense that was spoken by hon. members of the CP.

Why should he listen to the nonsense?

I do not know, but I certainly do not want to listen to it.

I do not know how many people in this House were present at Ellis Park either the Saturday before last or three Saturdays ago when the semi-final and the final of the NPSL Datsun Cup were played. On the first Saturday there were 75 000 people present at Ellis Park and at the Cup final 55 000 people. The reason why there were 75 000 people at the one and 55 000 at the other is that just like members of political parties like to have card-carrying members of their party, the same applies to Black soccer clubs. Each club has a large number of card-carrying members who come to support them. On the day they had the semi-final, four teams participated. On the cup final day when only two teams played, Kaiser Chiefs had something like 50 000 of their supporters at Ellis Park, while Wits only had 4 000 to 5 000 supporters.

Dealing with Blacks and Black sport in particular, I want to say that the behaviour of the people at these two particular sporting events was impeccable. The reason is that at a place like Ellis Park, excellent facilities exist, the seats are numbered and people do not have the problem of trying to find their seats if they for any reason have to move away. This is why I welcome this provision. The cleanliness of Ellis Park after both these matches had to be seen to be believed. I am proud to say that the behaviour of so many Blacks in a White area was outstanding.

Another thing hon. members must know, is that there was not a policeman in sight on both those days. On both days the security guards provided by the NPSL did their own job.

Were you there?

I was there both times.

Did you enjoy it?

It was excellent.

Are you a card-carrying member?

I am a card-carrying member of Ellis Park.

The NPSL requested the Ellis Park authorities to erect barriers to prevent people from going on to the playing field. However, the Ellis Park management said that no barrier will ever be erected at Ellis Park. Under the circumstances the behaviour of the crowd was excellent. It is true that when Kaiser Chiefs scored the winning goal, the exuberance of the people at seeing their team winning caused them to run on to the field, but they went off as soon as the referee told them to do so.

Are you a cheerleader?

I might have been. I also went to Tuks, where I cheered with the leader.

The introduction of this provision augurs well. In this regard I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister responsible for sport. I believe Ellis Park provides an excellent venue where Black soccer can be played. The introduction of this clause allows this to be used now. Ellis Park is in an industrial area. It is well provided with transport facilities particularly railway services. I believe that the Government has purchased ground in the Langlaagte constituency for the building of a big sports stadium. I believe that that should be postponed and that Ellis Park can be well used for a number of years still to provide a place where both rugby and soccer can be played on different days. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has been to Ellis Park and he has expressed his gratitude to the people of Ellis Park for providing the facilities. He too has seen how well it has been done there. I think this is an excellent clause and deserves to be supported.

Lastly, allow me to say that on that Saturday of the cup final I was proud to be a South African because I could see what was happening at Newlands on the TV. I could see Tobias and Cupido playing for South Africa, and there was not a man, even amongst the members of the CP, who was against their scoring the tries and kicking the goals that they scored for South Africa on that particular day.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I want to express my appreciation to the official Opposition for their support for this clause. I think they are acting very sensibly in this regard. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I was unfortunately not present at the final. I would very much have liked to attend the soccer final, but I was present at the semifinal. I want to link up with the hon. member by saying that attending that game was really an experience, because it was really something to see the very exemplary and excellent behaviour of the masses of people there. The 75 000 spectators were, for the most part, Black people. I should like to take this opportunity of conveying my personal appreciation and congratulations to the Black people for such responsible behaviour. It was a fine spectacle that really filled me, as a South African, with pride. Within seven minutes after the match the stadium was cleared, and the tidiness of the stadium after the match was really noteworthy.

I want to make one last remark in this connection. The chief of the S.A. Police, who was on duty there throughout the day, together with various other policemen, subsequently told me that it was one of the pleasantest days in his entire career. He really did not have very much to do because of the fine co-operation they received. I am referring to this for more than one reason. The most important reason why I am doing so is because I would like the opportunity of expressing my appreciation, since I think it is necessary to do. I am also doing so, however, to emphasize the correct action taken by this Government, under difficult circumstances and fierce criticism from our own people. Yesterday I referred to the fact that as far back as 11 years ago, when those hon. members sitting in those benches were still sitting on this side of the House, they accused me and the Government as a whole, including of course Mr. Vorster, who was the father of the new policy at the time—they easily forget that—of treading a slippery slope. The story about our treading a slippery slope is therefore as old as the hills.

We have been proved correct.

Not to mention the slippery slope down which those hon. members are moving into the abyss. [Interjections.] I hereby just want to underline (a) the correct action taken by this Government, over a long period, in regard to this important matter of sport, and (b) the fact that in spite of the CP, a sense of pride is gradually taking root in this country, as the hon. the Prime Minister has expressed it so beautifully, to combine and temper idealism with realism, because that is basic to this whole sports policy.

I want to conclude by directing a few words at the hon. members of the CP. Here they are again trying, of course, to make politics out of this whole matter, but I shall try to withstand the temptation of hitting back at them. I shall try to abide by the Chair’s ruling that I should confine myself to the clause itself.

You have a licence to speak ill of people, do you not? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I will really not allow myself to be led astray, not even by the hon. member for Rissik; not on this occasion. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that clause 5 of the Bill under discussion is backed by an HSRC report accepted by the Government. The principles contained in that report were accepted by the Government when those hon. members now sitting in the CP benches were still members of the NP caucus. They consequently joined us in accepting those principles. Moreover, Mr. Chairman …

When did that happen?

In 1981, and also in 1982. Moreover, there is something I just quickly want to remind those hon. members of. In the 1981 election, which those hon. members still fought under the NP banner, the principles now embodied in this clause made up one of the standpoints that the NP proclaimed openly from every platform in the country. At the time those hon. members defended these same principles from more than one platform.

What is contained in this clause?

Yes.

Why, then, did you people wait so long to introduce this legislation? [Interjections.]

The principle underlying this clause was accepted as far back as Mr. John Vorster’s time. That was also why the Government accepted the HSRC report. That was done after we had debated the matter at one congress after another, and also after we had discussed it ad nauseam in the caucus. In Mr. John Vorster’s day those hon. members agreed with it. They were then in agreement with the principle that sports clubs should decide for themselves about how they wanted to regulate the playing of their sport, though certainly within the framework of overall Government policy. Those hon. members were in full agreement with that at the time. They defended it on various platforms, answered questions about it, and yet now they make such a big fuss here, as if to say that the Government is engaged in really terrible iniquities. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, there is actually nothing more to say about this matter, except just to emphasize again that I am very proud and thankful that I, who was Minister of Sport and Recreation in those days—and how wonderful it was; I always say: Those were the days for me—am able to put the crowning touch on this enterprise, as it were, by implementing the principles that Mr. Vorster accepted at the time. I am referring to the principle that a sports club ought to decide for itself how it wishes to deal with its own sports functions and how it wants to play sport. As far as that is concerned we have already made a great deal of progress in this country.

Little Red Riding Hood is the only one who still believes you, Piet!

Order!

A great deal of progress has already been made in placing sport in this country in its proper context. For this we have already had ever-increasing appreciation on the local front, and we shall also be getting the same degree of appreciation from abroad in the course of time; appreciation for a correct viewpoint, a viewpoint and a principle that have made no small contribution to the establishment and development of sound mutual relations in the Republic of South Africa. I am therefore grateful and proud to be able to say that my share in this lies in the fact that I am able to present clause 5 of this Bill here in the House this afternoon. I know, of course, that hon. members of the CP will be voting against it, but perhaps that is a good thing, because all they want to do is make politics out of it.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear to me that by way of the provision in this clause the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole are off on a completely new track and that the hon. the Minister does not realize …

[Inaudible.]

No, I do not think the hon. the Minister should interrupt me now. I am trying to be very courteous to him. At some or other stage, however, the hon. the Minister must not blame me if I give him a straight answer as far as all these aspects are concerned.

But you keep interrupting yourself. [Interjections.]

This hon. Minister is apparently forgetting that three years ago the Rand Stadium was closed down permanently. Why did that happen? That stadium was closed down for good, and no further sports meetings could take place there. Why? The reason was that so many properties in the areas surrounding the stadium had been so severely damaged. So many properties in the hon. member for Rosettenville’s constituency had been so badly damaged that he himself lodged a protest about it in this House. Subsequently the Johannesburg city council placed a blanket ban on all further sports meetings at that stadium. So many properties were damaged in that area that action simply had to be taken, and not only by the police, but also along other channels. [Interjections.] It is no joke to have Black people present in Johannesburg on a Saturday on a 20 to one or 40 to one basis and to have them able to say, all day and every day that they are engaged in sporting activities or are going to attend a sports meeting, thereby exempting them from having to obtain a permit for admission to any stadium. The hon. member for Virginia said this Act has always been the same. Let me than ask him: if that is the case, why do we have this clause before us now?

[Inaudible.]

I just want to ask the hon. member for Bezuidenhout something. The hon. member talks about Ellis Park. I am very glad to hear that Ellis Park does not have any problems. The area around Ellis Park is not very densely populated and there are easy avenues of egress from Ellis Park. I want to say, however, that as a result of this legislation Blacks will be living permanently in flats and rooms in certain parts of Mayfair and such areas. [Interjections.]

Order! What is involved here is the question of sports functions. The hon. member must come back to the particulars of the clause.

Sir, let me tell you what will be done. A person will say he is en route to his sports function. Then he goes and stays with someone at his house. As a member of a club he can play darts in a flat. He can play snooker in a saloon across the road and stay there for the full 24 hours of the day. This all complicates the task of the police, who already have a tremendous task to perform.

Today we simply have to accept that this provision means the relinquishing of all geographical separation in the Johannesburg complex. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development that this is no joke. There are those who go from Jan Smuts Airport to the Carlton Hotel, cross the red carpet into the hotel and never go a step further. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Why was the President Hotel closed down as such? The reason was that Blacks that were present on a 40 to one basis were found to be milling round in the streets around the hotel, so much so that overseas visitors and the general public were liable to be attacked at any hour of the day or night, not by people coming to work, but by people lounging about there.

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

Sir, those are people going to play sport. [Interjections.] That was in the vicinity of Ellis Park. Those people can attend any of the clubs.

Mugging is not a sport.

No, it is not a sport. It is a serious matter. It is taking place in the vicinity of the clubs those people are attending.

Where?

In the vicinity of Ellis Park and in the vicinity of the President Hotel. My question is: Why was the President Hotel closed down? More and more opportunities are being created and more and more freedom is being granted. The hon. the Minister can laugh at this, because he has written South Africa off as a White country.

Whom are you talking to now? Are you talking to the Minister of National Education or to me?

I am talking to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. He has written off the Whites in this country. For him it is a joke.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Sir, that hon. member is not capable of asking an intelligent question. Let him rather sit down. [Interjections.] Today I want to ask the Government to think matters over. With the legislation it has placed on the Statute Book over the years, it has introduced a kind of social pattern into this country. Now it is removing those laws and that social pattern is beginning to change. It could be taking place in the name of sport or in the name of the improvement of foreign relations, but it is bedevilling the future of this country and the continued existence of Whites and Coloureds in the country. What we are therefore saying is that it was a sad day when this clause was incorporated in this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Langlaagte raised certain matters that cannot, in my opinion, go unanswered. In this connection I also want to refer to something the hon. member for Barberton said. The proposed section 43(2), as contained in clause 5, is the section determining the onus of proof. It provides that the onus of proof be placed on the accused. The hon. member for Barberton alleged that what we were doing here was to present the Black people with a means of circumventing the law because the onus of proof rested with then and not with the State. [Interjections.] When someone is charged in terms of this legislation, he has committed an offence. Under normal circumstances the onus of proof rests with the State and not with the accused. It is a difficult onus for the State to discharge. So to make it possible to get a conviction, the onus of proof is here being placed on the accused. The hon member for Barberton says someone will now be able to say that he was pedalling along on his bicycle to a sports meeting and that the bicycle broke down, etc. According to him such a person can therefore say whatever he wants to. He is creating the impression that such a person is now being given the right to talk any kind of nonsense which the State must simply swallow. A short while ago the hon. member objected to the hon. member for Virginia telling him that he had said what he did say against his better judgment, but I want to put it to him that as far as this point is concerned, what he said was indeed said against his better judgment. He knows this is not a reasonable manner in which to conduct a debate on this Bill. I hold it against him that in Hansard he has tried, against his better judgment, to lay the foundations for further propaganda.

I now come to the hon. member for langlaagte. I hope that his leader, Dr. Treurnicht …

The hon. member for Waterberg.

I shall gladly refer to him as the hon. member for Waterberg. I hope the hon. member for Waterberg will not get up in the House of Assembly again and say the CP is not racist. [Interjections.].

You are a racist.

You are a “houtkop” (blockhead). [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Smithfield must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central may proceed.

The hon. member for Langlaagte, in launching an attack on this Bill, presented the Blacks as people who damage property. In individual cases it could very probably be true, but Blacks are not the only ones who damage property, other people also damage property.

Did I say it was Blacks who damaged property?

Yes, the hon. member said so. [Interjections.] The hon. member went on to say that so many assaults were committed by Blacks in the vicinity of the President Hotel that the hotel had to be closed. I want to put it to the hon. member that that hotel is not closed.

If one objects to this Bill on the basis of Black people supposedly contravening the law, one is acting in a racist fashion.

The hon. member for Barberton said this is integration. We must decide for ourselves what is integration and what is not integration. If we join people of colour on a political platform, is that integration? If we address mixed audiences, is that integration? Let me ask the hon. member for Rissik: Is it integration to appear with people of colour on the same platform or to address a mixed audience?

Order! The hon. member must return to the provisions of the clause. The question here is that of sports functions.

Gladly, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Pretoria Central a chance to put his case.

In conclusion I just want to say that what has been regarded as integration in the past cannot always be dismissively labelled as integration at the present time, because the hon. member for Rissik addressed a mixed audience, with people of colour on the platform. In the past he would have had a fit about that, but he would not have called it integration, that just goes to show how times have changed in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad we have now heard from the National Party that if it is implementing integration, it is not the integration we have known in the past. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow the hon. member to elaborate on the integration aspect to which the hon. member for Pretoria Central reacted. I stopped that hon. member when he spoke about it and shall therefore not be allowing any other hon. member to speak about it.

I accept that. It is therefore just an instance of healthy integration. I now want to focus attention on a further point, and that is the fact that the hon. member for Pretoria Central is a lawyer. He said that he took the hon. member for Barberton to task for saying that because the onus of proof was now on the accused, he could say that he was where he was because he was on his way to a sports function. He could say he was en route to a sports meeting. The onus of proof does not, beyond all reasonable doubt, lie with the accused. On a balance of probabilities, the accused must say he was en route …

On a preponderance.

Very well, on a preponderance. That is the same thing, is it not? On a preponderance of probabilities the relevant accused must indicate that he was en route to a sports event, and the court need not believe him. The court can simply say his story is possibly true, and then he must go free. Does the hon. member for Pretoria Central agree that the court must release the accused if his story has a reasonable possibility of being true?

On a preponderance of probabilities. If it has a reasonable possibility of being true, then the statement is correct.

Does the hon. member for Pretoria Central accept the fact that it is so?

I have already replied to the hon. member.

In other words, the hon. member for Barberton is correct when he says that if the accused states that he was en route to a sports function by bicycle and had a puncture, the court must accept that story. They can accept no other story, unless other evidence is advanced. The following point I want to make is that the hon. member for Pretoria Central attacked the hon. member for Langlaagte specifically because he wanted to distort one of his arguments by saying that we only refer to the Black people in racist terms. This is a reciprocal problem. The same situation can crop up in Black areas. The hon. member for Pretoria Central will dismiss as a racist argument any argument we put forward about people being crowded out or about friction, whichever side may be affected. That is the kind of argument he wishes to use against us on various platforms.

Ask him why he does not accept the challenge?

That is another question that still needs to be answered. There is another matter I should like to touch upon. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development says that whilst we were in the National Party, we accepted the HSRC report on this matter. I should like him to prove it. We reject, with contempt, his claim that we accepted it, and for that reason we shall be voting against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the ex-member for Brakpan, said the hon. member for Pretoria Central is a lawyer. I think, however, that we all accept the fact that that hon. member is also a lawyer. The hon. member is also a senior lawyer, having been in practice for years now. What did the hon. member for Brakpan say? He said the hon. member for Barberton was right when he said that if the bicycle had broken down at the roadside, the court would have to accept that story, and then he referred to a preponderance of probabilities. He oversimplified the matter, however, particularly in regard to the aggravating onus of proof. He over-simplified the matter by saying that the courts would have no other choice but to believe the accused. That hon. member knows for a fact, however, that the onus is firstly placed on the accused to prove that he had a bicycle. He cannot simply say he had a bicycle. He must prove it. Secondly he must prove that that bicycle broke down. The hon. member says the accused can merely appear before the magistrate and say: I was at a certain spot because my bicycle broke down. [Interjections.] He cannot. It is therefore not as simple a matter as the hon. member wishes to maintain. Here we have an aggravating onus of proof resting on the accused. Instead of the State having to prove him guilty, he must prove his innocence to the State. The hon. member says that he and his colleagues reject the Government’s sports policy, as put forward by the hon. the Minister, that as far as sports clubs are concerned we …

I was speaking about the HSRC report. When did we accept it? [Interjections.]

Surely the HSRC report was available when that hon. member was a member of the NP.

Who accepted it?

What caucus?

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member for Brakpan never raised any objection when he was still in the NP caucus and was aware of the HSRC report.

When was it accepted?

If the hon. member now wants to dissociate himself from something he was a part of, let him do so, but then the hon. member is running away from the consequences of something he himself was part of.

When did we see that report?

I am not saying that the hon. member appended his signature to it, because that is never done. I do not want to be petty and say the hon. member should have made a little cross there. The hon. Whip of the CP surely knows that we have never adopted, in the NP, the procedure of advocating that every member should sign each and every report.

The hon. members on that side who spoke about this clause have tried to get away from the content of the clause. In an undignified manner they have tried to create opposition to it. They have done this in a manner not really fitting for lawyers to adopt. We support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am finding this discussion on the onus of proof in the administration of justice, as embodied in this clause, very interesting, but I think that the legal purists would say everyone is wrong. In reality the legal purists would say that the onus of proof always lies with the State, whilst the onus of rebuttal in this case rests with the accused. I do not, however, think that would get us anywhere. Let us look to what is really contained in this clause and compare this provision with the provisions of section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Area) Consolidation Act. What is really happening? If one looks at clause 5, one sees that the provisions of the Act or the regulations prohibiting anyone from remaining in an urban or suburban area, or from entering such an area, are done away with in certain circumstances. What does section 10 say? It says that any Black man can, for a period of 72 hours, be in any prescribed area at any time. Section 10 therefore states that the Black man can be present there, but not for longer than 72 hours. If the period of 72 hours expires, we have the same position of having the onus of rebuttal placed on the accused.

All that is happening, as far as a sports meeting is concerned, is that the period of 72 hours is being extended slightly. We could ask one another whether this was reasonable in practice. Is it reasonable to extend this period of 72 hours? Is it such a very great sin? Let us be realistic.

For example: In Johannesburg there is a big boxing tournament. On Friday afternoon a Black man arrives in Johannesburg from Louis Trichardt, the boxing match being scheduled for the Saturday evening. On Saturday evening, however, there is a tremendously heavy rainstorm and the boxing match is consequently postponed until Monday evening. In practice one is now faced with a problem, a fundamental problem. How must that man obtain permission, on a Sunday, to remain in Johannesburg for a slightly longer period so as to be present for the boxing match on Monday evening? There is another example. Supposing there is a big cricket match being held in Johannesburg. The cricket match takes place over the normal four or five days. This is not covered by the 72-hour provision.

Do hon. members of the CP really think it is fair to have that Black man sent back to Louis Trichardt or elsewhere? Do they think that such action is in the interests of good relations? Do they think it is in the interests of sport? I think it is in everyone’s interests that the present wording of this clause be retained.

It is a very simple clause. It has the practical effect of promoting sport and accommodating people. I really cannot see what sinister intention is supposedly involved, because a sports meeting is also defined. It is defined in subsection (3) of the clause. It is stated that there must be a specific premises. It must be intended or otherwise suitable for that kind of sport. It is not simply a matter of its being a sports premises one day and something else the next day. I am not speaking now of the President Hotel, like the hon. member for Langlaagte. We are speaking of a certain premises. There must also be a certain property which is under the direct control of the sports club concerned. So there must also be control. It is also provided that it must be possible for the public to have access to that locale. That is contained in the clause, but I do not now want to quote each and every aspect.

Over and above all that, one does of course want to retain an measure of control. The best measure of control in the circumstances, which we have in section 10 and have had throughout the years, is the fact that the onus of rebuttal lies with the accused. If it is good enough in section 10, which those hon. member have never asked us to repeal—perhaps one of them said it in a moment of rashness—we can surely use the same method by wording the onus of rebuttal in this clause exactly as set out in section 10. The person concerned can remain there for 72 hours or longer, but then the onus of rebuttal lies with him. Here the situation is exactly the same.

If one comes back to the realities and does not argue esoterically about hotels that are open at present, when it is said they should be closed down, one cannot but say that one should support the clause in the interests of good relations in sport.

Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to reply briefly to a few aspects in order to dispel all doubt so that there is no unnecessary misunderstanding. I am referring, in the first instance, to the remarks made by the hon. member for Langlaagte. If one looks at the clause, one sees that provision is, in fact, being made for mass sport in the Black residential areas. As far as the White areas are concerned, hon. members will recall—and they supported this as well—that the Group Areas Act was amended last year to make provision for this.

We did not support it. We voted against it.

The issue here is the promotion of large sports functions in Black residential areas, and to give Whites who want to attend those sports meetings the opportunity to do so. That is the first point I wanted to make. [Interjections.]

The second point I want to make in reply to what the hon. member for Langlaagte had to say, is that when problems arose at the Rand Stadium and the Caledonian Stadium, we on this side of the House faced these problems realistically. What did we do? In principle, precisely the same as we are doing here. We erected the necessary sports stadiums for Black people. The first of these was the Orlando Stadium, and hon. members can go and have a look at what a fine, modem stadium has been erected in Orlando within a very short space of time. This has solved the problem to a large extent with regard to the Rand Sports Stadium. We also built the George Gough Sports Stadium. I am speaking about places I have visited myself and with which I am familiar. In addition, we also built the sports stadium in Atteridgeville. The problem with the Rand Stadium was that the facilities were inadequate. After it had become clear that the facilities were inadequate for the large masses of people, and after the Member of Parliament concerned had made the necessary representations, this Government gave this its immediate attention and this problem no longer exists today. That problem has been solved. Let us therefore get our facts straight and not try to turn this into a political issue unnecessarily.

This clause makes it possible for sports meetings to be held for large numbers of Black people in the Black areas and for Whites to attend if they wish. I could tell this House at length what has been done and what is being done in this regard in the self-governing Black States, the national Black States and the S.A. Development Trust areas. Sports clinics are continually being held for Blacks as well. Hon. members opposite are constantly asking questions about how much money is being spent on these facilities. It amounts to thousands of millions of rands per annum.

I do not want to discuss the matter of onus of proof in detail again now. The onus of proof is now on the accused. Surely this could only mean one thing in plain language, viz. that the accused must furnish evidence as proof of his actions. Surely this is a question of aggravating circumstances. The hon. the Minister of Law and Order is present here and he can confirm that we are not approaching this matter lightly. This matter has been examined at length with representatives of the Department of Law and Order and discussed in detail with the legal advisers. The Department of Law and Order has acquainted itself fully with the provisions of this clause. The things the CP claims can happen, will not happen. This clause makes sure that law and order are maintained at all times. Law and order will also be promoted by this. We have already had an example of this at Ellis Park, which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred to. Nor does this clause lend itself to abuse by wilful persons who want to abuse sport for other purposes. We have been assured by the Department of Law and Order that the provisions of this clause will be able to deal fully with these problems and the fears being chased up by hon. members of the CP are therefore really absolutely unfounded and unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that this clause would be able to maintain law and order and improve relations between people of different colours, and so on. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to what happened in my own constituency three or four years ago. A sports club in my constituency made their sports fields available to Blacks to play soccer there on Sundays. The soccer teams were transported there from far and wide. They played soccer there every Sunday and things got so out of hand that the people of Groenkloof telephoned me in Sunnyside and I could hear the noise and shouting over the telephone. The NP rejoices when Whites are wronged. The hon. the Deputy Minister sitting opposite is pleased about it. I discussed the matter with the then Minister of Sport, Mr. Janson, and he said that he would do something about it. He came back to me later and said that it was a matter for the town council. He said that I should take the matter up with the town council.

Are you talking about four years ago, or about eight years ago?

It was when Mr. Janson was Minister of Sport. There were no toilet facilities for those Blacks. They slid down the embankments and went into people’s backyards …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Since this Bill is only applicable to Black townships, to prescribed areas, is it relevant for the hon. member to speak about a problem in his constituency?

The hon. member for Sunnyside may proceed.

I want to know whether it will be possible to maintain law and order. Last year the hon. the Minister of Community Development piloted a law which rendered us helpless. Since the Minister of Sport could not do anything, I had to put an end to that matter on my own, using different means. Those people were using the backyards of the Whites as toilets.

However, since my law was introduced, there is order.

The hon. the Minister rendered us helpless with his law last year. The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development claims that this clause is going to bring about order. If that sports club were once again to make its fields available to Blacks to play soccer throughout the day on Sundays, what authority do we have to put an end to that in terms of the provisions of this Bill? Will the hon. the Minister of Law and Order be able to remove the 8 000 people who have assembled there?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Langlaagte with regard to the Rand Stadium. He compared it with a place like Ellis Park. The Rand Stadium has no public transport facilities other than road transport whatsoever and large numbers of Blacks and Whites came to the Rand Stadium. Their biggest complaint was that the only form of public transport that there was, were buses and that one had to walk miles to get on to the buses. I personally had the experience when my motorcar was damaged when I went to see a football match. It was an international football match when Reale Madrid of Spain played against South Africa. I can state that there were many Blacks there that evening. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not conduct a conversation among themselves. They must give the hon. member the opportunity to address the Committee. The hon. member may proceed.

The situation at Ellis Park is completely different. There the railways, the police, the traffic police, the NPSL, the Ellis Park management and everybody else can get together days before and work out everything. It is therefore not necessary for any police to be there and have the problems that the hon. member for Langlaagte mentioned at a place like the Rand Stadium. That is why I make this plea for Ellis Park and I say that this is the place where soccer should be played on a large scale.

Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting for a reply from the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have already given the hon. member a reply. In any case, I do not intend allowing myself to be drawn further into a debate on this matter. As an MP, he knows that if a problem arises, he can put it to the department concerned. The hon. member for Sunnyside has brought up matters of this nature, in the past and not only has the Government always attended to them, but it has also fully solved these problems. That is my reply to the hon. member. [Interjections.] Surely the hon. member is aware of these things, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.]

Order!

Clause put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

As fewer than fifteen members (viz. Mr. S. P. Barnard, Dr. F. Hartzenberg, Messrs. J. H. Hoon, F. J. le Roux, Mrs. E. M. Scholtz, Messrs. L. M. Theunissen, C. Uys. H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. J. B. van Zyl and J. H. Visagie) appeared on one side,

Clause declared agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked the hon. the Minister for an explanation of clause 9, which he then gave. Initially, we did not foresee having any particular problems with this clause, but it has now become quite clear that the real motivation for this is linked to the Moutse case, i.e. to the proposed excision of Moutse from Lebowa. I am therefore reacting to the hon. the Minister’s explanation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I regret that under these circumstances, and in view of our objection to the proposed excision of Moutse, we are unable to support this particular clause. I am not going to take up the hon. the Minister’s time any further with this matter. We shall discuss the excision of Moutse under other clauses. I just wanted to explain why, under these particular circumstances, we are unable to accept this clause.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister himself has indicated in dealing with this Bill, clauses 16, 17, 18 and 19 really form a Unit. The issue is the excision of this area from Lebowa. We shall come back to that during the Third Reading.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that this problem has existed for many years and that it really made its appearance as far back as 1973 and 1975 with the consolidation proposals. Unfortunately, I do not have a record of the discussions that took place in the Select Committee in 1973 and 1975 with regard to the consolidation of kwaNdebele. I could be wrong, but I have a vague recollection that at that time we were told that the people of Moutse had no objections to removal and incorporation into kwaNdebele. I hope I am wrong, but I just want to say that it has now become apparent that there were, and are, in fact, very serious objections.

What date are you talking about now?

I am talking about when the Select Committee considered the proposals in 1973 and 1975. The problem facing one as regards the Select Committee, is that we have often asked that the people concerned appear officially before the Select Committee when, according to our information, there are, in fact, objections. This request has been refused time and again. It has become apparent recently that there were, indeed, serious and vehement objections on the part of the Government of Lebowa and the people of Moutse to their possible removal and the incorporation of the area, with or without people, into kwaNdebele. I just want to inform you that we will, in fact, definitely be recording our objection to this clause. If I may anticipate the ruling of our Chief Whip, I want to say that we will be calling for a division on clause 18, which we regard as the decisive clause.

It is very clear that the whole problem arose because of the policy to create an independent State, kwaNdebele, and to effect consolidation. In view of the location of the area this particular clause is concerned with, it was deemed necessary, in implementing that policy, to incorporate that area into kwaNdbele, despite opposition from the inhabitants of that area, as well as from the inhabitants of Lebowa and the Lebowa Government. This therefore means that if it were not for the desire and determination of the Government to create another State in the form of kwaNdebele, with a view to the eventual independence of that area, this problem would never have arisen. If it were not necessary to consolidate kwaNdebele, those people could simply have remained where they are, and lived peacefully under the authority of the Lebowa Government. It is as simple as that.

I listened patiently to the discussion of this problem by other hon. members in this House. I am aware of the sensitivity of the issue. I want to say, however, that the basic cause of the problem lies in the intention of the Government to incorporate this area into kwaNdebele. One can therefore understand that under no circumstances can we give our approval to this measure. I have also already indicated—I shall come back to that again at a later stage—that this creates serious doubt in our minds, and that the Government is, in fact, trying to circumvent the provisions of the constitution of a national State, as well as the judgment in the Ingwavuma case. I shall come back to that at a later stage, however. I shall elaborate on that during the Third Reading. However, it is impossible for us to support this clause as it is worded at present.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us absolute clarity on a statement which he made yesterday concerning this clause. As we heard it, the content of his statement indicates that at a meeting between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of Lebowa on 2 August, it was agreed that this Bill would be proceeded with and that further investigation, subsequent to a visit by the hon. the Prime Minister to the area, would take place, and that the necessary amendments would be made thereafter. If I am correct in that statement then I take it that the hon. the Minister in that manner considers that the requirements in the National States Constitution Act are satisfied in terms of consultation with the Executive Committee. I just want to get absolute clarity whether it is the case that the hon. the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of Lebowa had agreed that the Bill should be proceeded with and that amendments would be made afterwards.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister once again—we said this during the Second Reading as well—that we strongly support the consolidation being effected here. We trust that the necessary thorough negotiations have been conducted with the ethnic groups concerned. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there are any Whites in the area who are being affected in this consolidation process, and whether any particular requests have been addressed to him with regard to road links. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply on that score.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply briefly to the questions raised by all three members. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member Prof. Olivier displayed this moderate and sensible attitude here this afternoon. I appreciate it. This is a very delicate and sophisticated issue which has come a long way and has a long history. It is really a challenging situation and it is very difficult to find a solution for it. Hon. members must take my word for it. We have only one wish. I can personally state—and Dr. Phatudi and Dr. Skosana know it—that we wish to resolve this matter in a peaceful and acceptable manner. I am doing everything in my power to achieve this and I shall continue to do so. I think it is possible. Surely, judging by the amendments I myself moved, it is crystal clear that in respect of this whole matter, except for the excision of Moutse and the fact that it is being placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Co-operation and Development, something which has been a fait accompli for a number of years now, the status quo is being maintained. This clause before the House is a permissive one, depending on an agreement we are hoping to reach between the existing parties.

I now come to the hon. member for King William’s Town and I want to reply directly to his pertinent question. I am going to quote from the agreement reached between the hon. the Prime Minister—I want to express my highest appreciation to him for agreeing to deal with this matter when I called upon his assistance, to achieve the very objective I have just sketched—and Dr. Phatudi and I also want to express my appreciation for his sensible approach in seeking a solution. On 2 August the following statement was issued—

†That process is in motion at this very moment in time. We give very serious attention to it because if we are successful in dealing with that, then we shall manage to come to an agreement between the parties. I hope that is clear. I further quote—

The hon. the Prime Minister and I were very clear and straight to Dr. Phatudi, the hon. Chief Minister of Lebowa, so that there could not possibly be any misunderstanding about it. There is therefore a very clear agreement, and I quote further—

In order to carry out the agreement reached I have put amendments before the House. Lastly, while the hon. the Prime Minister gave his undertaking, the Chief Minister of Lebowa and his Government gave the undertaking that under the circumstances they would not proceed with their contemplated action against the Government of the Republic of South Africa in regard to Moutse, obviously pending an agreement reached between the different parties. Therefore, I think it is abundantly clear that both on our side and the side of Dr. Phatudi and the Lebowa Government as well as Mr. Skosana everything was done to reach agreement. I had discussions with Mr. Skosana and some of his Cabinet Ministers the very day after 2 August in order to try to straighten out problems on that side. Therefore, all the evidence is there that every endeavour is being made by all the parties concerned to deal with this issue in a wise and circumspect way and if possible to arrive at an equitable solution by way of mutual agreement. That is the position and those are the facts.

*Finally, the hon. member for Rissik asked me whether any Whites were being affected by this and whether representations had been made in this regard. The Commission for Co-operation and Development has dealt with this whole issue of consolidation and, as the Minister responsible, I am naturally well-informed about matters in this regard. We did initially receive requests from Whites in respect of Moutse. Right at the outset, in 1973, a decision was taken in this House that Moutse had to become a White area. However, at the time the commission as it was then, and in which Mr. Piet van Vuuren served, made recommendations, after the matter had been referred to it for investigation, which recommendations resulted in this same House deciding two years later, in 1975, that Moutse had to be excluded from Lebowa’s area of jurisdiction and transferred to the area of jurisdiction of kwaNdebele. Subsequently there were two commissions viz. the Hennie van der Walt Commission, and subsequently the Le Roux Commission, which, because it was such a delicate issue, were again directed to investigate the matter. In the meantime there was also the Pietie du Plessis Commission. All three of these commissions—four commissions, if one includes the Commission of the late Mr Piet van Vuuren—recommended, if my information is correct, that Moutse be excised from Lebowa’s area of jurisdiction and included in the area of jurisdiction of kwaNdebele. These recommendations were made after they had listened to all the evidence, including the evidence of Whites. So, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Rissik I want to say that originally White interests were indeed involved here. There is no doubt whatsoever on that score. However—and I am now speaking under correction of the chairman of the commission; if I am wrong he will have to correct me—I am not aware of any representations from Whites about Moutse lately. The chairman of the commission confirms that I am right in saying this, because I am sure that I would have been aware of it. As far as consolidation is concerned there were in fact other aspects with which kwaNdebele was involved. It was a matter, among other things, of pertinent requests about roads. The commission addressed this matter and the Government took firm decisions in this regard. I can also give the hon. member the assurance that undertakings were given in this regard. However, as far as I know, this does not have a direct bearing on Moutse 1, 2 and 3. If I am wrong the hon. member must please bring it to my notice and I shall then with the greatest pleasure, look into the matter very thoroughly in an effort to help him find solutions.

Mr. Chairman, just to be absolutely clear in my own mind, I want to determine what the agreement between the hon. the Prime Minister and Dr. Phatudi, as read to us by the hon. the Minister, entails. As I understand it—and I ask for confirmation of this—in view of the way the hon. the Minister presented it to us, Dr. Phatudi has agreed that the area may be excised from Lebowa and incorporated into kwaNdebele, and that until such time as the Bantswane are removed to Immerpan, the whole question of their representation in the Legislative Assembly of Lebowa will be held over until later. I just want confirmation that my interpretation is correct and that this is what Dr. Phatudi has, in fact, agreed to, so that we do not have a difference of opinion at a later stage.

My second question, if I have understood the hon. the Minister correctly, is whether the Bantswane themselves have been consulted with regard to their removal to Immerpan, since or round about the time those talks took place.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not think there need be any misunderstanding about this matter. I can only go by what is in writing and was confirmed by the hon. the Prime Minister after having been put in writing, as being correct and that it has been confirmed by me as being correct, as well as having been accepted by Dr. Phatudi as being correct, after the hon. the Prime Minister had approved it. I think the paragraph in question, which contains the undertakings, as indicated by the hon. the Prime Minister, is very clear—

With that Dr. Phatudi agreed. I hope that is clear. Then the rider—

I hope that is very clear.

As I understand it, it is very clear. We tried to implement this as it stood, viz. that the Bill, as it reads at present, gives legal force to the excision of Moutse from Lebowa, as well as placing it under the Department of Co-operation and Development. Agreement was reached on that.

Any further step, as will be made very clear by clause 20, as it will be moved now, is permissive. Clauses 17 and 18 are permissive, and this can only be continued with and signed by the State President pending the further investigation which is being launched into planning, infrastructure and consolidation—i.e. pending an agreement to be reached between the parties. I think that is very clear, and I hope the hon. member Prof. Olivier understands it as clearly as I do.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 17:

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

1. 1. On page 14, after line 28, to insert:
   1. (a) by the substitution in subsection (1) for the expression “100” of the expression “96”;

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, this clause is one dealing with a principle, and we have already indicated that we will be opposing it, particularly in view of the fact that the people of Moutse themselves are apparently altogether opposed to the incorporation of their territory into kwaNdebele.We therefore have no choice but to oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to that. The area concerned consists of Moutse 1, Moutse 2 and Moutse 3. Neither during the Second Reading debate, nor in the Committee Stage was there an opportunity to elaborate in detail on the composition of Moutse 1, 2 and 3. The Sotho, South Ndebele and other population groups, such as the Nguni, live in Moutse 1, 2 and 3.

The fact of the matter is that there is therefore a considerable number of people in Moutse who are absolutely opposed to incorporation into kwaNdebele, but there is also a considerable number of people in Moutse who are absolutely in favour of incorporation into kwaNdebele. This is the very thing that makes this matter very difficult and complicated. One cannot assume that all the people in Moutse are opposed to incorporation, and one certainly cannot make the inference that all the people in Moutse are in favour of incorporation into kwaNdebele.

Hold a referendum.

If the solution were that easy, we would have done so long ago.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the hon. member for Houghton said earlier that she had held in-depth discussions with the people there, and that they had expressed their most vehement opposition to incorporation. In view of this fact, which is the only fact we have before us, we have no choice but to oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the clause be negatived.

Agreed to.

Clause 20:

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

1. 1. On page 14, after line 53, to add:
   1. (2) Sections 17 and 18 shall come into operation on a date fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to indicate that, in my opinion, the amendment that has been moved by the hon. the Minister, is an improvement on the existing situation, and that consequently, I have no objection to it. The hon. the Minister, however, has not yet given a satisfactory explanation as to why it was necessary to introduce this Bill in the House now. If the commencement of this particular provision is postponed to a later date by way of a proclamation by the State President, would it not, under the circumstances, have been much better to have delayed putting this provision into operation until the negotiations had been disposed of, until the hon. the Prime Minister had had the opportunity to visit the area and conduct further talks with Dr. Phatudi and the Government of Lebowa?

I should be very pleased if the hon. the Minister would tell this House why he is in such a hurry for this measure to come into effect.

Mr. Chairman, I shall reply to the question of the hon. member Prof. Olivier with pleasure. There is no haste involved here. I think that is the hon. member’s own interpretation, one which I believe is incorrect. Consequently, his argument does not hold water either. This whole matter is being dragged out. It has been pending since 1973—for 10 years now. Where does haste come into it, therefore?

In fact, I gave the hon. member my reply yesterday already, although I should like to reaffirm this, as well as emphasizing the importance of this once again. We are dealing here with a situation that has developed gradually. Due to decisions made in 1975, and in terms of which the department has already incurred expenditures in the interim—even long before I came on the scene—which to date amount to approximately R20 million, if not more, land was purchased, inter alia, in the Saliesloot and Immerpan areas. Almost all the land in those areas has already been purchased. When last I made inquiries, all the land, with the exception of three of four farms, had already been purchased. The owners of those specific farms have not, however, accepted the offers of the department. Consequently, the purchase of their land has not yet been finalized. The rest of that land has, however, already been purchased. By the way, it is very fertile land. There are portions which are also irrigation land. Of course, we cannot simply allow that land to remain unexploited. Consequently, this matter must be finalized in some way or another.

Meanwhile, there is another aspect which makes this even more important. That is—whether or not certain hon. members agree—that kwaNdebele would like to further the emergence of its people as a nation. The commission’s recommendations with regard to consolidation have been generally accepted. This means tremendous expenditure and disruption for many people. I am sure the hon. member would understand that. That matter is already in its final stages.

kwaNdebele has gone even further and asked for independence; it has even set a date for independence. Consequently, it is not a question of haste on the part of the Government. It is almost the exact opposite. In order to try and reach an agreement, the Government tried to postpone matters, matters which really should have progressed a great deal further. This was done in order to try and gain clarity on certain matters.

Against this background, the only correct answer I can give the hon. member, in my humble opinion, is, in fact, the provision that appears in this specific clause. I hope that with regard to this aspect, Dr. Phatudi—someone who, in my humble opinion, is a very responsible chief minister, particularly when it comes to matters of this nature—also shares this view. We must bear in mind that Lebowa, kwaNdebele and South Africa have been involved in this matter for 10 years. Can hon. members imagine how much uncertainty there has been about this for 10 years? This is therefore how matters have developed over the past 10 years. Furthermore, hon. members must bear in mind that we are also in the process of consolidating Lebowa. This, together with all the other facts I have mentioned here, make it clear that the important thing to do now, is, as far as possible, to bring about stability, certainty and assurance so that this can be tackled step by step from a firm base in order to try and reach an agreement. Therefore, this clause is before this House in an attempt to try and incorporate the maximum amount of constancy and stability into this unstable and uncertain situation, the situation as it has developed and unfolded. We hope that through this clause, with the co-operation of Lebowa and kwaNdebele, we shall at least succeed in bringing about stability, and that everyone will accept that this is no longer a matter that need be argued or quarreled about any further, but that Moutse be placed under the administration of the Department of Co-operation and Development. If we have that assurance, we can take the next step, which the hon. the Prime Minister assisted us with. Then we can see whether we cannot reach a package agreement for the consolidation of Lebowa, the creation of an infrastructure for Lebowa, and other aspects in respect of Lebowa, so as to satisfy Lebowa in that way and, at the same time, also satisfy kwaNdebele’s aspirations. If we can accomplish that, we shall be able to dispose of a difficult issue with success and circumspection, with the co-operation of all the parties concerned. I hope that satisfies the hon. member. I am honestly convinced that that is the only really correct answer to an otherwise complicated issue and situation we are dealing with here.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I have unfortunately not been able to place on the Order Paper the amendments which I wish to move, but I have arranged for copies of them to be given by my Whips to the Whips of the other parties. I wish to move the following amendments—

1. 1. On page 2, in line 25, to omit “16” and to substitute “20”.
2. 2. On page 2, in line 29, to omit “12” and to substitute “16”.
3. 3. On page 2, in line 33, to omit “16” and to substitute “20”.
4. 4. On page 2, in lines 39 to 42, to omit subsection (2) and to substitute:
   1. (2)(a) Any person who performs risk work in the mining industry in terms of section 13 of the principal Act and who, after 25 years’ service, has not yet been certified to be suffering from a compensable disease, shall receive a one-sum benefit equal to his highest annual salary.
   2. (b) If any person referred to in subsection (2)(a) is subsequently, during his lifetime or after his death, certified to be suffering or to have suffered from a compensable disease and becomes entitled to compensation in terms of the principal Act, the amount referred to in the said subsection shall be deducted from such compensation.

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that I am unfortunately unable to accept the amendments, as they would lead to increased expenditure for which the State President’s recommendation is required. However, I shall allow the hon. member to make one speech in support of his amendments in order to enable him to try to persuade the hon. the Minister to take over his amendments. Therefore the hon. member may proceed.

I wish to make the point at this stage that the additional funds which would be payable in terms of these amendments would not come from the Treasury, because the tax levied in this connection is levied on the mines and the mining organizations.

I want to refer to what my hon. colleague for Kuruman said yesterday about the mine-workers. I believe it is common cause among all the parties in this House that there is great compassion for the circumstances in which the mineworker finds himself. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is so upset about it or why he blamed my hon. friend and took him to task for trying to make political capital out of the matter. The position is that we are all agreed on the matter. Mineworkers fall in a special category. I believe that the Nieuwenhuizen commission accepts this and I believe that the White Paper also accepts it. I do not think there is any dispute about the fact that mineworkers fall in a special category and that the pneumoconiosis legislation will in fact form the basis of any new legislation which may be introduced.

Mineworkers have been called Springboks in the past because they must have a certain certificate in order to commence their activities. When the lift carries them down into those deep, dark passages, they will not see the sun or any light again before they return to the surface. They are subjected to continuous spiritual and physical stress. Then it happens that after eight, ten or twenty years, when a mineworker leaves the mining industry, he is a physical wreck. That is why it is important that the hon. the Minister should consider increasing the percentages from 16% to 20% and from 12% to 16%, respectively. I think the hon. member for Virginia agreed yesterday that the increase which is now being proposed is not even equivalent to the rise in the cost of living or to the inflation rate. I think my friend, the hon. member for Virginia, will agree with this amendment.

There is a very good reason for that.

I think he should agree with this amendment. He conceded this yesterday.

I do not argue with a view to political gain.

I am not trying to derive political advantage from the matter either. [Interjections.]

Order!

If the hon. member for Virginia would only go back to the Nieuwenhuizen report, he would see that the NP gave evidence before the Nieuwenhuizen Commission. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism gave evidence and that hon. member supported it.

Of course.

He supported the idea that a mineworker should receive a benefit after 25 years’ service.

That has nothing to do with this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the position is this: It has a great deal to do with this Bill, because it was recommended in the minority report of the commission that mine-workers should be entitled to a gratuity after 25 years’ service. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister said—

… allows him to qualify for compensation. That is not quite correct, however, because his capacity for work must be reduced by approximately 50% before he can qualify.

It is true that excellent work is done at the Pneumoconiosis Bureau. However, there are people of whom it appears the when all the tests have been undergone, they are physically no longer able to do that specific work. In spite of that, they are still not certified. The Nieuwenhuizen Commission found, among other things that an alarming number of deaths had occurred in the mines even before 1902. To argue that this matter of a gratuity is a matter between employer and employee is not correct, in our opinion. Pneumoconiosis itself is a matter between employer and employee.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

I have only 10 minutes to speak, if I had had a second 10 minutes, that hon. member could have asked a question.

Pneumoconiosis itself is a matter between employer and employee. The Nieuwenhuizen Commission itself went on to state that in spite of all the intensive scientific investigations which had been undertaken and in spite of the progress which had been made in the fields of medicine and environmental control, much work remained to be done in respect of the connection between environmental variables and the incidence of occupational diseases. It says so on page 2 of the report. Therefore I think that since we are dealing with a special category of workers, the hon. the Minister should be very sympathetic towards these amendments.

I want to tell him that to compensate, at this stage only the people who receive monthly payments, and not also those who receive one-sum benefits, is incomprehensible. I know the hon. the Minister’s argument will be that the people who receive one-sum benefits have already received a bigger compensation than those who are receiving it by way of instalments. However, if he wants to place the matter on a uniform basis, it is essential that he should lay down the same criteria in respect of instalments and of one-sum benefits and should proceed from there.

Mr. Chairman, these are my reasons for moving these amendments. The hon. the Minister would be well advised to accept them.

Mr. Chairman, may I react to this amendment moved by the hon. member for Brakpan?

No, the hon. member may not. He must discuss the contents of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, that is what I am going to do. I want to react to a statement made by the hon. member for Brakpan in connection with this legislation which is before the House.

The hon. member may proceed. I shall see whether he keeps to the provisions of the clause.

The hon. member said that I would probably support the amendment because of the fact that the pension increases of 16% and 12% respectively in the two cases were lower than the rise in the cost of living index. This is an inference which the hon. member for Brakpan draws. I do not blame the hon. member for doing so, because he was not here when I made my speech.

I have read the speech, though.

Since the hon. member says that he has read my speech, I take it amiss of him that, as usual, he took from it only that which suits their arguments. I have made this accusation before, and now the hon. member has again, as in the past, made an allegation in this House which is not an untruth, but a half-truth. What was my argument? I said that of course we acknowledged that these increases of 16% and 12% were lower than the rise in the cost of living index, but I also said that it was absolutely essential in the interests of the financial discipline of the Government, which benefits everyone in this country including the mine worker as well as this particular pensioner, that we should not adjust the pension to the same extent, because we must combat inflation.

Oh, nonsense.

To react to that hon. member would be to cast pearls before swine, in any case.

It is true, of course, that these mineworkers do their work under very difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Carletonville said so and we have also referred to it. What the hon. member for Brakpan says, is true. It is also true, as I indicated in my speech, that this financial aid does not enable those people to put their financial worries behind them. It is certainly a fact, too, that any responsible Government would evaluate these matters in the light of the requirements of the country as a whole. If it were possible to increase these percentages to 20% or 25%—I think the hon. member for Carletonville suggested 25%—we should very much like to do so.

However, I submit that the hon. member for Brakpan has moved an amendment, which you allowed him to motivate, for no other purpose than to derive political advantage from it, because he knows very well that the arguments I am advancing at the moment are valid.

You are afraid of Virginia.

The hon. member for Rissik persuades me to tell the story of what happened to him. It so happened that he had to go and make a speech in Welkom recently in the absence of another hon. member. Shortly afterwards I heard that the CP had made a mistake, because they had sent a beginner there, who was still learning how to make political speeches. [Interjections.]

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

Sir, I shall come back to the Bill.

I conclude by repeating that the hon. member for Brakpan was motivated by political considerations in using this method of having his say, because …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member who the speaker was who was sent there? [Interjections.]

It is not difficult to answer the question, of course. The empty vessel who has been making the most noise during this discussion.

Mr. Chairman, the NRP would in fact have been fully in favour of the amendments listed 1, 2 and 3 which deal with the increase of the percentage of compensation.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that there are at the moment no amendments before this Committee because the amendments of the hon. member for Brakpan were ruled out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I understand your ruling, Sir. I should like to direct my comments to the hon. the Minister specifically and to indicate to him that the people who are covered by this specific clause are predominantly those people who qualified before 1973. I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that in future when it comes to percentage increases—I am not moving any amendment, Sir—the hon. the Minister should consider what the present purchasing power of the rand is. As long as we ensure that the pension payable in any year has the equivalent purchasing power of the money paid to beneficiaries in terms of the three particular sections in 1973 then we will be quite satisfied with the formula.

As I mentioned during my Second Reading speech, in terms of purchasing power today the recipients in terms of section 101 are actually being paid 73 cents as compared to R1 in 1973. As far as recipients under section 115 are concerned, the hon. the Minister will remember that that is a maximum increase subject to the discretion of the Commissioner. The principle under this clause that I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister for future consideration is that the pension payable today should be equivalent to the purchasing power of the rand in 1973.

When one considers the arguments of the hon. member for Brakpan regarding compensation to people who have spent 25 years underground but who have not been certified as beneficiaries under the scheme, one does not believe that they satisfy the intent of the Act. I should like to point out to my hon. colleague that in terms of this legislation one is compensated for a loss or in fact an incapacity suffered as a result of pneumoconiosis. What the hon. member for Brakpan is in fact suggesting is an increase in salary or bonus for working underground and not necessarily compensation for incapacity. Therefore, we cannot agree with that portion of the hon. member’s argument although we are in full support of maintaining the pension at the value that it had in 1973 in respect of subsequent years. We believe that the percentages granted by the hon. the Minister this year fall very far short when measured against the criterion.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct one matter. The legislation which is before us deals with a certain category of workers in the mining industry. It does not deal with all the persons working in the mining industry. I want to motivate what I have just said. I want to say that what the hon. member for Brakpan said, namely that a person should receive compensation after 25 years’ service, was not really relevant under this specific legislation. However, there are problems involved in this as well, because certain persons employed by the mining industry go underground for one hour a day, although the full shift of such a person is recorded as that of an underground worker. I must ask this question, therefore: If such a person has completed 25 years’ service, the time he has spent underground is only one-eighth of that spent by the ordinary rock-breaker. Should he also qualify for that compensation? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the proposed amendments of the hon. member for Brakpan.

Very well, Sir, then I just want to say that the percentage adjustment provided for in this legislation is a matter concerning which I also made a plea yesterday. I just want to say that if a larger percentage could be granted in this connection, I should very greatly appreciate it. However, I do not know what the financial position is, and therefore I can only ask that the pension paid to these people should be increased by a higher percentage.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken cognizance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brakpan. The hon. member asks for a little less than the hon. member for Carletonville did last night.

I am glad the hon. member for Brakpan said that all parties in this House had compassion for the mineworkers in South Africa and felt that they belonged in a special category. In particular, I am glad the hon. member conceded that the Government had compassion for our mineworkers and had their interests very much at heart.

I do not think we should turn our mine-workers into political footballs, especially not the sufferers from occupational diseases. We must not do this with a person who is not in good health. I absolutely refuse to be drawn into a debate where I have to resort to sentimental arguments in order to curry political favour with people who are not healthy. In my opinion, this would be improper.

As far as the increase is concerned, I want to concede to hon. members that one probably cannot do enough for these people. Sooner or later, however, someone has to take a decision. This is done after consultation and with due regard to the facts with which one is faced.

The realities.

Yes, the realities, the things which the hon. member could not appreciate in the NP, unfortunately.

The CP is also a reality.

The CP is a temporary reality which will gradually phase itself out. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should like to take this opportunity of saying something about our mineworkers. The increases which we are dealing with are basically an interim measure. What are the facts in connection with this situation? We had the Nieuwenhuizen Commission, which published a report. In response to this report the Government published a White Paper. I should like to quote paragraph 5.7 of the White Paper, as follows—

Then follows the important standpoint of the Government, and this serves as an answer to the arguments that have been advanced here—

This inter-departmental working committee which has been appointed has an important task to perform. One will see that there are majority as well as minority recommendations in the Nieuwenhuizen Report. It will be the specific task of this inter-departmental working committee to undertake a proper and thorough investigation with a view to arriving at a uniform basis of compensation for sufferers from occupational diseases in this country. I also want to convey my thanks to the Mineworkers’ Union tonight for having agreed to this arrangement in terms of which we have appointed a working committee so that not only the people in the mining industry may enjoy proper benefits in terms of the occupational diseases legislation, but indeed all workers in this country.

I come now to the fourth amendment of the hon. member for Brakpan. Unfortunately, the hon. member’s request cannot be scientifically justified, because it does not concern an occupational disease. In other words, in terms of this legislation, under which we are compensating people for occupational diseases, one cannot pay compensation to a healthy man. I would welcome it if every worker in this country could receive a gratuity or a bonus for long service, but this is fundamentally a matter which has to be negotiated between employer and employee. It is not a matter where the State can force employers to pay their employees a bonus for long service after a certain number of years. The fact with which one is faced here is that not all industries are equally profitable. Some industries sometimes go through hard times. The question of a gratuity or a bonus for long service is a matter which has to be negotiated between employer and employee. In any event, it cannot be accommodated under the principles accepted in terms of this legislation. Consequently I am unable to consider an amendment in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Minister a question yesterday, but he did not answer it in his reply to the Second Reading debate. Looking at these pensions, one sees that they are paid pro rata to the degree of disability and irrespective of the person’s income. There is definitely a big difference between the compensation paid to Whites and Coloureds. In fact, the compensation paid to Coloureds is only half the amount paid to Whites. This year, for example, in 1983, the compensation is R114 for Whites and R58 for Coloureds; R194 for a 50% to 75% impairment in the case of Whites and R100 for Coloureds, etc. In every case, the Coloureds receive only about half. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in the first place, whether he will give us the assurance that the difference will be eliminated and that the pension will be determined in accordance with the position occupied by the person concerned. I want to ask the hon. member for Brakpan whether his great plea here applied only to the White mineworkers or whether it applied to the Coloureds and the Blacks as well.

All mineworkers.

The way in which the hon. member for Brakpan put it caused me to think that it was only meant for the Whites.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Park town is doing me an injustice. If he would read what I said, he would see that I referred to all mineworkers.

The hon. the Minister has dealt very scientifically with the question of a gratuity being a matter between employer and employee. Mr. Chairman, I see that you want to stop me …

The hon. member cannot motivate his amendment again. He must now discuss the clause.

I just want to make this one important point, Sir, namely that one still has the situation that there has to be a 40% impairment of one’s cardio-respiratory function before one is entitled to a benefit. There are indeed people, as the hon. the Minister himself admitted, who receive compensation as soon as the slightest sign of pneumoconiosis is detected in them. Of course, this is not the case at all. The damage to a person’s cardio-respiratory organs must have led to 40% disablement before he can lay claim to compensation.

The second aspect to which the hon. the Minister does not reply is the following. He gave reasons why the increase in pensions and so on should be 12% and 16%, but he omitted to explain why the one-sum benefit should not be increased. I should be glad if he would explain those aspects as well, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have omitted to react to the hon. member for Durban North, so I should like to do so now. The hon. member stated that the amount of compensation laid down at a certain date should be increased as our currency depreciates. This is an argument which one can investigate sympathetically. I believe it might be a good subject for the working committee. However, I want to point out that in my opinion, one should guard against one aspect of automatic adjustment because of inflation or because of the depreciation of one’s currency. If one comes to make it one’s philosophy that everything must be adjusted to the prevailing inflation rate, one will inevitably end up with indexing. Indexing is precisely what has gradually led to an inflation rate of up to 200% in certain South American States. When one applies indexing, one increase leads to the next, and one gets caught up in a spiral which requires one, when increasing A, automatically to increase B, C, D, etc., as well. In the end it brings one right back to A. That is the danger of indexing. However, I concede that the hon. member does have a point in this connection, one which I believe the working committee could well investigate.

The hon. member for Park town referred to people of colour. As the hon. member will know, all these matters have their roots in history. As the hon. member for Brakpan has in fact said, he is pleading for all mine-workers, and he does not recognize any colour bar in the ranks of the mine-workers. He wants the same dispensation for all. This is another matter which the working committee could fruitfully investigate. It is the policy of the Government to eliminate disparities in order to bring about an equitable dispensation. These are matters, therefore, which can be systematically eliminated in due course, so that eventually the compensation will not depend on the group to which the particular worker belonged, but to the position he occupied. I think it is a very wise thing which the hon. member said here.

Now I want to put it to the hon. member for Brakpan that as far as the one-sum benefit is concerned, this is purely a matter for negotiation between employer and employee.

The one-sum benefit for pneumoconiosis?

Yes.

No.

Yes, it is. It is a matter for negotiation between employer and employee. That is the factual situation. Furthermore, I want to point out to the hon. member that the new dispensation which is going to be introduced for all workers in terms of this White Paper as far as compensation for occupational diseases is concerned will, I believe, be an excellent dispensation. I also believe that we should all give that new dispensation a chance to prove itself. We must also enable the working committee—especially since they are now working in a new milieu, i.e. under the auspices of the Department of Health and Welfare—to show the fruitful and positive progress which I believe will be shown, not only as far as the sufferer from pneumoconiosis is concerned, but also with regard to all other sufferers from industrial diseases in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put it to the hon. the Minister that the question of a one-sum benefit is not a matter for negotiation at all. The fact is that as soon as a mineworker is certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis in the first degree, he is entitled to a certain amount of compensation, as the hon. the Minister himself acknowledged. However, he may then ask for that compensation to be paid to him in a lump sum. It can also be paid out to him in instalments. It is not a question of negotiation at all. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister: Why is he granting an increase of 12% and 14% in respect of monthly payments, for example, but not in respect of the one-sum payment? I repeat: It is not a question of negotiation at all.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member that that committee consists of the employers and the employees. They come to an agreement and then they make a recommendation to the Minister. It is purely a question of negotiation between employee and the advisory committee is the avenue through which the recommendation is made to the Minister. In this case, no recommendation was made to me that the one-sum benefits be increased. That is why the amounts have not been changed.

Clause agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments which are proposed in this Bill to the Insolvency Act, 1936, are, inter alia, aimed at enabling Masters of the Supreme Court to render a more efficient service. It has become apparent in practice that certain requirements relating to the submission of documentation to a Master can be done away with and that certain duties imposed on Masters can be simplified without detracting from an effective sequestration process. The intention is to alleviate the task of Masters and trustees and to reduce costs as far as possible.

*Thus, for example, the obligation imposed on a trustee by section 44(2) to give notice of the sequestration of the estate to creditors who, until after the second meeting of creditors, have not yet proved their claims against the estate, is being deleted in clause 4. Sections 40(1), 40(3)(b) and 81(1)bis(a) in particular make adequate provision for notification of creditors as regards the sequestration.

In clause 7 the requirement that a trustee who wants to absent himself from the Republic has to obtain permission to do so from the Master, even if he wants to visit an independent Black State for only one day, is being modified so that the Master’s permission need only be obtained if the trustee is going to absent himself from the Republic for a period of longer than 60 days.

One of the provisions of clause 8, is the deletion of the requirement that the Master’s permission has to be obtained before a trustee may open a savings account in the name of the estate or before he may place moneys belonging to the estate on interest-bearing deposit. In clause 10 the trustee is vested with the power also to sell immovable property before the second meeting of creditors, if the master authorizes him thereto.

In clause 16 the procedures to be followed when making application for postponement of the submission of accounts in liquidations of companies and sequestrations of natural persons, are made uniform. Section 109 of the Insolvency Act is being brought into line with a corresponding section in the Companies Act 1973 (Act 61 of 1973).

In the process of rationalization of legislation the powers of deportation vested in the Minister of Justice in respect of certain persons who have committed offences in terms of the Insolvency Act, are being deleted in clause 24. This authority is being transferred to the Minister of Internal Affairs.

†Cognizance has also been taken of the fact that certain amounts of money, interest rates and fines referred to in the Insolvency Act, 1936, are in many respects outdated. In some cases adjustments have not been made since 1936 and in other cases since 1965. Bearing in mind the inflation rate and the depreciation in money, adjustments have accordingly been made to the amounts concerned. For instance, section 100(1) limits the preference for salaries due to an employee of the insolvent to R400. This leads to great hardship for employees and in clause 14 this amount is increased to R2 000.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. We agree with the hon. the Minister that the provisions in the Bill will enable the Master to render a more efficient service, even though it will only be on a marginal level, in order to deal with the backlog which exists. In order to enable him to render an efficient service which will cope with the work load, one needs a far more thorough investigation into his work and into the rules and laws which he has to apply.

I only wish to refer to one aspect of the Bill, namely an aspect which is raised in clauses 11, 12 and 13 where certain preferent claims are dealt with and where the amounts are raised. I merely wish to raise it because the fact that these amounts are being raised appears to be contrary to a very strong view which is being held among many people in legal circles who are involved in this area, that the number of preferent claims which exist at the moment ought in fact to be reduced and that rather than increasing the number of preferent claims one ought to reduce them. I merely want to refer briefly to a memorandum which was submitted by the Secretary for Justice to the Minister of Justice in 1979, in which the following was stated—

That is what we are doing here. We are actually raising the amount in respect of claims for funeral and deathbed expenses. We are also increasing the amount from £5 to R50 in respect of costs of execution before sequestration.

There is a publication available, of which the hon. the Minister is no doubt aware, which has been brought out by the Law Commission. It is a research project in which the author was asked to investigate this aspect. He in fact comes to the conclusion that the preferent claims which relate to funeral and deathbed expenses ought to be abolished altogether. It ought therefore not really to have been dealt with in this way in this Bill. However, that does not detract from the overall positive aspects of this Bill. We are happy to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and support the hon. member for Durban Central in the positive aspects he mentioned. A number of fine principles lie at the root of this legislation. I shall touch on them briefly. The first principle is that as regards any legislation there has to be an attempt to make it more streamlined. We find this in clause 16, where there is an endeavour to introduce uniformity as regards the liquidation of companies and the sequestration of natural persons. The legislation also endeavours to take the needs of the time into consideration on an ongoing basis, and for this reason provision is made for inflation. There is also the ideal of rationalization and better liaison between departments. We find this in clause 24.

In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the department on investigating its own structures in order to provide the public with a better and cheaper service. For these reasons I take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in the CP would also like to intimate that we support the amendment contained in the Bill. We are doing so for the reasons mentioned by the hon. the Minister, as well as for the reasons already mentioned by our other hon. colleagues. We find here attempts to make our insolvency legislation more streamlined in order to facilitate the task and responsibility of the bodies involved in the administration of insolvent estates and the liquidation of companies, so that the process of administering insolvent estates functions more smoothly.

In his annual report the Director-General of the Department of Justice also singled out certain facts in connection with the scope of the work done by the Masters’ Offices that are entrusted with supervising the administration of deceased and insolvent estates. He pointed out inter alia that there was a fluctuating trend as regards the number of insolvent estates registered annually which depended on the economic position in the country. We constantly have to take the task and responsibility of the Masters, a task of extremely large magnitude, into consideration when we make amendments to the Insolvency Bill, as we did recently in the Estates Amendment Act. We have to try to speed up—facilitate the task. This not only applies to Masters’ Offices, but certainly also to the trustees and other bodies involved. The amendment is not only aimed at facilitating and speeding up the tasks of the Master, but it also concerns our responsibility as law-makers to ensure that the relevant laws are streamlined.

I am not going to comment on every clause being dealt with in this amending Bill. However, there are a few clauses I should like to refer to. In the first place I want to touch for a moment on clause 4. This concerns the deletion of subsection 44(2) of the Insolvency Act. If we consider the wording of section 44, we find that it concerns the proving of liquidated claims against an estate. Subsection (2) of section 44 provides—

It seems to me that the recommendation that subsection 44(2) be deleted, is an unnecessary step, because the deletion would amount to an uninformed creditor’s right to notification is being denied him. The question arises for example what would become of a debt which for argument’s sake only falls due 12 months later and where the creditor does not have particularly close contact with the debtor. I would far rather that subsection 44(2) be retained and not deleted, because I feel that is unnecessary for a creditor to be deprived of this right.

I should also like to refer to the provisions of clause 12. Clause 12 is aimed at amending the amount for funeral and deathbed expenses. It is planned to increase this amount from £50 to R300. In my opinion this is not an adequate increase. If one takes the devaluation of money into consideration as well as the costs involved I feel it would be fairer to increase the amount from R100 to R500. I feel this would be a far more realistic adjustment, bearing in mind how long ago that amount of £50 was inserted in the specific section. I trust that the hon. the Minister will react favourably to this idea, because if he does not do so it seems to me it would be far cheaper not to die but to keep on living.

I also want to refer to clause 16. Here we are dealing with an amendment to section 109 of the Insolvency Act. The amendment proposed in this clause is still concerned with an extension of time for the submission of an account by a trustee. I think we are justified in saying that this amendment is one of the more substantial amendments which are being effected by this amending Bill. It provides for a affidavit by a trustee if he wishes to extend the period for submission of his account. He has to give the creditor notice. What struck me was what the position would be if one of the creditors wanted to dispute the affidavit. I personally am not quite clear on this matter and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to explain it to us.

I have also already said that I do not know what rights will be given to the Master if the affidavit is not submitted. Nor do I know what the position would be if the affidavit is not submitted within the period of 14 days as provided in the legislation. I assume that in this case the Master may relieve the trustee of his post. Perhaps he could make use of the provisions in section 116bis of the Insolvency Act. In this connection I also want more information from the hon. the Minister. It is not quite clear to me what would happen if the trustee were to omit to submit the affidavit. I am not certain what the sanctions would then be.

With these few words I just want to say that we take great pleasure in supporting this amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in insolvent estates the Master usually acts in a supervisory capacity. The principle at issue is to what extent the Master’s supervision can be made more streamlined without sacrificing good administration. In the case of insolvent estates, however, this differs from a deceased estate in the sense that the persons who have an interest in this appoint the liquidator themselves and that the liquidator has to put up security in all cases. I feel that this, therefore, is in line with the principle of the legislation that a greater degree of responsibility may devolve upon the liquidator. On the other hand, one is also dealing with creditors, people participating in trade, and for that reason I do not agree with the hon. member Mr. Theunissen’s view on the deletion of section 44(2). The position is that at that stage such a creditor has already been given notice in terms of section 40(1), section 40(3)(b) and section 81(1)bis (a). Further notice is therefore unnecessary at that late stage. In practice, this would also amount to people who have made themselves available as liquidators definitely ensuring that those creditors know about the insolvent estate. I therefore take great pleasure in supporting the principles of the legislation in so far as it transfers obligations from the Master to the liquidator.

As far as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen’s objection to clause 16 is concerned, I should point out that the creditor is also aware of the period within which the liquidator has to submit the estate and of course he will be entitled to insist on this and address representations to the Master himself, which the Master can then consider in conjunction with the affidavit for an extension of time.

As far as clause 12 is concerned, we have the request by the hon. member for Durban Central that the amount should not be increased, whereas the hon. member Mr. Theunissen has requested that the amount be in-creased further. Of course, this is a heartbreak case in the sense that people are insured up to a certain amount so that funeral and deathbed expenses will receive preference. I take pleasure in supporting the amendment which results in the amount being increased from £50 to R300. This increase is probably essential.

I suggest that one has constantly and continually to consider to what extent the duties of the Master may be devolved upon the trustee. Of course the number of estates depend on the financial position as it pertains from time to time. This fluctuation cannot, of course, be catered for by the Master, because he has to get by with exactly the same number of staff. I feel that it would be easy to go even further without sacrificing his supervisory function and good administration. I take pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP will support the amendments contained in the Bill. The situation, as far as we see it, is that the hon. the Minister in his speech has outlined the intention with the Bill very ably in respect of the Master rendering a more efficient service without subtracting from the effectiveness of the sequestration process.

The Bill seems to update obsolete amounts of money previously prescribed. It brings the principal Act up to date with other legislation. It also streamlines investments by trustees as the legislation regarding estates allows them to deal with immovable property.

There are one or two points on which we have observations to make and like other hon. members who have spoken before me, the NRP feels that it has certain reservations concerning clause 4 which seeks to amend section 44 of the principal Act. We shall listen with interest to the hon. the Minister’s reply to those reservations in view of the situation that could arise in respect of the proposed amendment.

A further point to which we should like to draw the attention of the House is the fact that on page 20 of the report of the Department of Justice for the period 1 July to 30 June 1982 there is an interesting paragraph which I think relates very clearly to the Bill. It is a point which must be taken into consideration and the streamlining effect would of course have a bearing on this. Paragraph 5.4 reads—

The crunch is that the figure for the year under review shows an increase to 3 496. This came about certainly before the country got anywhere near to the real downturn, the real trough in the economy that we all hope that we have reached now and that it will not go any further. There are already indications that the number will increase considerably during the coming year. I think it is important for us to note that the situation regarding insolvent estates may be one with which the Master will have to deal with increasing frequency and that the amendments contained in this Bill will no doubt expedite the handling of those estates.

With these few words and having regard for the reservations that have already been expressed, added to our own, we will support the Bill in principle and will listen with interest to the hon. the Minister’s reply.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank hon. members, particularly those of the Opposition parties, for their support of this Bill.

*I want to start by dealing with the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central and refer at the same time to the argument of the hon. member Mr. Theunissen. They both touched on the same matter, but held opposing views on it. The hon. member for Durban Central alleged that in terms of a previous study document published by the Law Commission—at this stage it has the status of a study document—we have to allow increases sparingly because this amounts to the erosion of the free residue in estates. On the other hand, the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said that the amount was too small and that we should consider an increase because nowadays it is fairly expensive to die and be buried. However, we cannot have the best of both worlds. As is the case in other facets of politics it seems to me as if we should ask the two hon. members to settle the matter between them and then come and tell us what consensus they have reached.

As far as the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned, it is at present a project of the Law Commission to investigate the entire matter of preferential claims and in due course, as they always do, they will come forward with suitable recommendations. Until such times as those adjustments and changes can be made, whether or not this amounts to a decrease in the number of categories of preferential claims, we are expected to adjust the amounts affected by inflation. This is only logical, and I notice that the hon. member accepts this argument. On the other hand there is an element of truth in what he said, namely that one has to be careful not to expose the free residue to excessive demands, for sometimes one can be buried at a more reasonable price than the hon. member had in mind. I therefore suggest that he accepts this.

As for the hon. member for King William’s Town’s question in regard to support for this matter is concerned, I just want to point out that both the Institute of Chartered Accountants and the Association of Trust Companies addressed representations for these amounts to be increased. The hon. member will therefore realize that we had to accede to these requests. The hon. member Mr. Theunissen will know that the hon. member for Durban Central had an amendment on the Order Paper in terms of which he wanted clause 4 deleted. However, the hon. member has now withdrawn that amendment. This is because the hon. member has grasped the arguments I am now going to raise and in my opinion very wisely intends to withdraw his amendment. What it briefly amounts to is that ample provision is made in the Insolvency Act for creditors to take proper cognizance of the fact that the estate has been sequestrated and that meetings are going to be held. Moreover creditors have the opportunity, even prior to the second meeting, to decide whether they want to prove further claims in order to ensure that they will not in fact have to make contributions to the sequestration costs of the estate. In terms of section 81(1)bis they are furnished with a report by the trustee.

I also want to refer the hon. member to section 40(1) which provides that notice of sequestration has to be given. In terms of section 40(3)(b) notice of the second meeting has to be given. In terms of section 81(1)bis the trustee has to send a copy of the report he submits to the second meeting of creditors by registered post to every creditor of the estate whose name and address is known to him. He has to do so 14 days before the time. If a creditor has a fast car he can still submit his claim which will then be open to inspection. There are people who do not agree with this argument, but if one considers the statistics quoted here by the hon. member for King William’s Town—and I am now replying to the hon. member on this point—one realizes that creditors have to pay the tremendous costs incurred by the trustee in connection with notices. If we can now decrease the number of notices and therefore the costs, a larger amount will be available for the creditors. This will of necessity be the case. In addition, if one takes into consideration that some of this documentation finds its way to the Master, one realizes what can be saved with regard to the filling of documents received, etc. That is all I have to say on this matter.

As regards the hon. member Mr. Theunissen’s question on clause 16, I want to refer him to section 116bis which contains the sanction which may be taken against a trustee in respite. The Master or an interested party may apply for an order against the trustee to submit the account. In addition, in terms of the sanction contained in subsection (2) the trustee has to pay the costs of such an application de bonis propriis. This means that he has to pay the costs of the Master or of the interested parties from his own pocket. I think this is the sanction the hon. member is looking for. On the other hand, a notice also has to be published in the Government Gazette. In this way a creditor or an interested party has the opportunity to take cognizance of the application and to register his objections to it in accordance with the common law rule of audi alteram partem. It is therefore quite clear that section 116bis is linked to this specific clause and that an interested party is deemed to have taken cognizance of this. On the basis of the contents of the sworn statement and the objections he receives, the Master may grant the application for extension at his discretion.

In conclusion I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Nelspruit for his appropriate reply. I have nothing to add to it. He replied quite correctly.

This brings me to the hon. member for Bloemfontein East. It is actually quite inappropriate during a discussion of the Insolvency Act to congratulate a good Bloemfonteiner and Free Stater on his birthday. The hon. member for Bloemfontein East is anything but insolvent politically and we wish him everything of the best.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 11:

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

1. 1. On page 8, in line 8, after “contemplated” to insert:

I have discussed this amendment with the hon. the Minister and with the officials concerned. Briefly it is my view that the clause as it stands indeed creates a new preference, which is obviously not desirable and which, I believe, was not intended. I have had indications from the hon. the Minister that he is prepared to accept this amendment, and I shall therefore not take the matter any further.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to indicate that I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. The motivation, as furnished by the hon. member, is, I believe, quite sufficient.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 78(1) of the Attorneys Act, 1979, requires a practising practitioner to open a separate trust account with a banking institution in the Republic and to deposit therein the money held or received by him on account of any person. As hon. members probably know, certain commercial banks recently decided to pay interest on money in current accounts. The Attorneys Act, 1979, contains no indication of to whom this interest should accrue. Consequently an adjustment to the Act is necessary to make provision for the changed circumstances.

†In clause 1, Mr. Speaker, provision is made for the interest on money deposited by a practitioner in a trust account to be paid over to the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This is in accordance with the principle already contained in section 78(3) of the Act, in terms of which the interest on money invested in separate savings or other interest-bearing accounts shall be paid over to the Fund.

Owing to the unavoidable lapse of time between the date on which commercial banks commenced to pay interest on current accounts, and the consideration of this Bill by the House, it has become necessary to give the Bill retrospective effect. I have received a request to this effect from the Association of Law Societies and the Fidelity Guarantee Fund, and during the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment to clause 2 in order to provide that the Bill shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 March 1983.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill consists of only one clause, and is aimed at amending section 78 of the principal Act, which, as we all know, is the legislation governing the regulation of legal practice in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, as both you and I are aware, in the course of legal, commercial and property transactions between parties moneys are almost invariably passed from one party to another, most often through the good offices of an attorney. For the purposes of dealing with such moneys belonging to clients attorneys are required to open and to maintain separate trust accounts. Attorneys may not use or deal with these moneys except in accordance with or on the instruction of, the clients concerned and such moneys may not be banked or mixed with the general funds of an attorney’s practice. But, whatever the safeguards are and whatever safeguards might be introduced, every profession has its black sheep and from time to time cases arise of misappropriation, in one manner or another, by attorneys of trust funds belonging to clients.

I do not believe it!

Sir, the hon. members of the NRP are feeling somewhat frivolous tonight and I think that, perhaps not understanding anything of the legal profession, they should perhaps just sit quietly and listen to people more erudite than themselves before putting their foot deeper into the three-letter word than is their position at the present time. [Interjections.]

A three-letter word?

Order! Legal men usually take these things in their stride. [Interjections.]

Well, Sir, it was for that reason that many years ago the organized profession established an Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund. It was specifically created to protect clients against dishonest acts of attorneys involving the illegal usage of trust moneys, as also to protect the good name of the profession. For years every practising attorney was obliged to make a fixed annual and quite large contribution to the fidelity fund and, in fact, could not carry on with his practice unless he was in possession of a current fidelity fund certificate evidencing receipt of payment by the attorney to the fund of his subscription.

At any given time many legal practices in South Africa have on their books well over 1 000 clients, or even more, depending on the size of the firm concerned, encompassing a wide range of legal work and involving scores of financial transactions. It is not uncommon for an average trust account of any small firm to have something in excess of R250 000 in it at any given moment, and in the case of larger firms to maintain a level of trust account in excess of R1 million and sometimes even millions of rand, despite the fact that moneys come and go in and out of those accounts on a daily basis. Throughout the country, therefore, many millions of rands have lain idle for protracted periods in non-interest-bearing bank accounts, benefiting neither the profession nor the clients; this despite the fact that, give or take ups and downs, experience has shown that virtually all such trust accounts always retain at any given time a basic level regardless of fluctuations by the day or by the month.

So it came about that 15 or it might even have been 16 years ago the Attorneys Act was amended, entitling attorneys to invest in separate savings account or other interest-bearing account with any bank or building society moneys in their trust accounts not immediately needed for any particular purpose. The provisions of the Act relating to trust accounts and the umbrella protection afforded by the fidelity fund were extended to cover such interest-bearing accounts. Over the years attorneys have generally maintained such accounts at levels suited to their own practices and the interest thereon has been paid to the fidelity fund. This development has been beneficial both to the profession and its clientele. The fidelity fund has been strengthened immeasurably, thus ensuring a greater protection being available to the public at large.

There is still only the one clause.

Sir, I will not be distracted by that hon. member who pretends to know something about the law but in fact knows very little. We shall allow him to sit there and make those comments and, being members of the same profession, we shall take them from whence they come.

Secondly, it has lightened the load of lawyers having to finance out of their own income a fund geared to protect and recompense people who have suffered losses as a result of the wrongful acts of a few. At the present time provisions entitling attorneys to place money in separate interest-bearing accounts are permissive. They are not obligatory. Not all attorneys avail themselves of this facility. In fact, only about 60% of attorneys in South Africa maintain such separate accounts. Those who do seldom utilize more than 10% to 15% of their average trust levels for this purpose. Yet, the interesting fact is—and I would like to ask hon. members to listen to this—that from this tiny proportion of moneys languishing in trust accounts the fidelity fund earns at the present time something in excess of R3 million per year, together with its own investments.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming to that point. Fifteen years ago this fidelity fund was a small fund subscribed to by attorneys. Today, as a result of legislation passed some years ago, it is an enormous fund exceeding in value R20 million and subscribed to not by attorneys but by clients whose money provide its income.

I would like briefly to examine how the moneys of the fidelity fund are in fact utilized. Firstly, may I mention the approximate claims experience of the fidelity fund. Perhaps the legal spokesman of the NRP would be interested in this. According to statistics supplied to me, in 1979 a sum of R500 000 was paid to the public in satisfaction of claims. In 1980 the figure was R800 000, in 1981 it was R400 000 and in 1982 a total of R1,1 million was disbursed by the fidelity fund to claimants. In all, therefore, since 1979 an amount of approximately R2,8 million has been used for this purpose by the fund. However, during that same period, subject to the limitations placed on it by law, the fund has also been able to support two other projects. In terms of section 46 of the Act the fund can with the approval of the Minister make grants, mainly to universities, for legal education purposes. In fact, in recent years the fund has assisted universities to the tune of R2,7 million. It has also granted bursaries for education and research in law to the extent of approximately R375 000, and in this way has assisted 287 law students and researchers from all population groups. I say that this is a record of which the legal profession can rightly be proud. It is a source of pleasure to know that all members of the public enjoy protection against the misappropriation of their moneys when dealing with attorneys.

What also must be considered is that during the period in which a total sum of R4,9 million was disbursed by the fund pursuant to its objects, the fund’s income alone exceeded R9 million and the total value of the fund pushed past the R20 million mark.

All that I have said so far relates to the fund prior to the passing of this legislation which is presently before the House. I do believe, however, that what very few of us in this House realize or even contemplate, is the dramatic effect that this legislation is going to have on the Attorneys’ Fidelity Fund. It has come about as a result of the banks commencing to pay interest on current accounts not in deficit.

As we debate this matter, not 10% of all moneys lying in attorneys’ trust accounts is utilized in producing income for the fund, and yet this small fraction of the total available moneys produces income of the order of between R2 million and R3 million per year. In the Republic there are in practice 2 400 separate firms of attorneys—not individual lawyers but separate legal practices—all operating their own trust accounts. Based on experience and research and information I have obtained I estimate that at any given time there is a total sum, throughout the country, of between R250 million and R280 million in cash deposited with these 2 400 firms, which sums are presently held in current banking accounts. This is a staggering figure. Obviously, once the banks had agreed to pay interest on all such accounts, some action had to be taken by the profession, through legislation, to regulate the disposal of earnings thus accruing. This Bill, in a logical extension of an existing principle, proposes that these earnings be paid into the fund.

However, we should know what the effect of this is going to be. The immediate effect will be that the income of the fund per annum will rise meteorically from about R3 million per annum to between R8 million and R10 million per annum. This gives rise to a completely new set of circumstances. It means that whereas in terms of what it is presently entitled to do the fund will still only spend between R1 million and R2 million per year, it will have a regular income of something like four to five times that amount per annum. Within three years the state of the fund will have doubled and within five years its value could exceed R50 million, and yet its allowable expenditure in terms of existing legislation can hardly approach a fraction of its capital, let alone its fast snowballing income. Of course, provision must always be made for what I would call a major deterioration in claims experience, as also for isolated disaster claims which could occur. However, even here sophisticated insurance cover can easily be arranged to guard against such eventualities. Such insurance is readily available and at reasonable rates.

So, Mr. Speaker, while we will not oppose this legislation, which I regard as an interim measure, I earnestly ask the hon. the Minister, in consultation with the leadership of the profession, to focus his attention on one or two matters of principle which now arise. Firstly, it should be considered whether it is correct that such huge sums of money be earned through the banks and utilized by the profession from moneys deposited by the public and not by the profession for the purposed of protecting the public against black sheep attorneys. Following that point, would it not be better to pass on to the clients concerned all or some of the interest earned?

I realize that with daily deposits and withdrawals involving scores of clients a measure of such a nature could create accounting nightmares for attorneys. I realize that. It is just not practical to credit every client with interest on trifling amounts over short periods, but it should not be beyond the wit of the profession to devise basic procedures to ensure that clients who have deposited larger amounts for longer periods are paid at least some of the earnings accruing as a result of their own deposits. The principle I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider and to investigate, if he is not able to consider it immediately, and to discuss with the profession and with the officials of his department is whether it is not both proper and feasible to pass back to the public at least some if not all of the benefits accruing on their own moneys.

The second matter that I want to ask the hon. the Minister to think about is this. Is it right to allow a fund of this limited nature, fed by money belonging to the public, to grow out of all proportion to the need it serves? Should there not be a ceiling to be determined by the Minister perhaps in conjunction and consultation with the profession to which a fund of this narrow kind will be allowed to grow? Once that ceiling has been reached, should further income not be usefully employed in promoting other desirable aims? There is surely no point in allowing a fidelity fund that is called upon to pay out perhaps R2 million per annum to grow into a vast monolith of money and investments with it’s concomitant bureaucracy to handle that money and those investments.

I should like to put a third proposition to the hon. the Minister, and that is that in any event he should in co-operation with the Association of Law Societies attempt in legislation to broaden the scope allowed to the fidelity fund in its expenditure. At present it can spend its money in only four ways. It can pay for its own administration; in terms of section 26 it can pay the public for losses suffered at the hands of attorneys; in terms of section 46 it can make grants to universities for legal education purposes; and it has the purpose of granting bursaries to persons and students for education and research in law. I have already given you, Sir, the expenditure of the fidelity fund over the past four years so we know what money is being spent on those limited objectives. However, taking into account the huge amount that is and will become available, these limitations are unrealistic. In New South Wales, Australia, for instance, the law society through its fidelity fund finances a law institute producing a practical training school for lawyers. In this way it operates its own institute of practical legal education.

There is another possibility and this relates to legal aid. There is a crying need in this country for a more sophisticated, a more easily accessible, a more broadly available system of legal aid in regard to both criminal and civil matters. Debates in this House over the years have highlighted the shortcomings of what is presently available to litigants and accused person of limited means. Only last week Mr. Justice Milne, the Judge President of Natal, pointed out serious shortcomings of the legal aid system in our country. With the clear likelihood of the Attorneys Fidelity Fund growing to the proportions of R50 million and more over the next few years, as I have mentioned, the case for using some of these funds to broaden the scope of legal aid available is a strong one. By allowing this the legal profession could be placed in a situation, quite separate from Government efforts, to make an important contribution to the administration of justice in South Africa. Ideas abound. In short, while I do not wish this evening to canvass every possibility, I do plead for an expanded application of the moneys available to this fund and I hope that early next year the hon. the Minister will present to this House amending legislation giving expression to at least some of the thoughts made public today.

Penultimately, Sir, I would like to say a word to the legal profession of which I am a subscribing member. The practice of law is not, especially collectively, a tu’penny-ha-’penny operation in this modern age. It is a craft safeguarding the very fabric of our society, servicing hundreds of thousands of citizens of this country, dealing annually with billions of rands belonging to others. I would have thought that by now the principles of basic risk management would have long ago been applied. The policeman on the beach prevents crime; the internal auditor prevents fraud and corruption. If the fidelity fund invested just a small percentage of its funds in employing permanent professional internal auditors to monitor at random the trust accounts of its members, at least some of what has gone wrong in the past may well be prevented in the future and the demands for recompense made on the fund may be reduced even further.

I have one final matter which I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister at this moment. It has come to my attention that some attorneys have negotiated with the banks in the knowledge of the coming of this Bill and have arranged that they receive no interest or a lesser interest on their trust account in exchange for a waiver of bank charges, ledger fees and the like. Accordingly, although this Bill has not yet been passed, its terms are being circumnavigated even at this moment to the detriment of the fidelity fund and to the advantage of the individual attorneys concerned. I should like to know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is to this development and whether he intends doing anything about it or giving some sort of lead.

With these comments, with these questions, with these words of well meant advice and in anticipation of a better thought out Bill next year, we shall for the moment allow this legislation to pass.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, drew certain conclusions from the possibility that the Fidelity Guarantee Fund will grow considerably during the next year or more. I want to be kind to the hon. member now and express the hope that he was not being a little premature in his suggestions, because I can probably speak on behalf of many members of the attorneys’ profession when I say that the attorneys’ profession has at all times taken the initiative in serving the public in respect of and out of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund wherever possible. The hon. member mentioned certain examples for which statutory sanctions already exist, but to estimate now, at this early stage, that the Fidelity Guarantee Fund will attract enormous amounts in terms of the new sanction which will be provided by the Bill is, in my opinion, a little premature, because there is no guarantee whatsoever of the permanence of the interest, the windfall which holders of current accounts received in recent months and may also receive in future. The banking institutions—this is why I call it a windfall—suddenly decided on this procedure and to exert some or other pressure at this stage or to direct some or other direct request to the legal profession, either through the hon. the Minister or this House, which is aimed at a mark or, as we say in legal parlance, at a possibility that this Fidelity Guarantee Fund will grow into millions of rands within the foreseeable future is, I think, with all due respect, a little premature. [Interjections.] I think in all seriousness that we as a legislature ought to have only the highest respect for the way in which attorneys manage their profession, maintain discipline, make provision for certain contingencies and protect the public. I shall leave the matter at that. The hon. the Minister will in his wisdom decide how to deal with the matter. I simply wish to urge people to be careful that we do not embarrass a profession which is the pride of an orderly community such as ours.

I should now like to confine myself to the legislation itself. As the hon. member pointed out, this Bill is concerned with the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This fund, of course, has a very interesting history. During the ’thirties, with its depression, financial malpractices occurred more frequently than usual. The legal profession was compelled to take the lead in establishing the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This was done in terms of section 8 of Act 19 of 1941. When the legislation pertaining to attorneys was consolidated in 1979, it went without saying that the Fidelity Guarantee Fund would continue to exist in terms of section 21 of the present principal Act.

The Fidelity Guarantee Fund has a few main sources from which it derives its income. There is the contribution paid by an attorney upon admission, interest on investments and interest on trust investments which attorneys are required to make in terms of statutory provisions. It is the intention with this legislation to create a further source of income by means of the new arrangement. The initiative for this proposed legislation came from the legal profession. The question that arose was what was to happen to the interest earned on the separate current accounts of attorneys in which trust moneys had been deposited. The attorneys’ profession indicated that these moneys ought to be paid into the Fidelity Guarantee Fund. This legislation is aimed at giving statutory sanction to this requirement.

What is important, however, and something which one does not frequently say and which is perhaps not always necessary to say, is that the general public is not properly informed of the fact that trust money entrusted to an attorney is in fact, covered against any harm which a client may suffer as a result of a malpractice. Like any other profession, it is vitally important that the legal profession should at all times inspire trust in the public. If the public takes into account the various measures which are adopted in order to protect their trust money, the co-operation which the legal profession receives at all times from this honourable Minister and his department in granting statutory sanctions to their initiatives, and the existing measures which include the Fidelity Guarantee Fund, it is a fact that the legal profession in South Africa can look the public in the eye and tell them that their trust money is always safe.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it is an exceptionally great privilege for me on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House, to give my cordial support to this legislation, which is according statutory sanction to the initiatives of the attorneys’ profession.

Mr. Speaker, what is one to say after having listened to two speeches such as those we have just heard here? [Interjections.] Yes, one can probably say many things, but I believe that one thing one can in fact say is that the legal profession is a wonderful profession; that the legal profession is probably the most honourable and acceptable profession represented in this House. [Interjections.] In addition, I think one can also say that we listened to two speeches by two attorneys in which it was proved to us that people can very frequently work together very cordially, although they can just as frequently differ whole-heartedly with one another. This evening this has been illustrated very effectively to us here.

Furthermore, it is true that attorneys have their enemies everywhere, even in this House. [Interjections.] I am saying this in a light vein of course. However, upon listening to all the interjections, particularly those, it seems to me, by the hon. member for King William’s Town, I cannot but say that that hon. member is to my mind one of the finest examples of a person who is a friend to attorneys. He has so many friends in the House that one cannot really take serious cognizance of all the remarks and interjections he makes. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, what I do wish to emphasize in all seriousness is that the contribution which the hon. member for Sandton made here this evening was an excellent contribution, a contribution of very high calibre. In fact, I believe it would be a good idea of the editor of De Rebus Procuratoriis were to publish that speech in the official monthly publication of the law society. [Interjections.] Yes, it would be a very good thing, not only because of the excellent contents of the hon. member’s speech, but also because of the great trouble he took in preparing it. In his speech the hon. member touched upon quite a number of important truths in regard to the attorneys’ profession, and in that way created a very good opportunity for the hon. member for Newton Park to react to it. I think that the contribution made by the hon. member for Sandton will undoubtedly be subjected to further scrutiny in future. In fact, it is in the interests of the attorneys’ profession that cognizance should be taken of the magnitude of that fund, and everything that has been accomplished with the help of the money from that fund of the attorneys’ profession. However, it is also essential that cognizance should be taken of certain restrictions which, I think, ought to be imposed.

You know, Mr. Speaker, this short piece of legislation has, after all, led to a lengthy debate. This legislation came about because the banks are now paying interest on the credit balances of their clients in their current accounts. Therefore it is fit and proper that this adjustment should be made. On our part we support it whole-heartedly. I just wish to point out once again that the contributions that have been made to this discussion so far will undoubtedly help to maintain the good name and reputation of the legal profession.

We in the CP therefore support the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, although the hon. member Mr. Theunissen said that he was making certain of his comments in a light vein, I never thought we would ever live to see the day when the CP agreed with the PFP. Nor did I ever think we would ever live to see the day an hon. member of the CP praised the PFP, as the hon. member Mr. Theunissen did here this evening. [Interjections.]

I wish to point out briefly that the present statutory amendment is a logical and inevitable step, which is being taken in order to streamline the Guarantee Fidelity Fund properly. Almost in contrast to the hon. member for Sandton, I can say that I have every confidence in the resourcefulness and originality of members of the attorneys’ profession, and of the Law Society in South Africa, and I believe that they will in fact come up with a plan by means of which they will be able to channel what they receive by way of this statutory amendment more productively and correctly and utilize it to the benefit of the administration of justice in general. I do not think there is another profession in South Africa which is as intent upon rendering good service as the attorneys’ profession; that there is another profession in this country which displays a greater measure of self-discipline than this profession, and for that reason I am able to support this amending Bill with the fullest confidence.

Mr. Speaker, it does one’s heart so good to see the legal profession react so well to the debate that is taking place and I must say that you, Mr. Speaker, yourself set the tone when you said that they should in fact be above reaction. As one who is not in the legal profession it is interesting to see them jump around a little and sort themselves out not knowing exactly whether in fact they are above this sort of criticism. I too should like to compliment the hon. member for Sandton on a most interesting, well thought out, well prepared and thoughtful contribution in respect of one single clause. When he got up to speak on the Bill that consists of only one clause I thought we were about to hear a very short, reasoned sort of argument although I did wonder whether he was hoping to speak right up to the adjournment and make his usual good Sandton filibuster of the job. However, it was in fact a very well thought out contribution that was well worth listening to. It was certainly very thought provoking. Because the fund deals with clients’ money I completely agree with what the hon. member has said about the utilization of the clients’ money. It is something which very definitely needs looking at as to how it is utilized. Certainly on the old basis the fund has managed to build itself up notwithstanding the disbursement of the amounts needed annually owing to the actions of the black sheep to whom the hon. member referred. It would appear that in the future we are going to build up a considerable amount in the fund. The other side of the coin is that perhaps for a very long time the banks have been having a ball with a lot of money lying there from which they have been drawing interest and which they have been making use of. We are now ushering in a new era where in fact this money is now going to be recirculated and much can be done with it.

While being without the legal background to participate in the technicalities that have been expressed we in these benches shall be supporting this Bill. We certainly look forward to further debate in the field that the hon. member for Sandton has mentioned, namely the use of this much enhanced fidelity fund created by the clients’ money as insurance against the actions of bad attorneys. Therefore we shall be supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members who made a contribution. The hon. member for Sandton excelled himself. I am very grateful that the Bill in fact has only two clauses. Hon. members can just imagine what would have happened if the Bill had had four clauses! Nevertheless, it was a good contribution and I certainly am going to have a critical, although entirely objective, look at the speech. Perhaps the hon. member did lose sight of a few things, though. In the first place he played a part in the amendment, earlier this year, of section 46 of the relevant Act. The fact of the matter remains that all of us displayed the initiative of opening more doors for the attorneys. To do what? In order to make it possible for them to use some of that money which they hold, over and above that which has to be set aside for repayment to clients as a result of the actions of possible black sheep, to contribute more to research for a better legal dispensation in this country, in support of an improved administration of justice in this country and in support of research at our universities. That aspect has not even been utilized yet. Surely the hon. member is aware that an institute can be funded to serve the very objectives he has in mind. The hon. member will therefore forgive me if I tell him that I think he may have overlooked this. Although he made a good speech and I do not wish to detract from it, he should bear this in mind.

Secondly, the hon. member for Newton Park pointed out that the hon. member built an argument around the great influx of funds, by means of which a tremendously large capital fund can be built up, and then asked what one was going to do with it. The hon. member for Newton Park is quite correct. Banks are not compelled to pay interest. It can be stopped at any time. So what are we to do? What should the fund do? Nothing can be done about it. This legislation only brings about legal certainty as to what the fate of the interest which is earned on moneys other than the money in the investment account at a building society, etc., ought to be. That is all that this Bill does. We are not drafting legislation to make it possible to require banks to have to pay interest. Consequently the interest may dry up at any time.

What is more, I consulted the Fidelity Guarantee Fund and asked them what the prospects were. They expect an additional R1,5 million per annum, but in respect of their primary obligation to provide the public with certainty in connection with claims arising as a result of the actions of a few black sheep, this is the situation: For the approaching financial year there is R2,5 million pending, and there are other amounts which have also been registered, which make it appear as though it will amount to far more than the influx for a specific year.

It is being paid out.

No, it is for what we call contingency claims. Those funds have been registered and are earmarked.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not concede that when there are claims of this sort—large claims are submitted from time to time—it is quite possible to insure for that kind of claim, that it is quite possible for any Fund covering claims to have insurance covering all disaster-area claims?

Yes, but, with respect, it is an entirely new argument the hon. member is now advancing. That is a matter that can be looked into. It is possible that they do insure, but I am just replying to his argument that there will be an inflow of funds and that they will not know what to do with these funds. I am responding to that.

*Furthermore the hon. member referred here—I am not going to reply to all his arguments—to attorneys who use their account to benefit themselves, because that is what it amounts to. He said it had come to his attention that there were attorneys who made arrangements to receive benefits from the bank instead of receiving interest. I asked the Fidelity Guarantee Fund in advance to go into this matter for me, and I want to quote from a letter which I recently received from them—

I wish to take this opportunity to express my fullest confidence in the legal profession, the attorneys’ profession. I have every confidence that they will continue to serve the public in the highly responsible way in which they have been doing so up to now. At the same time it is possible that there are individuals who will act in this way, something I should not like to foresee. Those people will have to take cognisance of the fact—I accept the hon. member’s word that he encountered such cases—that such a legal opinion was given to the Fidelity Guarantee Fund.

For the rest I do not find it necessary to go into the speech made by the hon. member any further except to tell him that we are looking into the investment policy of the Fidelity Guarantee Fund in consultation with the Minister of Finance in order to ensure the Fidelity Guarantee Fund of a proper return. This may ultimately constitute other benefits with which we shall deal in the distant or near future. The fact remains, however, that we shall give attention to this matter.

In addition the Fidelity Guarantee Fund is making a very important contribution in that it is supplementing the salaries of professors at our universities. That amount was increased considerably this year, namely to an amount of R5 000 per professor. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank this fund for the tremendous contribution which it is making towards our administration of justice by ensuring that legal training continues to maintain the highest possible level.

I should like to thank the hon. member for King William’s Town and the hon. member for Bloemfontein East for their positive contributions, as also the hon. nominated member Mr. Theunissen. I almost made a slip of the tongue a moment ago by referring to him as the hon. “nominated member for Sandton”, but that was probably a mere lapsus linguae. It has no bearing on the fact that the CP is voting with the PFP so frequently these days.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

We have just dealt with such a noble profession that I am rather hesitant to ask the Secretary to read the next Order of the Day as it deals with prisons! Nevertheless, the Secretary will now read the next Order of the Day.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, I have taken cognizance of the remarks you have just made. Since we are now dealing with the subject of prisons, I want to say that the Directorate of Prisons is a very friendly one and that their doors are open to everyone at all times.

The most important matter for which provision is being made in this Bill, is the establishment of a Prisons Service Reserve Force, as set out in clause 4, read in conjunction with clause 2. The Prisons Service has a real need for the supporting service which a reserve force of this nature is able to render, and if this Bill is passed, it will be possible to include all members of the Prisons Service resigning after 31 December 1982 after the completion of a period of service of four years or longer, in the reserve force. Provision is also being made for the allocation to the S.A. Defence Force for further service of those members of the present service who for some reason or other, for example, resignation prior to the completion of four years’ service, cannot be included in the reserve force of the S.A. Prisons Service. Initially, therefore, they will in fact have a choice as to where they are to serve, but subsequently they will be allocated to the S.A. Defence Force for service.

The members of the Prisons Service Reserve Force will be obliged to serve for 720 days in a cycle of 12 years on the understanding that a reduction of 120 days of the initial period of 720 days will be granted for every year’s service in excess of four years’ permanent service in the S.A. Prisons Service.

Use is also being made of this opportunity to amend a few other provisions concerning the discharge and re-employment of staff.

The Bill also deals with certain aspects concerning prison administration.

Consideration was also given to proposing an amendment concerning the privileges and rights of unsentenced prisoners. After the Bill had been published, representations drawing attention to specific problems, were made to me and to the department. In consequence thereof I requested the department to conduct further investigations into the matter and to report to me. The investigation has not yet been completed, and consequently I shall move during the Committee Stage that the relevant provision, i.e. clause 18, be deleted. As soon as the department’s report is available, I shall again give attention to this matter.

In terms of section 86 of the Act the magistrate has a role to play as far as deaths in prisons are concerned. This provision was evidently framed with due regard being had to the fact that the magistrate used to be the governor of the prison and the provision in section 92 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act of 1911, Act No. 13 of 1911, was retained intact when the present Prisons Act was passed in 1959. The head of the prison has taken over the position of the magistrate. Therefore, the present position is that the magistrate is not directly involved in the administration of prisons, in consequence of which he is not, in practice, asked to play any role in the matter of deaths in prisons. Therefore this amendment seeks to bring the section into line with what happens in practice.

†In terms of section 44(1) of the present Act an intruder can at the outset only be ordered to leave a prison reserve or other area mentioned in this section. In practice, and especially in the case of the one nautical mile zone off Robben Island, it frequently happens that trespassers are ordered to leave, only to return again a short while later. This defect is now sought to be removed by clause 10. Its main objective is to enable the authorities to act forthwith in the case of a mala fide offender. Bona fide visitors to a prison will naturally not be affected by this amendment. The remaining amendments contemplated by the Bill do not warrant elucidation at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was first tabled, we on this side of the House, had grave reservations about clauses 18 and 19 of the Bill. The hon. the Minister has indicated that clause 18 will be withdrawn and I understand that there will be an amendment to clause 19 which will deal with the reservations which we had on this side about the existing clause 19 as it stands in the Bill. The hon. the Minister has dealt with the motivation behind the amendments contained in this Bill. We are happy to support the Bill as it stands, that is without clause 18. I do not intend to repeat any aspects which have already been raised by the hon. the Minister. We will accordingly vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support given by the hon. member for Durban Central to this Bill. Two reasons render the establishment of the Prisons Service Reserve Force absolutely essential. Firstly, it concerns the utilization of expensive trained manpower which, in these times of manpower shortages, may simply not be allowed to go to waste. That is why members leaving the service prior to their retirement age retain their rank in the Reserve Force and serve in the Reserve Force in the same capacity in which they served before and of which they have experience. Secondly, parity is being established in respect of the obligations of its members who left the service of the various service departments prior to their retirement age. This will have the effect that all able-bodied men up to the age of 55 will be subject to active service, irrespective of whether they were members of the Permanent Force. Citizen Force. Commandos, the South African Police, the South African Railways Police, the South African Prisons Service or the reserve forces of these services.

In clause 1 the definition of “prisoner” is being extended to include a mentally ill prisoner detained on expiry of his sentence or detained under a judge’s order. This is being done so as to afford to these people as well the protection afforded to a prisoner with regard to the taking of photographs, etc. A further provision is being inserted in terms of which a criminal sanction is being accorded to the offence of trespassing. The law as it stands at this stage merely contains a prohibition in this regard, without any criminal sanction being attached to it too. The effect of this will be that persons finding themselves within one sea mile from Robben Island will not only be guilty but also punishable in terms of the penalty being inserted by this legislation.

The previous authority which existed for females awaiting trial to be released under a bail bond is also being abolished. This measure was inserted in the past because of a lack of facilities for females awaiting trial. However, these facilities have been improved to such an extent that this measure is no longer required. Consequently the abolition of this measure furnishes strong proof of a major improvement having been effected with regard to facilities offered to female prisoners. I gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, all the clauses of the Bill before us seek to effect important changes, adjustments, deletions and substitutions to the existing Act. In my opinion, however, the most important clause which ought to receive most attention is in fact clause 4, in terms of which a new Reserve Force is being established for the Prisons Service. When one looks at the Prisons Service establishment the picture is more or less as follows: The staff of the Prisons Service consists of officers, non-commissioned officers, warders and staff performing specialized services. At the moment the service consists of a grand total of approximately 17 000 people. If we take cognizance of the fact that there were approximately 105 000 prisoners in custody at the end of May of this year, that during the period 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982 the grand total of prisoners was approximately 500 000, that there are approximately 19 prison farms falling under the care, management and administration of the Prisons Service, we have to admit that the amount of R233 million budgeted for this department in the financial year 1983-’84 for the performance of all the services to which I have referred is, in actual fact, rather small.

The Prisons Service also performs a very important task by maintaining law and order because of the detention of the large number of prisoners to whom I have already referred. The above mentioned numbers, both as regards the staff of the Prisons Service and the prisoners in custody, as well as the prison farms, etc., which have to be managed, give us a good idea of the extent of the task of and the service being rendered to South Africa by the members of the Prisons Service. If one wants to make a few simple calculations, on finds that the present position is that the ratio of members of the service of prisoners is 1:7. In my opinion, this is not a very sound state of affairs. I think the ratio ought to be smaller. This means that more posts will have to be created to narrow this gap, and the creation of more posts simply means that more money must be available to do so.

The staff performing this major and important task are people who constantly have to work overtime. It is generally known that the officials of this service are not people who are clock-watchers. They are people who are performing a major and important task for our country.

At this stage, Sir, I should like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity you have afforded me to make the following statement: On various occasions the Government has expressed serious concern at the relatively high rate of inflation. The Government is deeply conscious of the crippling effect of inflation on the economy in general and particularly of the erosion of the purchasing power of the pensioner, the wage-earner and others. Indeed, it directly affects the welfare of every inhabitant of our country and results in our being less competitive on overseas markets. Since inflation is clearly one of the most important problems which pose a threat to the growth and stability of our economy, the Government accords the highest priority to the combating of this evil.

One of the most significant factors in the inflationary process during the last decade has been the high and ever increasing transport costs, which to a large extent are influenced by the price of fuel. At the time of the oil crises of 1973 and 1979 the price of fuel soared. Because of the international vendetta being conducted against South Africa we found ourselves in the position where the mere acquisition of crude oil constituted a serious problem. Here I want to mention that at times, for example towards the end of 1979, South Africa had no more than a few days’ commercial supply of crude oil. Ministers, officials and others concerned, displayed unequaled resourcefulness, courage, tenacity and dedication in averting the crisis.

Through level-headed planning and judicious steps the Government succeeded, in December 1982, in preventing a substantial price increase which at that time would have been fully justified. In February of this year it was possible to pass on to the consumer a reduction of 1,6 cents per litre in the price of petrol.

Therefore it now gives me great pleasure to be able to announce that by the beginning of September 1983 it will be possible to reduce fuel prices drastically …

The referendum is at hand.

The reduction is as follows:

1. 1. Petrol:
   93 and 87 Octane—by at least 4,0 cents per litre
   98 Octane—3,4 cents per litre

This is even better than rain!

I continue:

1. 2. Diesel:
   1. (a) Direct sales to non-roadusers such as agricultural, forestry, fisheries and industrial consumers—4,4 cents per litre
   2. (b) Retail—3,3 cents per litre
   3. (c) Wholesale to roadusers—3,1 cents per litre
2. 3. Power-paraffin and jetfuel—3,0 cents per litre
3. 4. Paraffin—retail—more than 5,0 cents per litre

†The following practical examples illustrate the direct benefits of these price reductions:

1. (a) If 1982 is used as a basis, the reduction of 4,4 cents per litre in the price of diesel would have brought about a saving of more than R50 million for the agricultural sector in the RSA.
2. (b) In the mining sector, particularly the open-cast mines, a saving of approximately R12 million per year is envisaged.
3. (c) The cost of food distribution will also be favourably influenced since it is estimated for example that fuel costs account for 42% of the total delivery costs of bread and 15% in the case of milk.

According to the latest information at my disposal South African petrol is now amongst the cheapest in the world. The coastal price of 54,3 cents per litre in South Africa, at current exchange rates, compares with a number of other countries as follows—

• United Kingdom—66,3 cents per litre
• Italy—83,9 cents per litre
• Germany—62,3 cents per litre
• France—68,7 cents per litre

In relation to our neighbouring countries in Southern Africa it compares as follows—

• Zimbabwe—75,1 cents per litre
• Mozambique—82,3 cents per litre
• Zambia—83,6 cents per litre

I want to make a friendly yet earnest appeal to the private sector to put this significant price reduction into operation in such a way that every consumer receives his legitimate benefit.

*In conclusion I also want to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my colleague, the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, his predecessors and officials of his department and other departments and all the people involved in the acquisition of our fuel, for their untiring diligence and sustained efforts to achieve these price reductions. The co-operation and support of the oil companies as well as the organized filling-station industry are also highly appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I should just like to state the view of the Official Opposition, and that is that we welcome the announcement made by the hon. the Prime Minister. At some later stage, however, after we have made an in-depth study of the statement, we shall react in more detail. On behalf of my party I want to join the hon. the Prime Minister in expressing the hope that the ordinary consumer, who is most affected by inflation, will be the first to benefit from these reductions.

Mr. Speaker, I gladly associate myself with the appreciation for this concession that has been expressed. There are, of course, various sectors in our country which will particularly welcome this concession. In this regard I have in mind the farming community in particular. We are very grateful for this concession.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the words that have been spoken. I particularly want to emphasize the importance of the passing on of this benefit to the consumer. I would like to take it further than the appeal of the hon. the Prime Minister and ask him to seriously consider that the Government should take active steps to ensure that that happens if it is not done voluntarily.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.