Mr Chairman, we have now reached the Committee Stage of this Bill, and we in the PFP still consider it a great pity that not much can be done to eliminate the fundamental objection we have to this Bill. What I actually mean is that there is very little leeway for us to make provision by way of amendments to the separate clauses for eliminating the problem we have with this Bill. Our problem is that Black citizens of the national states which previously formed part of the Republic of South Africa will now in the normal course of events be regarded as aliens. During the Second Reading debate our fears with regard to this matter were in fact confirmed. It surprised me to discover how many hon members on the Government side revealed in their speeches how totally unaware they were of this situation. What they did perhaps reveal was a misconception of the possibilities being created by this legislation. We believe it can be used inter alia in actions taken against such Black former citizens of South Africa. In this connection I am thinking for example of the hon member for Innesdal, who stated in all sincerity that if this legislation were to be used against Black people, as we alleged would be the case, it would cause him quite a number of problems. I am afraid the hon member is now saddled with those problems. I just hope that at some or other stage he will indicate that he is aware of the problems he is experiencing. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Schutte alleged that all possible actions taken against Black people in terms of this legislation could only take place with the consent of the Black States of which the relevant people were citizens. As the hon member for Houghton rightly pointed out, this was certainly not the case when people were deported in terms of legislation pertaining to aliens, and there was a great deal of ill-feeling between the Transkei and the Republic of South Africa when those things took place. We are therefore very sorry that hon members on the Government side did not take cognizance of this problem to the extent we felt was necessary.

I should like to compliment the hon the Deputy Minister on his absolute candidness in connection with the potential for this Bill to in fact be used against Black people. He intimated that that was not the intention. We accept this assurance, but it is nevertheless true that the hon the Deputy Minister was quite candid in admitting that it was possible to use this legislation against that group of Black people. I want to emphasize that I am convinced that hon members on the Government side know that at some or other stage, if progress is made in the entire system of a constellation of states—and of course also bearing in mind that at some or other stage a sort of overall citizenship could come into existence—the Government will not be able to avoid reconsidering legislation of this kind and perhaps even introducing special measures in it, which hon members on this side of the House would like to see included here.

Before I go any further, Mr Chairman, I first want to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows:

1. 1. On page 5, from line 19, to omit “in the opinion of the Director-General: Internal Affairs”.

The effect of this amendment will be that whereas we would be satisfied in the knowledge that this practice is being laid down in legislation, the practice nevertheless already exists that a deposit is required from an alien, and that he may forfeit that deposit if he does not adhere to the conditions attaching to it. Although we accept that principle, I still feel rather uneasy about the opinion of the Director-General of Internal Affairs, which is laid down as a prerequisite in the legislation under discussion.

I shall explain why I feel uneasy about this. As the Bill is worded at present, this would mean that if the Director-General, or an official authorized thereto by him, were to decide that an alien had to forfeit his deposit owing to his non-compliance with the conditions, this would virtually be the final say in the matter. If the relevant alien were to feel aggrieved and were to apply to the Supreme Court to settle the case, this could only be done by way of review and not by way of appeal. The court would therefore not have the power to enquire into the actual merits of the case, whereas, if my amendment were to be accepted, the Director-General would in any event still have the authority to do exactly what was desired of him. However, his actions in this connection would not then take place by virtue of an indisputable discretionary power. If an alien were to feel aggrieved because his deposit had been forfeited, he could then apply to the Supreme Court, which could determine whether the Director-General’s actions were bona fide, and of course whether his actions were in fact correct, tested against the merits of the case. For that reason I want to recommend this amendment most strongly to the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House cannot accept the amendment of the hon member for Green Point. The objective contained in clause 1 is in essence that a deposit may be required of a person on his entry in order to ensure his compliance with the conditions indicated in his permit. If we were to accept the amendment of the hon member for Green Point, this would mean that the discretion of the Director-General would no longer exist, and that the relevant alien would in fact forfeit his deposit. This is the main reason why we cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

As the first speaker on the Government side it is perhaps fitting for me to say a few words about the style of debating on this legislation during the Committee Stage before we continue with the discussion of the specific amendments which hon members of the official Opposition are expected to move.

The hon member for Green Point has again stated that a few of us on this side of the House are, according to him, out of step with the standpoint adopted by the hon the Deputy Minister. This is certainly not the case. All of us are whole-heartedly in agreement with the Second Reading remarks made by the hon the Deputy Minister in this connection. In the second place all hon members on this side of the House agree with the reply the hon the Deputy Minister gave to the Second Reading debate, namely that this legislation is not intended to apply to and to be used against citizens of the so-called TBVC countries. However, the hon the Deputy Minister was quite right when he said that legally and factually this legislation could be used in that way.

I have certain problems with the logic of the hon member Prof Olivier in his reasoning on his arguments. Yesterday the hon member Prof Olivier argued that this legislation was actually a result of the implementation of the Riekert report. If they want to go according to their own political logic, the hon members of the PFP should have absolutely no objection to legislation of this kind. Their own reasoning of an integrationistic single State Department fits exactly into the framework of this legislation. I cannot therefore understand why they are arguing against it. They should actually have thanked us for it.

In the second place they should also have thanked us for the fact that this legislation is colour-blind, as the hon the Deputy Minister indicated. The hon members of the PFP should therefore have said, thank you very much for this legislation, which is colour-blind.

However, it now seems to me as if the realities of South Africa to which they have linked their arguments, are also causing the PFP problems. Their problem with regard to this legislation is that they realize—and the hon Prof Olivier spelt this out—that the economic realities of South Africa are such that in a certain sense one has to treat the Black people of the TBVC countries differently to other Black people. In their own reasoning they have therefore drawn a distinction which we have also made provision for, not only in this legislation but also in our agreements with the TBVC countries.

We shall still come to many amendments in connection with this legislation which will have a bearing on the matter I am now trying to debate, and we shall be able to take this matter further. At this stage I just want to make one or two statements which are extremely opposite.

If the hon member Prof Olivier argues that this legislation is intended to apply specifically to people from the TBVC countries I want to say in the first place that this is not in the spirit of our agreements with the TBVC countries there is a 14-day period of Olivier knows, in the agreements with the TBVC countries there is a 14 day period of grace during which people need not obtain permits. This is but one example of the differentiation. In the second place there are many other laws in terms of which people from the TBVC countries can be dealt with, and the application of those laws is incorporated in the agreements. In the third place there is something I want to grant the hon member Prof Olivier. I think his speech offers very interesting and stimulating reading to people interested in the subject. It concerns the relationship between our country and the TBVC countries. Let us admit frankly to each other that whereas it is not our intention to apply the legislation to those people—to apply it exclusively for the purpose of dealing with those people—yet, as far as we are concerned, there is a special approach to our relationships with the TBVC countries. As is embodied in those agreements there is a special attitude on our part which in the first place led to their being told when they became independent that not one of those people would lose any existing privileges which they enjoyed in terms of existing laws. This will remain unchanged, even after this legislation has been passed. We have not renounced those aspects of our agreements with the TBVC countries.

In the second place, the argument of the hon members of the PFP regarding the economic realities brings into sharp prominence our attitude towards those people in allowing them to come into their own. Seen against the background of the economic realities of South Africa we know that at this very minute, many of these people are probably being illegally employed in many parts of the country, owing to economic realities which have simply drawn them into the economy. We have so much understanding for this that we obviously cannot be intending—there is other legislation on which a select committee will give its decision in the near future—to take action against all these people the day after tomorrow, after this Bill has been passed.

In conclusion I want to tell the hon member Prof Olivier that as for the economic realities, about which he is justifiably concerned and which he associated with the provisions of the legislation, we are not only being level-headed as far as the application of our laws is concerned, we are not only being level-headed, as is apparent from our relations with these people, but we have also introduced positive measures, starting with the Carlton and Good Hope conferences and the very practical assistance to those people to make it unnecessary to apply such legislation.

The problem of the hon members of the PFP as regards the legislation is the fact that they have totally rejected the citizenship concept in its political sense as embodied in the status acts of the independent states. I do not think that this debate is relevant to this legislation which is primarily concerned with dealing with aliens. I believe that during the Third Reading of this Bill there will be a further opportunity to emphasize these matters again. I maintain that we on this side of the House find it regrettable that the PFP have held up this legislation as an instrument which we shall undoubtedly use to discriminate against and take steps against people from the TBVC countries.

With these few words I should like to repeat that we cannot support the amendment of the hon member for Green Point.

Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon member for Green Point that there is no confusion on this side. I think the hon members on this side who participated in the Second Reading debate stated the matter very clearly and tried to convince the hon members of the Opposition of the fact that the legislation refers to illegal aliens and is not going to be used against citizens of the TBVC countries as such. I want to point out that we have data on the number of people entering the country. The legislation also provides that every alien entering the country has to be in possession of a temporary permit. We have many aliens in the country who do not renew their temporary residence permits every year. In 1980 there were 3 096 such aliens; in the first six months of 1981, 1 410; in the period from 1 July 1981 to 30 June 1982, 3 923; from 1 July 1982 to 30 June 1983, 3 526; and from 1 July to 31 December 1983, 2 075. If one adds up these figures there were approximately 13 000 aliens during the period from 1980 to 31 December of last year. These are not citizens of the TBVC countries. This emphasizes and confirms what we are actually dealing with.

I want to point out that in 1978 an appeal was made to aliens illegally present in this country to come forward so that their residence could be legalized. During that period of condonation, which lasted from 13 February 1978 to 1 May 1978, 1 130 individuals came forward.

When one looks at this legislation—I want to make this quite clear—one should therefore not only think of Black people. That is where the official Opposition is making a big mistake. They should consider the numbers I have mentioned, and these do not refer to Black people.

The object in levying the deposit is to ensure that an alien will comply with the conditions in his temporary permit. This is a step we are taking to eliminate these numbers I have mentioned, by ensuring that aliens comply with the conditions of their temporary permits.

As far as I am concerned, the hon member’s amendment amounts to the fact that non-compliance with the conditions will automatically lead to the forfeiture of the deposit, because the hon member has asked that the words “in the opinion of the Director-General: Internal Affairs”, be omitted from paragraph (c). If this were to be done there would be no one able to deal with such a case and judge it on its merits. In any case, that is how I interpret the hon member’s amendment. If an alien does not comply with the conditions of his permit, and the hon member’s amendment is accepted, that permit will automatically expire and the deposit will be forfeited. But cases do arise where aliens fail to comply with the conditions without any male fide on their part. For that reason I think it is important for the Director-General to be able to consider each case on its merits. Of course an alien may still have recourse to a court, but I believe that there should nevertheless be a specific official who must be able to decide whether or not the alien should forfeit his deposit. As far as I am concerned the proper official is the Director-General.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to my amendment again. With all due respect, I think that the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Innesdal have interpreted my amendment far more widely than its actual meaning warrants. Allow me to read paragraph (c) of the proposed subsection 1(A). It reads, inter alia, as follows:

And now comes the important part:

The words “the Director-General may order that the amount … be forfeited” will remain. Consequently there is no uncertainty as to who will have the right to make that decision. I am asking that the words “in the opinion of the Director-General: Internal Affairs” be omitted, with the simple aim of making it possible to test such a case in a court of law according to the merits of the case and according to the normal guidelines which apply when reviewing such a case; in other words, whether the relevant person acted bona fide and really gave attention to all the surrounding circumstances.

As I have already said, the authority of the Director-General to order that a deposit be forfeited or not remains in the legislation. In a court case which may result from such circumstances, the authority of the Director-General in this connection cannot therefore be doubted. What can be done is to ascertain whether the Director-General evaluated the non-compliance with the conditions of the permit correctly. I want to give a court this right so that it can decide whether or not those conditions were complied with. This is all I am contemplating, and I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to get legal advice on this aspect. I am reasonably convinced that my interpretation is correct. The effectiveness of this provision would not be undermined if my amendment were accepted. All my amendment envisages is to make this more amenable to being tested in a court of law, in a more meaningful way, should a dispute arise in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I understand the logic of the hon member for Green Point, but in terms of practicality I do not think it is a proposition. Surely this is the sort of administrative job done by the Public Service. This is why I felt right from the word go that somebody has to make a decision and that the Director-General or the person to whom he delegates his authority, is the logical person to do this. If one were to attempt to take all these administrative jobs through the courts, the courts would be tied up ad nauseam.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take advantage of the little latitude you allow the first speaker on each side to make a few comments in respect of the Bill overall. I was rather shocked to hear the hon member for Stilfontein make the comment that in so far as the independent homelands are concerned, they chose independence and that therefore they must expect the result. Whilst he is obviously correct in terms of strict legality, and if this Bill is used to preclude these people from coming into the country, and some doubts have been expressed as to whether that is the intention or not, as I indicated before, this could have a very deleterious effect on those homeland states which we, let us put it bluntly, created. I think it is rather a harsh sort of statement to have made. I am sorry that the hon member is not here at the moment.

As far as the hon the Deputy Minister’s remarks are concerned in respect of the appointment of messengers of the court and other people, he made what I consider to be rather an amusing statement to the effect that they have no intention of conferring powers upon people incapable of exercising those powers. I find that rather amusing, because you can confer powers on people who can exercise those powers, but will they exercise them with intelligence and sensitivity? That is the point I was trying to make. Whether people can exercise those powers or not is not really the point. It is how they exercise those powers. It rather perturbed me that that was the situation. In respect of employers the hon the Deputy Minister made the assertion that I must agree that employers do perforce have a function to perform. I do not agree.

As far as the amendment is concerned, I regret that I cannot support it.

Mr Chairman, I must say that I agree with the hon member for Umbilo as far as the amendment of the hon member for Green Point is concerned. Even if the amendment were to be accepted, in practice things would still work out the same as they would if the clause retained its present wording. I maintain that the amendment has a flaw, because someone has to decide whether the conditions have been contravened and whether the deposit has to be forfeited. If this right to decide is taken away from the Director-General, as the hon member for Green Point has proposed, the Director-General will nevertheless still have to take that decision. I maintain that that decision would only be subject to right of review and not right of appeal. The procedure will therefore be exactly the same as is envisaged in the clause.

I just want to emphasize that this discretion is not a free discretion because it is still subject to the right of review of the courts.

Mr Speaker, I should like to support the amendment of the hon member for Green Point. I know that I shall not be allowed to react to the remarks of the hon member for Innesdal at this stage. Hopefully I shall have an opportunity to do so during Third Reading.

I just want to put one matter straight. I did not say that this Bill was drafted to apply to citizens of the TBVC countries, but that the possibility existed that it could be applied to them. As a matter of fact, looking at the recommendations of the Riekert Commission, this would seem to be probable. However, I shall return to these general points at a later stage.

The basic aspect the hon member for Green Point is concerned with is the authority given to the Director-General in the amendment to decide whether there has been any contravention of the restrictions or conditions imposed by him or an official on an alien. It is clear that in this case—considering all the implications—this authority should not in the first place be vested in an individual who has a direct interest in the matter. There are provisions in clause 5 which stipulate that if the provisions of the legislation are contravened, the person concerned can be declared a prohibited immigrant. Our basic point of departure, in respect of contraventions of this nature which have such tremendous punitive consequences, is that it would be better to leave the discretion in the hands of the courts in the first place and not in the final instance by way of power of review, as the hon member Mr Schutte put it.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member a question. If the words “in the opinion of the Director-General: Internal Affairs” were to be omitted and were to be replaced by “Minister”—because someone has to take the decision, after all—the argument of the hon member Mr Schutte would still be valid, because no matter who takes the decision, it is subject to a right of review by the courts. I therefore hope that the words “in the opinion of the Director-General”—in other words, the judgement of an official of a Government department—are not causing problems for the hon member Prof Olivier, because I personally believe that he is not a person who has difficulties with the exercising of discretion by our officials. If the words were to be omitted, who would give a decision

Mr Chairman, the reply is fairly simple. Who usually decides whether or not there has been a contravention of a legal provision? I am not casting any reflections on the discretion exercised by officials. However, when there is a contravention with punitive consequences, it is primarily up to the courts to reach a decision.

Mr Chairman, I find myself in a difficult position because I have to choose between the views of two advocates. I am, for all that, prepared to choose the view of the advocate on my side of the House. I agree with what the hon member Mr Schutte said. There has to be someone to decide whether or not an alien has complied with certain conditions.

I agree with the hon member for Umbilo where he said that somebody should make a decision.

It is now provided that it will be the Director-General: Internal Affairs. He will therefore be the person who has to take that decision in the first place. For this reason I cannot accept the amendment of the hon member for Green Point.

Mr Chairman, I am going to try yet again to explain the matter to hon members, because I think there is a major misunderstanding regarding the entire matter. One can divide the relevant clause into two sections. In the first place it concerns the question of whether a specific set of circumstances exists. If an alien did not comply with the conditions in his permit—this is the one possibility—the Director-General may order that he forfeit his deposit. As far as the second section is concerned, there is no dispute. It is still specifically detailed in this Bill—even if my amendment were to be accepted—that the Director-General may order that the amount deposited with the passport control officer be forfeited to the State. Hence there is no change. The Director-General may order this. So there is no suggestion in my amendment of his ability to act in accordance with this provision being restricted.

What we are trying to restrict is the Director-General having the unrestricted power to decide whether or not the relevant alien has complied with the provisions. This is the only matter with which this amendment is concerned. We do not want to create a situation here in which the Director General’s opinion, as to whether or not a person has complied with the conditions under specific circumstances, is absolutely final. As the clause reads at present, it is absolutely final. No court can enquire into the merits of that decision. We should like the court to have the opportunity, if an alien feels aggrieved, not only to exercise its review function but also to enquire into the merits of the case and determine whether the relevant person did not, in fact, comply with the conditions contained on his permit. Then the matter is quite simple. If the Bill is accepted in its present form, a court will only have a power of review. However, if my amendment is accepted, the court will have both a power of review and a power of appeal. That is quite simply what I am trying to achieve. I want to ask, in all earnestness, that the hon the Deputy Minister view my amendment against that background.

Mr Chairman, I want to draw the circle even tighter now. I still have two advocates whose opinions I have to choose from. They are both Van der Merwes. On the one side there is the hon member for Green Point and on the other the Director-General. We have gone into this matter very thoroughly and I do not believe that the argument of the hon member for Green Point is completely watertight. I am therefore prepared to take the advice of the Van der Merwe on my side.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr Chairman, several amendments to clause 3 are printed on the Order Paper in my name. At this stage I basically want to say, with regard to all these amendments, that they are actually concerned with the tremendous problems with which people will be faced if they have to comply with the requirements laid down by the amendments contained in this Bill. Clause 3 provides that no person shall:

This provision is obviously so wide that it would be quite impossible to enforce it. If I am a haulier, for example, and someone asks me over the telephone to deliver a load of bricks or sand or to deliver products to his café, and I am not aware of the fact that he is an alien and I do so in good faith, I shall be committing an offence in terms of this provision. In terms of these provisions, I am not allowed to assist an alien in any way. How can the man in the street be expected, when he is asked to render a service to someone in the course of his occupation, first to ascertain whether such a person is not perhaps an alien? Surely our economy and social order cannot function on this basis. It is quite impossible. This imposes an obligation on every person first to ascertain whether the person who approaches him to render a service is an alien or not.

The same applies in respect of my second amendment, which proposes the omission of paragraph (d), which reads as follows:

How on earth can our economy, our whole society, function when there is such an obligation resting on every person? The only things that are excluded are board and lodging provided by a hotelier, for example, who does so for remuneration. These are the only things that are excluded in terms of this provision. In other words, all other activities are included. For example, if I were to allow a person to sleep on my premises, it could be said that I was committing an offence in terms of this clause.

At this stage I wish to move my amendments as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 7, in line 9, to omit all the words after “alien” to the end of the paragraph.
2. 2. On page 7, from line 16, to omit paragraph (d).
3. 3. On page 7, in line 38, to omit all the words after “part” to the end of the paragraph.
4. 4. On page 7, from line 47, to omit paragraph (f).

My basic problem is that the provisions in the Bill are far too wide and that they are impracticable.

I have yet a further amendment—which does not appear on the Order Paper—which I shall move presently. This amendment reads as follows:

1. 5. On page 7, after line 51, to insert:
   • (g) by the substitution for subsection (8) of the following subsection:
     1. “(8) The provisions of this section shall apply only in respect of an alien who is in the Union and who is not a Black who is a citizen of a state the territory or part of the territory of which formerly formed part of the Union.”.

The hon the Deputy Minister, the hon member for Innesdal, as well as other hon members have pointed out that it is not the intention to apply these provisions to citizens of the TBVC countries. They have said that the admission of such persons is regulated by existing agreements and that this legislation is actually secondary to the agreements that have already been entered into. Thirdly, it has been said that it is customary to distinguish in our legislation between aliens—in the ordinary sense of the word, Blacks— from Lesotho or Zimbabwe, for example, and those from the TBVC countries. In section 12 of the Urban Areas Act, for example, a distinction is drawn between Blacks who are aliens in the ordinary sense of the word and Blacks who are citizens of the TBVC countries.

Looking at all these matters together, what do we wish to achieve? What are our fundamental objections and fears based on? It is the possibility that this measure could be used—as it was in fact used in 1981— against citizens of the TBVC countries. What I want to achieve is a situation where admission to the Republic will be regulated by the existing agreements between the Republic and the TBVC countries, but the residence and employment of Black citizens from the TBVC countries should be regulated by the ordinary legislation which is applicable in South Africa. This is the only way in which we can achieve this. In other words, admission to the Republic can be regulated by means of the immigration laws within the framework of the agreements, but the residence and employment of Black citizens from the TBVC countries should be subject to the ordinary legislation which is applicable in South Africa. We can only achieve this by means of the further amendment which I now wish to move, namely:

1. 5. On page 7, after line 51, to insert:
   • (g) by the substitution for subsection (8) of the following subsection:
     1. “(8) The provisions of this section shall apply only in respect of an alien who is in the Union and who is not a Black who is a citizen of a state the territory or part of the territory of which formerly formed part of the Union.”.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has moved certain amendments and said that the provisions of the clause are far too wide and that we shall actually be creating an absurd situation with the implementation of these provisions, where we want to place the onus on people who grant residential rights, for example. He said that we were placing a wide onus on people if they wanted to give residential rights to an alien. Flats and hotels are not included under these provisions. In the second place, he says that the provisions are far too wide because they place the onus on employers not to employ an illegal man as a professional assistant, for example. I should like to tell the hon member that this is not the intention, nor do I believe that he can interpret this clause so widely. It is obviously not the intention maliciously to place an onus on a person who employs an illegal man. Nor is it the intention of the clause maliciously to place an onus on a person who gives such a man residential rights, because that would create an absurd situation. After all, there is a general legal principle— the hon member Mr Schutte must please correct me, and I believe that the hon member Prof Olivier, who used to be a lecturer in Native administration, is also aware of the principle—ie the principle of mens rea, which means that there must be malicious intent. If I give anyone a residential right or the right to own property, and it is done without malicious intent, it is obviously completely different from the case of a man who employs an illegal alien while knowing that that person’s presence in this country is illegal. So the arguments advanced by the hon member and the amendments he has moved as a result of his interpretation of the clause, which is too wide, do not hold water at all in terms of general legal principles, because such an interpretation would impute absurd intentions to the legislator.

The hon member Prof Olivier proposed that a provision should be included which would expressly exclude Blacks from the TBVC countries. I want to repeat that the hon member may suspect that it is the intention to use this clause to prevent Blacks from the TBVC countries from obtaining residential rights and rights of employment in the Republic, but I want to refer again to the agreements with these states, because these are definitely applicable here. In fact, I want to refer to the speech made by the hon member Prof Olivier in the Second Reading debate, where he himself argued that the courts did not even have a testing right with regard to the question of the interpretation of citizenship. He also argued that there were other legal measures which were applicable in respect of the residence of Blacks. I submit that the hon member was actually arguing against his own amendment in his Second Reading speech, because he said at that stage that there were agreements with these people in terms of which their residence was regulated.

There are a number of aspects that are important to the Government. In the first place, good order is important, and that is why we can never allow people to settle in a disorderly manner. There is a Bill before a select committee of Parliament at the moment which seeks to regulate the orderly movement of people and which deals with residential rights, and the hon member Prof Olivier and his party are going to have the opportunity of stating their standpoint on that committee. The fact that the Government has referred such a measure to a select committee demonstrates that it is not our intention to try to regulate the right of residence and the place of work of Black people from the TBVC countries in terms of this provision, as the hon member Prof Olivier alleges. Therefore I believe that the hon member Prof Olivier has not taken into consideration the intention of this measure in his amendment. I also believe that he does not take account in his amendment of his own argument during the Second Reading debate, namely that there is other legislation in terms of which these matters can be dealt with. For this reason, I believe, we definitely cannot accept that fifth amendment of his. I can hardly believe that he is in earnest with that amendment, because the implication of his argument is that we should not stir up any more feelings with regard to this matter. It is a matter which is open to exploitation, of course.

What we say in this House is certainly of significance. Everything we say in this House is certainly of significance to the people outside. I should like to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that feelings are, in fact, being stirred up to a considerable extent by things that are being said in this House, and with regard to this very matter. It would be wrong of us, therefore, to accept the amendment he has moved. If we accept his fifth amendment, the inescapable implication will be that we believe that the PFP was correct in its whole approach, namely that this legislation will in fact be used to control the Blacks from the TBVC countries. However, this is not the case. We have said so repeatedly, and I have nothing to add to that.

Mr Chairman, as we indicated earlier we support the general principle of this Bill, and that general principle is indeed embodied in this very clause. We would therefore not be able to support the first four amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier because they override the principle which is embodied in this Bill; in other words, greater security in respect of aliens in South Africa.

I must say, however, that I do have a certain degree of sympathy with the fifth amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier, because we have both—other hon members have also done so—expressed doubts in connection with the question of whether this amending measure can be used against the citizens of the independent states which previously used to be part of the Republic of South Africa. I am not quite sure that I understand the reason for the alleged discrimination between Black and White in terms of this Bill. The discrimination is clearly there in that the Blacks are afforded protection while the Whites living in the independent states do not get the same protection. I am not quite sure why that should be so.

They do not need that protection.

Well, I am not sure about that.

They do not need it because they retain their South African citizenship. That is why.

Be that as it may, I believe that if it is practical to introduce some stipulation in order to ensure that this clause will not be used for an ulterior motive, I personally would be happier. I have only just received a copy of the fifth amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier, and I have not yet had the opportunity of establishing whether it will indeed be acceptable. I cannot support the first four amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier, but as I have already intimated, I do have some degree of sympathy with his fifth amendment.

Mr Chairman, we in the CP are also unable to support the amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier. However, we have already indicated our problem to the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs in a previous debate. This is also the problem experienced by the hon member Prof Olivier to a certain extent. It concerns the question of how one will be able to prove these alleged offences. This is a problem to which the hon the Deputy Minister will really have to give attention, especially in the light of what the hon member for Innesdal has just said. It is true that there must obviously be mens rea. One must be able to prove that the accused accommodated or employed the alien concerned while knowing that he was an alien. Of course, the problem lies in the way in which one is going to determine whether the person concerned is an alien.

As I see it, it would be difficult to convict a person of an offence in terms of this provision when he has requested the alien in good faith over the telephone to deliver a load of bricks to his house, for example. I cannot imagine how such a person could be convicted in terms of this legislation under such circumstances. This is a problem which I believe the hon the Deputy Minister and his department will have to investigate.

According to the CP’s interpretation of this clause and this Bill, and according to what the hon the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, this Bill is applicable to all persons, irrespective of whether they come from Israel or from the TBVC countries. There is no doubt about this, and I think the hon member for Innesdal is simply obscuring the matter. The point is that it applies to everyone. However, agreements have been entered into with these countries which ameliorate this kind of matter. We fully agree that the Act should remain as it is and that it should not be amended as far as these matters are concerned.

Mr Chairman, I should prefer not to argue with the hon member Prof Olivier about his fifth amendment, because I have not yet seen it. However, I want to take issue with him with regard to his objection that the definition is very wide. I want to argue that all the citizens of this country have a duty to help combat illegal conduct. That is why we are imposing this duty on the citizens of this country, because the department cannot deal with these matters single-handedly.

I support the amendment with regard to means rea, in the sense that an alien who wishes to acquire property in South Africa, for example, will act through an agent. The person who will get into trouble under these circumstances will be the seller of the property, while he was unaware of the facts and did not have any ulterior motives. However, the result could be that such “legal conduct” could actually have the effect of legalizing another illegal act. If the amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier is accepted, it is possible that a person could acquire a quasi-legality. He could acquire this quasi-legality in various ways, and then he could eventually qualify for compassionate treatment. The department would then find it difficult to deport such a person.

I am unable, therefore, to agree with the first four amendments to this clause moved by the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to react to the fifth amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier. The hon member for Umbilo mentioned the possibility of discrimination, in the sense that White aliens are not being afforded any protection here. The reason for this is very simply, ie that there are no Whites whose citizenship is affected in any way by the independence of the homelands. In their case, there is an individual choice in so far as that citizenship is affected at all by the process of attaining independence. So the reason why we are trying to incorporate a measure into this Bill which refers to a Black alien who was formerly a citizen of South Africa is simply that they are the only persons who have been deprived of their citizenship by the relevant legislation.

The second point that was raised which I also wish to comment on was raised by the hon member for Brakpan with reference to the agreements, when he said that to some extent, those agreements would ameliorate the effect of this legislation. Generally speaking, this is correct, of course, but specifically with regard to clause 3 it has no effect, of course. In my opinion, this provides additional justification for accepting an amendment in this connection along the lines of the amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier. This clause deals with persons who enter into some kind of transaction with an alien. It does not deal with the alien himself. So the agreement entered into between the Republic of South Africa and the homeland Republics will have very little if any effect on this kind of situation.

I should like to make the point that if the hon the Deputy Minister and the Government as a whole are quite sincere in their intentions and quite convinced that the legislation will not be used against citizens of the TBVC countries, they should not have any problem accepting the relevant amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier. Another point which could be made—we are not at all happy with this—is that there is legislation administered by the Department of Co-operation and Development which deals with this whole question. For every prohibition contained in clause 3, and in any event for the most fundamental aspects of those prohibitions, provision has already been made in legislation administered by that department. It is true that the penalties laid down in that legislation are not yet as severe as those that are being made applicable to offences in terms of clause 3, although they could eventually become equally severe, as the hon member for Houghton indicated with regard to the Bill which is at present being considered by a select committee. I really believe that if the hon the Deputy Minister is serious in saying that he has no intention whatsoever of applying this kind of legislation to an alien who used to be a citizen of South Africa and who has lost his citizenship as a result of the attainment of independence by those four states, he really should have no objection to accepting the fifth amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier. I want to give it my full support, therefore.

As far as the first four amendments are concerned, I should like to indicate that I agree with them as well. I think those amendments seek to remove aspects of the clause which are really very wide indeed. The second and fourth amendments in particular are aimed at removing from the clause certain aspects which could be very widely interpreted, and I say this in all sincerity. There is the mere giving of advice, for example. People who have made representations, probably to the hon the Minister as well, have pointed out that the mere giving of advice, even of a business nature in connection with the operation of a business enterprise, ie by a professional advisory service, falls within the wording which the second and fourth amendments of the hon member Prof Olivier are intended to remove. I believe that it would really be sensible to accept these four amendments of the hon member.

Mr Chairman, the hon members of the PFP are really trying to exploit the situation with regard to the TBVC countries. I am convinced that they wish to do this merely for publicity purposes. The hon members really should accept the bona fides of the hon the Deputy Minister. In his introductory speech during the Second Reading debate, the hon the Deputy Minister said the following with regard to the problem that they wish to resolve on the basis of the fifth amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier:

That was their whole argument, and now they are carrying on with it. The hon the Deputy Minister went on to say:

So the hon the Deputy Minister is not hiding anything. He says that in so far as that legislation is applicable to aliens from the TBVC countries, it remains applicable to them to the same extent, notwithstanding the proposals in this amending Bill. The hon the Deputy Minister went on to say:

This is the standpoint of the Government, and I think it is only fair to ask the official Opposition to accept the bona fides of the hon the Deputy Minister in this connection.

I want to make just a few further remarks about the other amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier. They concern the requirement that when one does business with someone else, when one employs someone, when one lets a room to someone, one should just make sure with whom one is dealing. This is normal practice, after all. When one is doing business with a person, surely it is by no means unusual to require proof of his identity, whether in the form of his identity document or in the form of his passport. That is all that is being required here. The private sector must help to control aliens effectively wherever they employ people or accommodate them in any other way. That is all the measure is asking for, and surely there are enough practical and simple methods of doing so. The hon member for Brakpan mentioned the absurd example of a man who brings one a load of bricks. Now that person must be asked to prove his identity, according to the hon member. But surely that is not an argument. Surely we are not absurd in the implementation of our legislation, and surely our courts will not simply go overboard when they have to implement these measures. When anyone of us goes overseas and walks into a hotel abroad, the first thing he will be asked is to show his passport. They take it away from him and keep it until they have recorded all the information contained in it. They want to make sure, therefore, who the person is who wishes to stay in the hotel.

A passport may not contain all the information which may be necessary.

Of course it contains the necessary information. When someone wants to book into a hotel and presents his passport, the bona fides of that person are accepted. After all, the Attorney-General is not going to send such a person to gaol or to prosecute him if he has done everything he possibly could.

No, Sir, I think hon members are advancing absurd arguments in this debate. I think that on the contrary, we have a reasonable proposal here, its only purpose being to enable the State to obtain the assistance of everyone in South Africa in controlling aliens effectively, because the department is obviously having problems with this.

Mr Chairman, I shall have to exercise restraint if I have to reply to the hon member for Turffontein. He said that the PFP was looking for publicity. Mr Chairman, if that hon member is standing behind the door, he must not expect to find others there as well. We are not concerned with publicity. We are concerned with a serious question, in the light of the fact that this measure was in fact used in 1981 to deport people to the Transkei. We are not raising a theoretical problem, therefore. I consequently take the strongest exception to the fact that the hon member has the temerity to say that we are raising this aspect for the sake of publicity. At that level I do not wish to conduct a debate with him at all. If he goes on arguing at that level, he is free to do so, but not with me.

I come to the hon member for Innesdal. I appreciate the spirit in which this hon member spoke. I want to say at once that there is a big difference between mens rea when it comes to statutory offences and the same concept in the case of common law offences. There is another legal principle which says: Ignorantia legis neminem excusat—ignorance of the law is no excuse. I cannot understand the hon member for Innesdal. If he wishes to carry his argument to its logical conclusion, he has to accept my first amendment. In it we propose that the question of admission to the Republic be left in the hands of the Government of the Republic and the Governments of the other States, to be regulated by way of agreement. This can be done in conjunction with or within the framework of this legislation. Our objection concerns the deportation of Transkeian citizens from the Cape Peninsula. As regards the employment and residence of people in the Republic, let the position be regulated by the ordinary legislation which is applicable to Blacks in South Africa. If the hon member for Innesdal is sincere in saying that this is not a measure which is going to discriminate against the people of the TBVC countries and that this is not a measure which may be used against them, it is only logical that he is then obliged to support my amendment. I want to make it clear once again that it is not my intention that my amendment should take the place of those agreements, or that it should take the place of immigration laws with regard to admission to the Republic. We are not concerned here with the Act in its entirety, but only with the amendment of section 5ter. This section should not be applicable to, inter alia, Black citizens of the TBVC countries. What does section 5ter deal with? It deals with the employment of an employee. One has to see this against the background of the provision in clause 7, in terms of which an employer who employs such a person runs the risk of being fined up to R5 000. The hon member for Innesdal should not say that it is silly to think that any Government would do this. The hon member knows that as a result of the recommendations of the Riekert report, the fine for the illegal employment of Blacks has been increased enormously. The hon member for Houghton has indicated that in one of the measures we have debated, provision was in fact made for a fine of up to R5 000 for the employment of illegals. So the hon member for Innesdal cannot use that argument against us.

I want to repeat to the hon member that my fifth amendment is only concerned with the details of the proposed section 5ter. Those details are related to the employment and residence of people. That is all. To the hon member for Turffontein and the hon member for Caledon I want to say that the section should not be repealed and that I am not asking for the repeal of the immigration legislation either. All I am asking in my amendment—I readily concede that the hon members for Innesdal and Caledon have probably not had enough time to study its full implications—is that as far as admission to South Africa is concerned, the situation should remain unchanged, but as far as the residence and employment of Blacks from the TBVC countries are concerned, these matters should fall under the ordinary legislation which is applicable to Blacks in South Africa. They should not be dealt with in terms of the provisions of this legislation, therefore. In 1981, thousands of Transkeian citizens were removed from the Western Cape in terms of the 1972 Act. When many of those people arrived in Umtata, it appeared that they had been unlawfully deported, and they were sent back to South Africa. Thousands of people were also stopped at roadblocks and sent back to Transkei in terms of this legislation. When the hon member for Houghton referred to this matter in 1982 during the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Co-operation and Development, saying that it was disgraceful that this had happened, the hon member for Innesdal was silent. He did not say a word to indicate that he was also upset about the fact that the legislation had been abused.

I want to ask the hon member for Innesdal and the hon the Deputy Minister again to reconsider my amendments. They do not detract in any way from the implementation of immigration laws or from the problem which the hon the Deputy Minister wishes to deal with in terms of the legislation, namely the illegal immigrants who come to this country from abroad. This includes all aliens, Whites, Blacks wherever they may come from. That situation remains unchanged. It is not being affected in any way. The same applies to Blacks outside the TBVC countries. There is absolutely nothing in my amendment which affects the powers of the hon the Minister or the legal position with regard to such aliens. All my amendment says is that the citizens of the TBVC countries should not fall under these restrictions, but under the ordinary legislation of the Republic.

I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Innesdal once again to consider my amendment.

Order! Before I call upon the next hon member to speak, I want to say that I get the impression that hon members are digressing again and are also repeating arguments. Naturally I cannot allow this, and I consequently wish to request hon members who are still going to speak to this clause kindly to advance new arguments and kindly to confine themselves to a discussion of the provisions of this clause.

Mr Chairman, I do not have the amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier before me. However, if he wishes to carry his fifth amendment to this clause to its logical conclusion, he is saying by implication that all citizens of the TBVC countries—the hon member for Houghton said yesterday by way of interjection that there were many Portuguese in a certain TBVC country—in other words, including aliens who come from other countries via the TBVC countries, should be exempted. He seems to exclude this in his amendment and he refers only to Blacks. Is this correct?

I referred to citizens of the TBVC countries.

There is no provision in any of the constitutions of the TBVC countries to the effect that people coming from other countries, such as Portuguese, for example—and I am only referring to Portuguese for the sake of argument, and without any reflection—are not allowed to enter their countries. The hon member now says “citizens of the TBVC countries”.

Hon members of the PFP have advanced quite a number of arguments in the course of this debate. How many questions have the official Opposition not asked over the years concerning undesirable aliens and immigrants who had been admitted by the Governing? In fact, they have put the hon the Minister and his department to considerable trouble with questions they have asked about individuals whom they have regarded as illegal and undesirable aliens in South Africa. The implication of the amendment to this clause moved by the hon member Prof Olivier is that some of these people could enter our country via the TBVC countries. This Act is colour-blind. If we accepted his amendment, we should be playing into the hands of the PFP, because that is what they want.

I want to make another point. The hon member said that when this legislation had been used on a previous occasion, the courts had given a ruling. He said that deportation had taken place in terms of the immigration laws and that the courts had then given a ruling. The point I want to make, therefore, is that the courts may pronounce upon the matter in any event.

That is wrong.

I want to ask the hon member for Houghton whether the court did not recently give a ruling in the Rikhoto case concerning the interpretation of that specific provision in the Act over a period of many years?

I want to conclude by saying that the hon member Prof Olivier should take cognizance of the fact that the clause in its present form is subject to testing by the courts in any event. Any person may appeal to the court and submit that in his opinion, the Government has acted unlawfully.

There are other points to which I could refer, but I shall leave the matter at that. We cannot accept the fifth amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier, which I have unfortunately not seen yet. If we were to accept it, that distinction would have to be drawn throughout the Bill, from the first to the last clause, namely that people from the TBVC countries were excluded. In doing so, we should be negating all those agreements and saying by implication that all the other legislation which is applicable is no longer applicable. Consequently we cannot accept any of his amendments.

Mr Chairman, I do not think the hon member for Innesdal knows what happened in 1981, when he sat “tjoepstil” as the hon Prof Olivier has said. There was no recourse to the courts. That is exactly the point. The Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act does not allow recourse to the courts as far as the deportation of so-called illegal aliens is concerned, and that is exactly what happened to the 3 660-odd people, the Nyanga squatters, who were simply put on buses and deported without anyone going anywhere near the courts. The law precludes court action in that regard. They can be summarily deported. That is precisely what happened in that case. The hon member should be reminded that, until it was found possible to provide defence for those squatters who were appearing in the Nyanga Commissioners’ courts, there was no recourse had to the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act. The ordinary influx control laws were being used and those who were charged in the courts and found guilty were either fined or sent to gaol while the others were discharged. However, the minute the courts were unable to cope with the volume of cases because the normal right of defence was actually being utilized, the Department of Co-operation and Development came along and invoked a law which was never intended as an influx control measure. That is what we fear is going to happen here. Whether that was the intention or not, the hon the Deputy Minister has made it absolutely clear to the House that the former citizens of this country, who were deprived of their citizenship at the time of independence of the four States, are included in the purview of this legislation. Therefore, in a crisis situation in the future it is quite possible that, if necessary, they too will be summarily deported. The hon member must surely see the injustice of that. He was quite prepared to admit that it was totally unrealistic to impose a fine of up to R5 000. I ask him to think again about the amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier which simply seeks to exclude those particular people who really are in a category of their own since they were born in the Republic of South Africa and should therefore enjoy special advantages over and above aliens who come from foreign countries.

Mr Chairman, as far as the fifth amendment is concerned, the essence of the matter is the question whether these preferential rights should be granted to the citizens of other states by way of agreement, or whether they should be laid down in legislation. Clearly they should be regulated by way of agreement because they are changeable. This is a matter that one arranges with the other country and, as they deal with one’s own citizens, one deals with their citizens. If they deal with your citizens differently to the way you deal with their citizens, then surely you can effect changes with regard to their citizens in your country. Therefore this is a matter which is pre-eminently suited to arrangement by agreement. If we give preferential visa rights to the citizens of Britain, we would not do so by way of legislation, but by way of agreement and declaration.

As far as the first four amendments are concerned, I should like to refer to what the hon member to Green Point said yesterday. He said that it was for the general good of the population of the country that there should be control of aliens, that is to say, for the sake of order, moral wellbeing, employment, etc. I agree with him. If, then, it is true that this is in the general interest, then it is also right and fair that the people of the country should help to implement those control measures. Thus one can expect from them not to obstruct this by aiding such an alien in his profession, harbouring him or providing him with accommodation. I just wish to confirm once again that the issue here is one of guilty intent, and the examples given by the hon member Prof Olivier simply do not hold water. It will have to be proved that the accused was aware that a person was an illegal alien in the country.

Mr Chairman, apparently the hon member for Innesdal has a problem with the interpretation of the fifth amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier. It may be that he does not have the amendment before him, and that that was perhaps the cause of his problem. The amendment very clearly makes mention of “Blacks”. Therefore, there is no question of a Portuguese citizen or a citizen of another country—I think he referred specifically to a Portuguese citizen—ultimately finding himself in a privileged position, as a result of citizenship of an independent homeland, as regards access to and employment in South Africa due to this amendment. That possibility does not exist. The possibility that does exist—I concede this—is that if a Black citizen of Kenya were for example to become a citizen of Ciskei, the acceptance of this amendment could place someone in a somewhat privileged position so that he could be admitted to South Africa. However, what would the extent of that problem be? That is so preposterous that it is not worthwhile giving serious attention to. Therefore I really want to ask hon members to give this amendment very positive consideration, because it would be an indication of the bona fides of the Government that it did not want to use the provisions of this legislation against Blacks from those countries. If the Government does not accept that then I fear that our fears stand unchanged.

As regards the first four amendments of the hon member Prof Olivier, mention was made of the question of mens rea. Let us consider a practical example of a person who harbours a specific person in terms of paragraph (d). It is expected of him to know that he is dealing with an undesirable alien. What exactly is expected of a person who harbours someone under this Bill? How far must he go to ascertain whether the person is or is not an alien? I suggest that if such a person were for example to neglect to ask for the passport or identity document of a person and inspect it reasonably thoroughly, a court would probably find he was negligent. Therefore, a form of guilt is present which could mean that such a person is guilty under clause 3 of this Bill. I want to say in all honesty that if in the normal course of business transactions we should constantly have to ask to inspect a person’s passport to determine whether he has a permanent or temporary residence permit, it would be a somewhat odd situation. I am convinced that in most cases something of this kind would simply never happen. I can understand that when a person provides accommodation in a flat or a hotel, one may indeed request this information, but then it is done in a reasonable superficial way. For example, how many individuals in South Africa are capable of inferring from an identity number whether a person is an alien or a South African citizen? How many people are in a position to determine whether someone has a valid temporary or permanent residence permit? We adopted legislation here yesterday in terms of which anyone who had a permanent residence permit could at a certain stage automatically become a citizen. However, no mention will be made of that in the passport or identity document, and a graver aspect of this is that if such a person were to make a statement under clause 11(a) of the Bill that we passed yesterday, there would be no way in which anyone could be aware that this man or woman had no right to be in South Africa, whether he had either a temporary or a permanent residence permit. In other words, it is not possible to ascertain by examining a passport or identity document whether one is dealing with an undesirable alien or not. Therefore I contend that if we cast so wide a net it will certainly create the possibility of faulty administration of justice and of injustice. Accordingly I support amendments 1 to 4 moved by the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a considerable amount of worry as to how this Bill can be used, and this is why I have been listening with extreme care to the various arguments that have been made. I am of course referring to the fifth amendment proposed by the hon member Prof Olivier. It has been made clear by the hon the Deputy Minister and by other speakers that this clause can be used for the removal of TBVC people, but the hon the Deputy Minister also made it clear that it is not intended to be used for that purpose. [Interjections.] He has also given assurances that it will not be used for that purpose. So the intention is not to use it for that and the assurance has been given that it will not be used for that purpose. If that is the case, what then is wrong with allaying the fears of the people concerned by making it absolutely clear that it cannot be used for those purposes? With due respect, the hon the Deputy Minister is such a competent man; he will not be a Deputy Minister for very long. He will soon be a Minister, and somebody else who may not be quite as competent perhaps, and perhaps with somewhat different ideas, may not adhere to his assurances. As it is clear that it is not intended to be used for that purpose, what then is the objection to giving that assurance thereby allaying the fears of the people concerned? It also relates to the point I made in the Second Reading debate, namely that if one wants to persuade the other self-governing homelands to go for independence, it is not wise or desirable to create additional fears. Similarly, if we want them to become part of the overall constellation of states which we hope to get some day, this again would be of some help. Therefore, after listening to the debate I have come to the conclusion that there is considerable merit in amendment No 5, and I will support it.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by trying to convince the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Green Point in particular—I should also have liked to include the hon member for Houghton, but it would probably be difficult to convince her—that the relevant issues here are very complex ones. A great deal of money goes under the table. Every day they try to bribe one, and now the hon member for Umbilo is even trying to bribe me with a compliment, because he says that I shall shortly no longer be sitting in this bench, but will move one bench forward. However, that is not how we work. We in the Department of Internal Affairs are very strict. Mr Chairman, please grant me the opportunity of trying to convince the hon member Prof Olivier. I am going to try to do so. I want to put it to him once again that, as the hon member for Brakpan also re-emphasized, this legislation relates to illegal aliens entering the country. Other hon members on this side of the House have also pointed this out. Right at the outset I furnished statistics relating to aliens already in the country. Even if I leave the citizens of the TBVC countries out of the reckoning entirely, we have still been saddled over a period of three to four years with 13 000 people who have not renewed their temporary residence permits. I believe that we all wish to protect our State. I believe that the hon member Prof Olivier also wishes to protect his State because he loves this State as much as I do. Surely we are not going to hand this State and its people over to aliens who are here illegally and who want to do things and conduct business here, as is happening at present? Therefore it is the task of all of us—of each member of this House—to take action.

In the second place I wish to put it to the hon member Prof Olivier that he is very wide of the mark when he persists in reading into measures of this nature ulterior motives in respect of action against the citizens of the TBVC countries. It is true that we have those four independent countries. The Republic of South Africa is a sovereign, independent State. Out of this Republic were born four independent, sovereign states— Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei. Not one of us in this House would be able to change this state of affairs. These are states that have come into being and it was for that very reason that I said yesterday that this legislation applied to the citizens of all independent states. If it will satisfy the hon member for Langlaagte, let me add that this also applies to the citizens of Portugal and Greece. It applies to people of all other countries; and therefore to people from Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei as well.

However, the hon member for Brakpan was quite correct—indeed, he states this very clearly—when he said that agreements existed between the Republic of South Africa and the TBVC countries. These are agreements in terms of which these things are made less stringent, if I may put it like that. The same action is not taken against these people as is taken against citizens of other countries of the world. However, hon members of the PFP argue that these measures were indeed used in 1981. They were used in 1981. I do not deny that. We all know it. However, at that stage we were faced with a crisis situation.

What I am arguing now is that we should not permit a crisis situation to develop in our country again. Surely that is unnecessary. Surely we give these people orderly methods of entering this country. After all, there are channels through which people may apply to enter this country. Their applications are considered. Of course in many instances that consideration results in a refusal. Surely, therefore, we do not wish to act against the citizens of these independent countries that we ourselves helped to create; on the contrary, we want to help to develop and strengthen those states. We want to help strengthen them and help make their citizens happy. However, I repeat that we do not want to protect our State as well. No-one will convince me of the contrary. I am a South African. I love my country. I want to protect my country. However, we shall not lean on other countries. We even want to help to build them up, particularly those countries that were born out of ours.

I now wish to deal with the fifth amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier. I want to put it to him that I believe that this is the big mistake he is making. In the treaties with the TBVC countries we only speak about citizens of the various countries. I want to ask the hon member Prof Olivier why he speaks about the Black citizens of the TBVC countries. Is he not thereby stressing once again the emphasis constantly being placed on “Black”? [Interjections.] Hon members laugh, but they cannot deny that. They do not want to be convinced although we have done everything we could to convince them that that is not the case. They are constantly emphasizing that.

I also wish to say to the hon member Prof Olivier that there are two reasons why I am unable to accept his fifth amendment. In the first place it introduces a new category of alien in the Aliens Act. In the second place I want to say to the hon member in all sincerity—I think he will understand this—that the proposals in the amendment imply an element of discrimination, because the hon member is now discriminating against other aliens affected by the Aliens Act. Surely that is true and the hon member cannot deny it. After all, I said at the outset that aliens from all countries were at issue now. The hon member now wants to make an exception and that means that he wants to discriminate. For that reason I am unable to accept the fifth amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier. I also wish to give the assurance that this legislation is certainly not aimed at enabling action to be taken against citizens of the TBVC countries.

The hon member Prof Olivier moved four other amendments, and I shall deal with them as moved by the hon member.

The first amendment of the hon member deletes the provision which makes it an offence for anyone to co-operate with an alien who is in the country illegally with regard to the conducting of any business or the carrying on of any profession or occupation. The aim of this provision is merely to impose a prohibition on people who in any way furnish assistance to an alien who is in the country illegally with regard to the carrying on of any profession or occupation or the conducting of a business, because the existing provisions are inadequate. At this point I wish to state very clearly that it is not the duty of the Government alone to ensure that people are not in this country illegally. It is the duty of all citizens of the country. It is our duty to ensure that people are not in this country illegally or try to circumvent our control measures in this regard. I agree with the hon member for Turffontein who said that when one travels overseas one notes that other countries take very strict action in this regard. When one arrives at a hotel, one’s passport is required. I wonder whether our people in South Africa do it. I do not wish to accuse our people, but I contend that in my belief there is extreme laxity in this sphere in South Africa and that that is why we are saddled with a large number of illegal people in this country. Because it is such a pleasant country—in spite of what others say—we shall be faced with this problem to an increasing extent. Accordingly, I fear that I am unable to accept the first amendment of the hon member either.

The second amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier concerns the deletion of the provision in terms of which no fixed property in the Republic may be made available, by way of lease or sale or any other way, to an alien who is in the country illegally. I cannot accept this amendment either because to me the fundamental principle of alien control is to prevent an alien from being in the country illegally and arrogating to himself the rights which only a legal inhabitant of the country may possess. How can a person who is here illegally arrogate to himself the same rights as those possessed by citizens of this country who are entitled to claim them?

The third amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier concerns the deletion of the words in the proposed section 5ter(3), which prohibits an alien who is in a specific part of the country illegally, from conducting a business enterprise in a different part of the Republic or practising a professional occupation there and which also prohibits anyone from assisting such an alien in this regard. In terms of section 5ter(3) a temporary permit may be issued to an alien permitting him to live or be in a specific part of the Republic. If that alien were to conduct a business enterprise or carry on a profession or occupation in any part of the Republic where he is not allowed to be in terms of the conditions of the temporary permit, he will be guilty of an offence, and anyone who assists him in this regard must also fall under the prohibitory provisions. Accordingly, I am unable to accept the third amendment of the hon member either.

The fourth amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier, which concerns the deletion of the provision in terms of which it is prohibited to let or sell or in any manner make available to an alien who is in a specific part of the Republic illegally, fixed property in that part, I cannot accept either, for the same reasons that I have already advanced.

I want to give hon members the assurance that we are really trying to overhaul these measures, that this is an honest effort not to discriminate against anyone whatsoever but also to confirm law and order in this sphere and see to it that our country is protected and that the citizens of the country enjoy their rights. I truly regret that I am unable to accept the amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Chairman, I listened very patiently and sypathetically, and almost with humility, to the hon the Deputy Minister. He tried to capture the difference between the argument of the hon member Prof Olivier and that on that side of the Committee. I should like to avoid confusion between us, and for that reason I just wish to put two questions to the hon the Deputy Minister which directly relate to the amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier.

The hon the Deputy Minister states that the issue here concerns aliens, and that all aliens have to be treated equally. For that reason the hon the Deputy Minister states that the aliens of the TBVC countries and the aliens of Portugal and Germany have to be treated in the same way. I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is true that an alien from Bophuthatswana and an alien from West Germany have the same status as aliens in South Africa. Is it true that they can both apply in the same way for South African citizenship after the expiry of a certain period?

You are talking nonsense now.

That is not nonsense; it is the truth.

For example, can they insist on the same status with regard to housing, a job opportunity and school education? What is the criterion that applies? Is it their status as an alien, or is it race? That is the question that that hon member can answer for himself as well, because if those people enter the country with the same status then surely they are entitled to be treated in the same way. The Government can, if it wishes, continue to discriminate against the non-independent homelands, but if the Government is going to deal with those countries as full-fledged independent states, why is a distinction drawn in the action taken against these people? Surely the hon the Deputy Minister cannot have the argument both ways. Either they are dealt with as full aliens—in which case less stringent measures are not required—or else they are discriminated against. Therefore I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether these aliens have the same status, a man from Bophuthatswana and a man from West Germany. The second question I want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister which relates to his argument is whether the way in which these countries have become independent is the same? Let us apply the Christian principle of doing unto your neighbour as you would have him do unto you. How would the hon the Deputy Minister feel in the case of a man like Dr Motlana? Motlana has never lived in Bophuthatswana, he knows nothing of that state and takes no interest in it. He says that he grew up in Pretoria and that that is where he lives. Now a decision is taken by a group of people with whom he has no links and whom he does not accept, and as a result of that decision he loses his South African citizenship. Now that man, by way of a new measure which is passed by Parliament, has to …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Will we, in the discussion of this clause, have the opportunity to reply to the arguments of the hon the Leader of the Opposition?

I am listening carefully to the hon the Leader of the Opposition and I shall call him to order if I am of the opinion that he is digressing too far.

What I am saying directly concerns the amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier. I am merely reacting to points stated by the hon the Deputy Minister in reaction to the motivation of the amendments.

I therefore ask the hon the Deputy Minister how he would feel if he were deprived of his citizenship in the country of his birth and it was said that he was now part of an independent homeland. That is the dilemma and the central point of the argument. It is not a question of an obsession with the question of Black status on the part of this side of the House; the issue is the central problem in South African politics, viz citizenship, which carries within it the essence of conflict. That is what we seek to avoid. We want to avoid conflict. We do not wish to create problems; it is those very conflict situations that we wish to avoid.

Mr Chairman, I just wish to react briefly to what the hon the Leader of the Opposition said. Just before he resumed his seat he said that we sought to generate conflict and that they wanted to eliminate conflict by means of the amendment they proposed. I contend that the clause as worded at present does not contain elements of conflict. In his Second Reading speech and in his reply to that debate the hon the Deputy Minister said—the hon the Leader of the Opposition has just contended, in support of the amendments of the hon member Prof Olivier, that the contrary was the case—that this measure was not intended to do what the hon the Leader maintains. The hon the Leader of the Opposition has now asked two questions with regard to aliens and I want to link this to the amendments moved by the hon member Prof Olivier. He asks whether it is true that aliens from West Germany and Bophuthatswana do not enjoy the same status. He asks whether they can claim the same status and if not, why a distinction is drawn. The legislation before us, and the clause in question as well, are in the spirit of the Government’s view of the matter. This legislation does not concern citizenship. The hon member Prof Olivier is moving an amendment to this clause which he links to his party’s view of citizenship, something which, in my humble opinion, is not at issue in the Bill. In their arguments and in our replies the matter of citizenship has unfortunately come to the fore and it seems to me as if we are going to debate this from the first clause of this Bill to the last. I can only say to the hon the Leader of the Opposition that as regards the question of housing and employment in legislation passed by this House there is certainly a distinction drawn between the handling of the citizens of the independent states and those of West Germany. I concede that point to the hon the Leader and I do not even wish to debate it. That is the factual reality and we cannot run away from it.

The hon the leader asked another question concerning the status of these people. He knows—indeed, this was said in the arguments against the amendments of the hon member Prof Olivier—that accommodation and employment of people from the TBVC countries is regulated in terms of agreements with those states. He is now shaking his head, but the hon the Deputy Minister has already said our relations with those states, including the issues of accommodation and employment, is regulated …

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that the argument relating to the agreements has been used repeatedly.

Mr Chairman, I concede that and I shall therefore leave it at that. I just wish to conclude by saying that we are unable to support the amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier because we on this side do not believe that this clause is intended to apply to people from the TBVC countries or to the people that they accommodate or employ.

I want to advance one final argument to convince the hon member that this is not the case. It would give rise to an absurd practical situation if we were to apply this clause concerning accommodation and employment to people from the TBVC countries in the light of the economic problems of the country. I shall not be permitted to go into that and accordingly I shall not do so. It would result in an absurd position if at this point we were to apply the penal provision of R5 000—that we will discuss later—everywhere in the country and crack down at every place where we suspected it was necessary to act against people of the TBVC countries. That is not the intention. We abide by the agreements with those states as far as these matters are concerned.

Mr Chairman, I want to reply to the question of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. He asked me whether citizens of Bophuthatswana and citizens of West Germany would receive the same treatment. No, because I want to take stricter action against the citizens of West Germany who are here illegally. As far as the TBVC countries are concerned, agreements, which we were instrumental in concluding, exist with these states. Consequently, as was remarked by other hon members as well, there are other measures in terms of which action is taken. The hon members of the PFP frequently refer to the fact that we used this Act in 1981 to deport thousands of people. I want to repeat that that was a crisis situation which arose at the time. Since that time the Act has not been used again, nor will it be used in the ordinary course of events.

The hon member also asked whether the way in which they had become independent was the same. Once again the answer is “no”. Mr Chairman, you will have to stop me because I cannot discuss the entire ethnic and political policy now. However, I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Opposition that during the past 36 years we have been following a policy which has brought order for everyone in this country. The Transkei, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei gained their independence without bloodshed, and the hon member knows that as well as I do. They gained their independence by means of agreements and up to this day we are trying to assist those states in the economic field. We have not abandoned them. If we had not followed that policy but the policy of one man, one vote in a unitary state, what would have been our position today?

Consequently I am unable to accept the amendments of the hon member.

Mr Chairman, I want the hon member for Innesdal to look at paragraph 3 of the agreement with the Ciskei and also at the agreement with Bophuthatswana and then he will be able to understand my argument. Those agreements do not relate to the sojourn of those people in South Africa …

Order! The hon member will concede that the argument relating to the agreements has been thrashed out in detail by this time.

I am through with that argument now, Sir. The sojourn of citizens of the TBVC countries in South Africa is regulated in all prescribed areas by section 10 of the Urban Areas Act, not by agreement. Consequently measures on the Statute Book regulate the sojourn of those people.

I have listened to the arguments of the hon the Deputy Minister and I appreciate them. I have gained the impression, however, that the hon the Deputy Minister has not replied to the questions of the hon the Leader of the Opposition. In the second place he has not done justice to my amendments. My amendments relate solely to the employment and sojourn of people of the TBVC countries in South Africa. In spite of the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister has rejected my amendments at this stage, he should nevertheless reflect soberly, particularly as far as my fifth amendment is concerned, and consider advancing an argument in this regard during the Third Reading.

Mr Chairman, the hon member Prof Olivier referred once again to the agreements with the TBVC countries.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am under the impression that the hon member for Turffontein, the hon member Prof Olivier and the hon member for Innesdal have spoken more than three times on this clause. I ask for your ruling in this regard.

The hon member for Turffontein has not yet spoken three times. He may therefore proceed.

I thank you, Sir. The hon member for Brakpan is no longer a chairman of this Committee because he is so hopeless and because he cannot count.

It sounds as though you have spoken eight times already.

Order!

The hon member Prof Olivier referred to agreements with the TBVC countries as well as to the residence situation. He knows full well, however, that as regards the residence of aliens from the TBVC countries as well, this is subject to the laws of South Africa. It is also contained in the agreements with the people concerned that they will be subject to those laws.

I just want to address a remark to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. I do not hold it against him for wanting to get in a little political point-scoring. I do think, however, that he, too, owes us an answer in this Committee. Surely he knows that any Government has a certain immigration policy in terms of which it determines whom it permits to apply to immigrate and to apply for permanent residence. Now he asks whether the TBVC countries may rely on the same right in respect of the application for permanent residence in South Africa as a person from West Germany. He should, however, tell us this: If his party were to come into power in South Africa, would they apply an immigration policy on a colour-blind basis in South Africa? Would anybody in the whole of Africa be entitled to apply to immigrate to this country? He must give us an answer to this question. It is very easy to put questions of this nature to us with reference to a minor clause such as this one, the purpose of which is the effective control of aliens, and to say that we should reply to those questions. However, he should reply to our questions for a change.

The hon the Leader of the Opposition also dragged Dr Motlana into this. Surely he knows as well as anyone in this House that a Cabinet Committee is at present investigating the political rights of urban Blacks. Those people are not involved in this measure now. When we discuss matters such as their citizenship and a future confederation of states, we can deal with the problems of Dr Motlana. I do not know why he posed such a large number of questions under this measure. He should rather furnish us with a few answers.

Mr Chairman, I am under the impression that the hon member Prof Olivier does not have another turn to speak to this clause. He said I should deal with this matter during the Third Reading stage. Perhaps he could also give me an answer during the Third Reading stage. I have had another look at his amendments, and in this regard I should like to put a question to him. In his amendments he refers only to Black citizens of the TBVC countries. He does not speak of Blacks who used to be citizens of South Africa. Surely there can be Black citizens in these TBVC countries who were not citizens of South Africa before? In the course of time there will definitely be more such people. What is the position as far as these people are concerned?

I should also like to make the statement, without raising expectations, that I do not believe that we should argue about the citizens of the TBVC countries now. After all, there are other related pieces of legislation, some of which are still being considered and have been referred to a select committee, regulating the status of those people. Would that not afford one a better opportunity of discussing these matters? I really want to propose this.

Amendments 1 to 4 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment 5 put and the Committee divided:

Mr Chairman, this clause provides that the Director-General of Internal Affairs or any passport control officer can request an employer to furnish a return of all employees in his service who are aliens. If such return is not rendered or if an employer furnishes a return of which any essential particular is false, knowing it is false, he shall be guilty of an offence. There are also two instances in this clause where the onus is in fact shifted from the normal practice in criminal law. Hon members will know that the PFP always objects to the onus being shifted and when there is a departure from the normal principles of criminal law in these matters.

Let me say immediately that in my opinion this can be a very onerous provision indeed, particularly if at some stage or other it becomes applicable to Black aliens who were formerly South African citizens and who are now citizens of the TBVC countries. The clause, as in the case of the previous one could under those circumstances become a very effective and in fact a ruthless form of influx control because it demands that an employer provide all the information that is required by a department of State to establish whether he is employing certain people whom they believe to be illegal. In this way he could provide information or evidence which could incriminate himself. It could therefore create a situation where the employer could be prosecuted for employing such people. In other words, if this clause should ever be used in respect of those Blacks, a fine could be imposed upon an employer—this is also in terms of clause 3— which is ten times the amount that is provided for at present in terms of the legislation administered by the Department of Co-operation and Development.

Let me deal also with another aspect of the clause. Let us assume for the time being that it will not be used against Black people in the category to which I referred earlier. Let us assume that it will be merely used for purposes of alien control in the more general sense. Then there are two possible ways in which this clause can be applied. In the first instance it can be used across the board, which would mean that the Department of Internal Affairs could decide to make it its policy once every six months or once a year to demand from every employer in South Africa a return indicating the number of aliens in his employ. In this way the department can of course obtain a vast arsenal of information, which can be used to update particulars in connection with aliens already at the disposal of the department. By following this process the department will also be enabled to institute prosecution in cases in which they consider it appropriate. I believe that is a very unlikely policy to be adopted by the department because I believe the department does not have the necessary manpower or finances at its disposal to launch an operation of that magnitude.

What then is the alternative? The only sensible alternative—sensible only in a very limited way—will be for the department to request a return from an employer suspected of employing undesirable or illegal aliens. The following question then arises, however. If the department knows or suspects that a particular employer employs aliens in an improper manner, do they then really require the powers given to the Director-General or to a passport control officer in terms of this clause in order to establish whether that is in fact the case? If a particular employer is suspected of a practice of this nature, then surely it is not all that difficult to ascertain whether such suspicions are really founded. Therefore, in purely practical terms, I must state that I have grave doubts in respect of the effect this can really have. I should like to put a very straightforward question to the hon the Deputy Minister in this connection. Can the hon the Deputy Minister tell the House whether, as a matter of course, his department sometimes requests employers to furnish information in connection with aliens in their employ? Do officials of his department from time to time approach employers informing them that they are suspected of employing undesirable aliens? If this is done in practice, can the hon the Deputy Minister then tell us whether the department has encountered any difficulties in respect of obtaining the co-operation of such employers? I should indeed like to know that.

Finally I briefly want to deal with the onus created in terms of clause 4(3). This particular subsection reads as follows, and I quote:

1. (a) was or not requested under subsection (1) by the said Director-General or a passport control officer to furnish a return mentioned in that subsection to the Director-General or passport control officer; or
2. (b) did or did not furnish a return mentioned in that subsection to the said Director-General or a passport control office,

It goes on to say:

This is a clear interference with the normal principles of the law and I do not think that this is necessary in order to make the clause effective even if one accepts the desirability of such a clause.

Subsection (4) reads as follows:

I want to say immediately, Sir, that this is a presumption that is in fact totally unrealistic. We have it said on numerous occasions during the course of this discussion that it is difficult for an employer or for anybody for that matter to establish beyond doubt whether a person is an alien with the right to remain in this country or not. I want to refer once again to the legislation passed by this House yesterday in which in one case a person who has been a permanent resident can become a citizen or, having been a permanent resident, can lose all right to remain in this country, and neither of those pieces of information will appear on any document that an alien may have in his possession at that particular point in time. Moreover, this is the kind of information which, if the alien is not a particular honest person, that alien will certainly not make available to his employer.

I want to advance the further argument that I think it is quite possible, certainly in some cases, that an alien will not be quite aware of his own status at a particular point in time. People are sometimes careless. They do not always take cognizance of the fact that their right of temporary residence has perhaps expired. They may perhaps not always be aware of the fact that they have lost the right to temporary residence, for which provision is being made in this legislation as well, and there can be any number of other instances of this nature, even the loss of citizenship. We know that there are quite a number of instances in which a person can lose his citizenship. I honestly believe that we are placing a totally undue onus in this respect upon an employer who has to render such a return simply by creating the presumption that he would know that a particular piece of information is false once it has been proven to be false in the return which he has to submit.

I honestly believe that this is a clause that we can do without. I should be very interested to hear the hon the Deputy Minister’s reaction to my remarks and particularly to learn whether his department has tried to obtain the voluntary co-operation of such firms which they believe may be employing aliens illegally.

Mr Chairman, in his introductory remarks the hon member for Green Point said: “This is a departure from normal procedure.” Employers in South Africa are expected to furnish one return after another. We can mention numerous examples of returns that various departments require employers to submit in regard to their employees. It is therefore not a new principle that is being introduced here. One example of this is income tax. Employers are expected to submit returns, for income tax purposes, in regard to their employees. There is a rule in the Department of Co-operation and Development in terms of which Administration Board employers must submit returns in regard to people who are in their employ. The fact that the hon member is now saying: “This is a departure from normal procedure” is, in my view, therefore a little unreasonable.

The hon member came back to the question of the TBVC countries and again expressed his concern about our using this measure in regard to the TBVC countries. I want to say at once that I do not think that on each and every clause we should have to debate this matter with the hon member of the PFP, and I shall therefore leave the matter at that. All that is being done by clause 3, which the hon member wants deleted, is to place another effective measure on the Statute Book for the control of aliens. It is not only control, since there are also many practical considerations, and I shall be dwelling on one of them at a later stage.

The hon member wanted to know whether the onus now rested with the employer. Of course the onus rests with the employer. In dealing with a previous clause, we told the hon member—they know it as well as we do—that our courts would not, after all, be unreasonable or unrealistic if an employer were purposely misled by an employee. If the wrong information is furnised, there is surely a very good argument that he can put forward, saying: The people taken into my employ gave me the wrong inpression about their citizenship or their residence in South Africa.

What, in terms of clause 4, is this measure basically doing? Employers must furnish certain returns, merely upon request of the Department of Internal Affairs, in regard to aliens in their employ. If such an employer were to neglect to do so, or if he were to make a false declaration, he would be guilty of an offence.

What happens in practice? Aliens are, for example, restricted for a period of three years, in terms of their residence permit, in the sense that they may not change their jobs or their professions. Immigrants and other aliens enter the country with the specific purpose of having to do a specific category of work for which they were recruited. Those are the conditions under which they are allowed to enter South Africa. There is a restriction placed on them to the effect that for a certain period they may neither change their jobs nor their professions.

All this measure is doing is exercising control over that aspect by way of the returns requested by the department. The purpose is to protect existing employees in South Africa against unjust competition. If, for example, there are already too many people in the market for a specific category of work, people are brought in from outside for another category of work, and they do not want those people to shift around. It is therefore merely a method of control.

I said there could also be a practical consideration involved. The department tells us that all it wants in practice is to determine, from time to time, what shortages there are in the South African labour market for certain categories of employers. Therefore they must be able to go to a large company that has many technicians in its employ. They must be able to ask that company for a return indicating all the alien in its employ so that they can determine whether there is a shortage in this or that category. This would then help the department in having to make a decision when someone applies to enter the country as an aliens with a view to doing a certain category of work. They can then say that they have statistics indicating that there are already sufficient people in those particular categories of work and that they are looking for people who can do work in another category.

Does that not apply to South African citizens, too?

It does, in any event, apply to South African citizens. This measure aims at adding people to the list by way of the control of aliens.

Let me conclude by pointing out that this is another effective measure in terms of which the Government, because it perhaps does not have enough staff to exercise the necessary control, can ask the private sector to help with the exercising of effective control. For that reason we cannot accept the hon member’s proposal that the clause be negatived.

Mr Chairman, as I indicated earlier, we too are not happy about this clause. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that in spite of his remark that I must agree that the private sector and the businessmen must enter into this, I do not agree.

The situation is that in the smaller businesses this can cause an additional amount of work which is unreasonable and unacceptable to the businessman. As far as I am concerned I am not at all racist in my approach to this and I am not talking now in terms of Black employees or White employees or any other shade of colour of employees. This can apply across the board as far as employees are concerned. It is quite obvious that the hon member for Turffontein believes that this will be used for application really in respect of Blacks because he made referene to the three-year contracts and so on about which the businessman should know, but even in that regard as a practical businessman and having been in business for many years, I realize the difficulty that can be inherent in a clause such as this. First of all, I would like to say that the businessman concerned is supposed to know whether they are aliens or not. If he is called upon to fill in a form, and does so incorrectly, it is presumed that he has done so deliberately. I can give examples of where this could go wrong. It may be that a businessman has people who have been in his employ for a relatively short while and that they are awaiting documents. I know of cases where people have been awaiting documents from the Department of Manpower in some instances and from the Department of Internal Affairs in other instances. I know of an instance where a newspaper had been employing a person for six months and the person was such a good employee that they were not pushing for his documents. The reason the documents were not forthcoming was not because the documents were not available but because the person concerned was a Coloured person doing the job as a White who was accepted as a White but the documents were for a Coloured. This is one of the problems that can result in a businessman not knowing truthfully whether a person is an alien or not. A White alien may only be in possession of a temporary residence permit and I know that the employer should know that, but a relatively small employer who is extremely busy and does not have a special personnel office to look after these matters, may well not know or realize that such a person’s permit has expired. He will then not know that he has an illegal alien in his employ. These are all problems which I feel should not be imposed upon a normal businessman.

Apart from that, I regard this sort of thing as virtually spying on your staff. As a businessman, I would look upon it in that light, and I was a businessman a lot longer than I have been a member of Parliament. That is expecting employers to do unpleasant jobs for the State. State employees are employed and paid to do that sort of work but not a businessman. I feel that this is an unreasonable imposition.

I am aware that the official Opposition are opposed to this clause. My own inclination is to support them because 1 do not like the clause either. However, I am perfectly convinced that the hon the Deputy Minister will want to retain the clause. I have amendments of my own which I want to move in order to make the clause less onerous than it is.

I move the first amendment, as follows:

1. 1. On page 7, in line 57, after “who” to insert:
   • he has reason to believe

The object of this amendment is to overcome the difficulties that I can clearly foresee that a businessman is going to be faced with in good faith through not knowing whether a person is an alien or not. If he genuinely believes a person is legitimate, I do not believe, even if he can subsequently prove his innocence, he should be placed in the position of being a criminal.

I now move the second amendment, as follows:

1. 2. On page 9, in line 18, after “him” to insert:
   • in writing delivered by hand and signed for, or by registered post

Somehow or other the instruction has to go to the businessman, and either of those two ways is normally acceptable to deliver legally binding documents. I therefore believe this is a reasonable amendment aimed at making life a little easier for the department itself and at the same time ensuring that there is no question about the validity of the document coming into the employer’s hands.

So I hope the hon the Deputy Minister will give very serious consideration to what has been said on this because it is a serious move which we are making by imposing on the public a duty which has not been imposed on them before. Perhaps the next thing will be to impose upon our children the right or duty to report their parents if they commit misdemeanours. That has happened elsewhere. This is not a new venture at all, and I am rather worried that we have this sort of legislation in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to indicate that if the clause is retained I will be supporting the two amendments of the hon member for Umbilo. I believe they go some way towards alleviating at least the criminal responsibility which will be upon an employer to furnish such a return.

Mr Chairman, in his argument the hon member for Green Point said that the department did not have the manpower to implement this clause, and I agree with him. The insertion of this clause is specifically designed to help the department because it does not have the manpower. The department can now approach an employer—where it would otherwise need an army of people to obtain and process this information—and ask him to submit such a return. It is not meant merely in the negative sense of the word, ie in order to trace aliens, but also to serve a specific purpose. The hon member for Turffontein also referred to this and said that the department should be assisted when it came to selecting the people who could be allowed into the country.

I therefore cannot support the hon member for Green Point’s argument. We shall take a good look at the amendments of the hon member for Umbilo, and the hon the Deputy Minister will probably give a reply in that connection.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Caledon misunderstood me when I spoke about the manpower position in the department. I was trying to indicate that if the department were to decide to ask all employers—or a large portion of them—to provide returns, the department would not even have the manpower to study those returns properly with a view to determining who were aliens who belonged here and who were not. My argument is therefore that to use this clause in that way is not physically possible. It cannot be done on a large scale. The alternative is that the department could only use it with regard to those employers whom it was suspected already had some aliens in their employ. There may possibly be firms and industries in which there are normally a large number of immigrants working. There may, for example, be certain professional skills in regard to which South Africa still has very few trained people. One could therefore find a large number of aliens working in a specific kind of industry. The department could then implement this measure in that restricted sphere. My point, however, is specifically that if the department is, even now, aware of what industries fall into that category, and is also aware of employers it suspects of having, in their employ, aliens whose status is doubtful, the next step must be to determine, beyond all shadow of a doubt, whether the proper procedures were adopted when the relevant people were, employed. That is a relatively small step, and in such a case one hardly needs the kind of powers for which provision is being made in this clause. Therefore I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether the department is really experiencing problems clarifying such matters with the voluntary co-operation of such firms. I am convinced that they would probably obtain people’s co-operation if they suspected that in a specific case aliens were being employed in conflict with the provisions of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to give hon members the assurance that here we are really dealing with a very innocuous clause. Firstly I want to focus attention on the fact that this clause deals with aliens and not unlawful aliens as such. I should like to state, as has been pointed out by another hon member, that a holder of a permanent residence permit may not, within the first three years, change his profession without permission. We do not, of course, have any method of checking on this, and these things do take place. Because we are specifically engaged in improving our control measures, this is one of the improvements we are putting before the House. In this connection we are asking for the co-operation of all companies and employers.

Now the hon member for Green Point asks whether this cannot take place on a voluntary basis. I do not think it would work on a voluntary basis. I do not want to say that companies would be lax when it came to this, but I know they have many other things to do, and this is but one of the things that would remain undone and would not be carried out. That is why we would like to entrench it in this clause so that there can be more efficient control of aliens and employers can be compelled, upon request, to provide particulars about aliens who are in their employ. I want to assure hon members that we do not unnecessarily want to disrupt employers’ activities. Nor do we want to thrust a “massive load of information” onto the department, as the hon member for Green Point put it. In my opinion the department has enough work. We do not even have the manpower to do the work that has to be done every day. We do not want to do unnecessary work. We do not want to obtain unnecessary information. We do not want to disrupt companies’ activities. We must, however, exercise control.

What is of very great importance—the hon member for Turffontein pointed this out, and I should like to endorse it—is that we should like to know the distribution of aliens or immigrants in this country when it comes to the occupations or professions they are engaged in. This could help us tremendously in determining the people we need. It could help the department in its selection. This clause actually deals with the selection of immigrants. Once we have these particulars, we can determine in what categories of activities there is a shortage in the country, and this could then be supplemented by recruiting immigrants in those fields. We really do not want to disturb companies in their activities, nor place an unnecessary burden on them. We must, however, have this inserted so as to be able to exercise proper control.

*The hon member for Umbilo is a good member. He was a businessman but I do not think he will try to go back to business at this stage. I shall accept his two amendments.

Amendments 1 and 2 agreed to.

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

Clause 6:

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

1. 1. On page 11, in line 26, to omit “three” and to substitute “seven”.

The effect of this amendment is, quite simply, that in cases where persons with a right to permanent residence in South Africa relinquish that right owing to long absence, the period required for such absence is being extended from three years to seven years. The present situation is that an alien who has the right to permanent residence in South Africa automatically forfeits that right to permanent residence if he remains outside the country for three years. We accept that there should be measures in terms of which someone should forfeit that right at some or other stage, because otherwise it would be very difficult for the Government of any country to know exactly who its citizens are, who have a right to be resident in the country, etc. If it is clear that someone has no intention of returning to the Republic, it is understandable that he should forfeit his rights in this connection.

The second important point, in this regard, is that even at this stage the position of naturalized South African citizens—in other words, South African citizens who are citizens of the country by virtue of naturalization—is such that they forfeit citizenship if they are outside the country for an uninterrupted period of seven years. For reasons of efficacy I think it is a good thing to extend the period of seven years in this case too. I do not think that the difference in status between a naturalized citizen and someone with a right to permanent residence is actually such as to justify such a drastic difference in these periods. The reason why we have such a provision is so that one can know, after a specific period has elapsed, that a person is apparently not interested in being a citizen or an inhabitant with a right to permanent residence in South Africa and so that one can adapt the population register and other records accordingly. I do not think that this provision has been written into our other legislation, and now into this Bill, with the purpose of imposing a penalty of some or other nature. I think it is merely there for reasons of efficacy, and in my opinion it is sensible to have it there. I do think, however, that three years is slightly short. Frequently someone is studying overseas for three years or longer, or it may happen that someone with a senior position in commerce or industry accepts a position with an international firm overseas for a period of five years—five years is the general period applicable in such cases—and I therefore think it would be wise to extend the period from three years to five years. I am aware that the Minister can make exceptions if applications are made in this connection, but I do nevertheless think that it would be wise, generally, to extend the period somewhat, in fact to seven years, as in the case of naturalized citizens.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but I cannot agree with the hon member for Green Point about the comparison he drew between citizenship and the right to permanent residence. The hon member said that citizenship and the right to permanent residence were more or less one and the same thing; that there was not a great difference between the two.

I said that the difference did not justify the drastic difference in the periods.

The hon member says the difference does not justify such a drastic difference in the periods. Perhaps I understood him incorrectly, but I accept his explanation. I nevertheless want to disagree with the hon member on this point, because there is, after all, a very great difference between someone who has citizenship and someone who only has a right to permanent residence. I therefore cannot agree with the hon member when he tries to equate these two aspects.

As an example the hon member mentioned someone studying abroad, or someone who occupies a senior position and may be working overseas for a long period on a contract basis. I want to point out to him, however, that permanent residence permits do not simply lapse summarily, because in terms of the proposed section 8A, under specific circumstances provision can be made for exemptions. So this ought not to present those people with any problems. We are dealing here, however, with cases of people who, for as long as it suits them, and as long as conditions in South Africa are such, make use of the privileges that South Africa has to offer. As soon as it no longer suits them, however, they leave the country. Perhaps they obtain a right to permanent residence in another country, and when conditions there no longer suit them, they simply come back on their old residence permit and again settle in South Africa. In this way undesirable elements can again enter South Africa. A holder of a permanent residence permit may perhaps have committed an offence. He is then sent out of the country, but if he is a British citizen who does not need a visa to return to South Africa, he can again slip into the country, and then we again have an offender on our hands.

Let me conclude by saying that in my opinion this is a fair arrangement. When someone has been absent for three years, and has not applied for exemption in terms of the Act, it is reasonable for him to lose his right to permanent residence. I therefore cannot agree with the hon member when he says that the difference between citizenship and a right to permanent residence is not as great as to justify the great difference in the periods.

Mr Chairman, I wonder if the hon member for Green Point could motivate the period of seven years. A period of five years one could accept because that is the time it takes to naturalize. People who leave the country to study overseas normally return after three or four years. I find it difficult to conceive of any motivation for a period of seven years. The only period I can think of, which is seven years, is in respect of a person between the age of 18 and 25 years. That is a seven-year period. That is of course also the period normally devoted to military training. I would not like to see this used to enable a person to avoid his military training period for seven years whilst still retaining his privileges. I want to know from the hon member for Green Point whether that is the motivation for the seven-year period, or whether there is another reason why he has chosen the period of seven years and not a period of four or five years.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon member for Durban Point. I do not know whether the hon member was here in the House when I made the point earlier that this amendment was merely aimed at bringing the situation into line with that of a naturalized South African citizen, who also forfeits his citizenship if he remains outside of the country for a period of seven years. The seven-year period already applies in the case of a naturalized South African citizen. Therefore I am of the opinion that we should apply the same period here as well.

If one is of the opinion that this clause is aimed at dealing with some particular difficulty and if it is the idea to penalize somebody in any way, then it is obvious, I believe, that the difference between the two categories mentioned—the permanent resident and the naturalized citizen—becomes important. It does appear to me, however, that the only reason why it is formulated as it is at the moment is really only to clear our own records. We want to know that when a permanent resident, or for that matter a naturalized South African citizen, has been outside of the country for a long time he is no longer regarded as a permanent resident of this country and therefore forfeits all his rights of citizenship as well. I really believe that is the only purpose of this clause at the moment.

The hon member for Caledon made the point that people sometimes, for reasons of their own convenience, come to this country when it suits them, and leave again when it suits them. I do think however, we should not fail to be honest. People emigrate and immigrate for reasons of personal convenience. When it becomes difficult, for instance, to find employment in a particular country people are inclined to seek employment in another country. This is the type of motivation that is relevant in every instance of immigration. The question is of course whether it really creates problems for us. If someone should come into this country during a good time and should leave again when times take a turn for the worse, I do not believe it really causes any insurmountable difficulties for the country as such. Even if this should indeed be so, I am still not convinced that this clause can really be applied in order to remedy the situation. It appears to me as though the real intention of this clause is to enable the authorities to delete from the population register the name of a person who has been outside of the country for too long a period, and from whom nothing has been heard for years. In this way the authorities are being enabled to clear their records of the names of people who can evidently no longer be regarded as permanent citizens of the country. That is the only reason why I was of the opinion that a period of seven years would be appropriate. If one should make it a period of between three and seven years, it will obviously not make all that difference. I do believe, however, that the longer the period the less the chances of any serious problems arising. It should, however, not exceed seven years. Making it a period of five or six years, I believe, will also certainly be an improvement. For the sake of consistency, however, I think a period of seven years may be appropriate.

Mr Chairman, as the clause is worded at present, I think it is fair and acceptable. Someone who leaves the country on a bona fide basis will definitely not be affected by this. The hon member for Green Point presented the House with certain examples. He spoke, amongst other things, of people going to work or study abroad. There are sufficient exceptions for such people in terms of this very clause. We must just note the exceptions. They relate to people going to work abroad in the service of the Government, or who go there as representatives or employers of some person or association based in South Africa, or who are even in the employ of an international organization established in the Republic. This also applies to the wives and children of such people, including the wives and children of South African citizens going to work or to study abroad. In other cases, too, the Minister can grant exemptions.

I therefore want to contend that anyone going to work or study abroad on a bona fide basis can definitely obtain exemption. The provision in this clause will therefore only affect people who act mala fide.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Green Point rightly said that this clause was based on section 17 of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949, in terms of which a naturalized South African citizen loses his citizenship owing to a long absence from South Africa. The hon member mentioned the period of seven years. I do think, however, that there is a very great difference between a person who is a citizen of a country and a person who is living here on a residence permit. One would find that a person who has become a citizen of the country, who has taken the oath of allegiance to the country, has more feeling for his new fatherland, the land he has embraced, whilst we do come across—and we have really come across them—cases of people coming to the Republic and receiving a permanent residence permit, the idea being that they are actually going to settle permanently in the Republic. There could possibly be difficult circumstances prevailing—an economic slump or something of that nature—and then one simply finds those people leaving the country and turning to another country that is possibly in a better position at that stage. There they also obtain a permanent residence permit, and then many years later they want to come back to South Africa. We just feel that such a person has lost contact with the country. It can also be said that a person who has become a citizen can also have lost that contact, but I want to reiterate and I believe that he has a totally different bond with his new father-land. He keeps himself abreast of what goes on in his new fatherland, even if he is not living here. When a person who is here merely on a residence permit turns his attention elsewhere, he withdraws himself and has no contact whatsoever with this country any more. This actually has a detrimental effect on our immigration set-up.

I find myself, however, in a difficult position. The hon member for Green Point has moved that the period should be seven years. Although I cannot accept a period of seven years, I am prepared to accept a period of, say, five years, which I do not think hon members on this side of the House would object to either. In the circumstances I therefore move as an amendment:

1. 2. On page 11, in line 26, to omit “three” and to substitute “five”.

Mr Chairman, since the hon the Deputy Minister is now proposing a period of five years, with the Committee’s permission I shall withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 2 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr Chairman, I move the two amendments on this clause printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 13, in line 31, to omit “or 5ter”.
2. 2. On page 13, from line 39, to omit subsection (2).

At present the position is such that a person found guilty of an offence in terms of this legislation is, on a first conviction, liable to a fine not exceeding R200 or, in default of the payment of a fine, imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, etc.

In this clause a distinction is being drawn between an offence in terms of section ibis(l) and an offence in terms of section 5ter. They are being dealt with separately, but they are punishable by an increased penalty of R600 or six months rather than R200 or six months. The R600 or six months is acceptable to us as a substitute for the R200 or six months because, with the change in the value of money, we find it understandable that such a change should have come about.

I briefly want to refer to section 5bis. Why an exception is being made here in terms of section 5bis must merely be ascribed to the fact that section 5bis itself contains a penal provision. In the case of section 5ter, however, a specific distinction is being drawn here because it is obviously the aim of the legislation to regard offences in terms of that section in a more serious light and to impose a heavier penalty.

The effect of my amendment is therefore also to insert offences in terms of section 5ter in the normal penal regulations applicable in terms of the legislation; in other words, offences committed in terms of section 5ter shall also be subject to a penalty of R600 or six months and not the tremendously severe penalty of R5 000 or two years on a first conviction, and both this severe fine and the tremendously long period of imprisonment in the case of a second conviction.

In the discussion of clause 3, which amends section 5ter, we previously indicated that we believe that in certain circumstances the position of persons who have some or other business ties with an alien could be made a very difficult one. A person providing someone with accommodation, even a person who is merely providing someone with advice, providing someone with a job or having any business ties with him, could be pinned down in terms of section 5ter which is being amended in terms of clause 3. The penalty of R5 000 or two years is, in our view, quite excessive, and that is why I am proposing that the penalty be reduced in those circumstances and brought into line with that of the offences in the rest of the legislation.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the Committee cannot accept the hon member’s amendment which boils down to the fact that the penal provision in regard to section 5ter offences be reduced and that subsection (2) of the proposed section 10 be deleted.

The simple reason for the increase of this penalty is that it concerns employers who illegally employ people and also concerns unlawful aliens. That is the fact I should like to put to the hon member. We must ask ourselves whether the problem surrounding this matter justifies such a severe penalty. We on this side would humbly like to suggest that the problems surrounding the employment of illegal aliens—that is the point—justify this very severe penalty. The department is confronted with very great problems. There are staff problems and all kinds of other problems, and unfortunately there are also people who consciously want to employ people in conflict with the provisions of the legislation and other related measures. For that reason we think that a fine of R5 000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years, as embodied in the new provision, is quite justifiable. The point is that we should like people to be deterred to such an extent by the penal provision in this clause that no employer will employ an unlawful alien.

Even in the case of the other provisions of the proposed section 5ter relating to property, such a penalty is justifiable. The hon member’s proposal that the penalty be reduced, would be doing a great injustice to our intention, ie that under no circumstances should employers unlawfully aid aliens by allowing them to maintain their status as unlawful residents in South Africa. If hon members opposite wanted to take their argument in regard to section 5ter all the way, I could understand what it is they were proposing. If the hon member believed what we said, ie that it was not our intention to involve those other people, he would not have proposed that the penalty be reduced. I believe that hon members of the official Opposition agree with us—I say this on the basis of the debates we have had about these matters in the past—that there should be very stringent measures in regard to aliens. We believe that the deterrents in regard to this matter should be sufficient, and for that reason we cannot accept the hon member’s amendment.

Mr Chairman, I get the impression that the hon member for Green Point does not feel very strongly about this matter, but I may be wrong. I want to make a request to him. We are in no way doing away with the discretion of the courts. All that is being laid down here are the maximum penalties that can be imposed by the courts. In no way is the discretion of the courts being encroached upon. I do not want to elaborate any further on the arguments raised by the hon member for Innesdal, but I do want to ask whether the hon member for Green Point does not want to consider withdrawing his amendment.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid that I am not prepared to withdraw my amendment. The hon member for Caledon was right about there not being any interference in the discretion of the courts. The fact is, however, that a maximum penalty is being written into the legislation to give the courts an indication of the seriousness with which the legislator regards a specific offence. The courts shall—it is not a question of “may”—not ignore it. In saying this I do not want to imply that the courts are being completely restricted, but if one has the case—as is happening here—of a previous penal provision of R200 or six months now being changed to R5 000 or two years, it is a change that would hardly enable a court to punish anyone in terms of the guidelines that applied previously. I do not doubt that the courts should take note of the approach the legislator has given notice of by way of such a penal provision, and I must therefore ask that my amendment be considered.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry that I cannot accept the hon member for Green Point’s amendments. I am convinced that in this country we should place a high premium on the provision of job opportunities. Ours is a country with a tremendous growth in population, whilst the level of education of our people is continually on the increase. I do not think that unlawful aliens should occupy positions that South Africans or lawful aliens ought to be occupying. Employers have a procedure they can adopt, and this afternoon I want to pay tribute to employers who do so. They send people to other countries to recruit employees for them. They comply with all these measures and we work together beautifully. As is probably the case in all countries, and in all spheres, there are people who try to circumvent the measures. Action must be taken against them, and it is no use introducing a minuscule fine that will have no effect. A heavy fine must be prescribed. Salaries have increased tremendously, and if the same ratio is borne in mind, this fine reflects the increase in salaries. Offences of this nature are regarded in a serious light, and it is therefore essential for us to make provision for the imposition of heavy penalties. In the imposition of penalties, the discretion of the courts is in no way being reduced. The penalties being prescribed here are the maximum penalties.

I therefore cannot accept the hon member’s amendment since we are in the process of overhauling these control measures and because I feel very strongly about this.

Amendment 1 negatived and amendment 2 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

1. 5. On page 15, in line 56, to omit “R5 000” and to substitute “R2 000”.

That relates to the penalty for leaving the Republic without a passport or leaving the Republic at a place other than a port where people are normally allowed to depart from the Republic. It is fascinating to study this legislation and to try to find out whether the Government takes a more serious view of people who want to come into the country or of people who want to leave the country. It appears that it cannot make up its mind except that one way or another they want to be very rough on people. For the first time the option of a fine is created while previously there was only the possibility of imprisonment, minimum imprisonment of three months and maximum imprisonment of two years. The effect of my amendment is that there will be a fine not exceeding R2 000 or a period of imprisonment not exceeding two years.

For the purpose of indicating why I say R2 000 or two years, I tried to follow the fairly consistent line as far as penalties are concerned. I based it on the first penalty mentioned in clause 7 where the fine of R600 is matched with a period of imprisonment of six months. That would mean that for one years imprisonment it should be R1 200, but I think R1 000 is near enough. Therefore, on that basis and to be consistent, a fine equivalent to two years imprisonment should be in the order of R2 000 if one accepts that the fine and imprisonment prescribed in clause 7 is correct. I therefore think that R2 000 would be more correctly matched with two years. It seems that the hon the Deputy Minister is going in the opposite direction with his amendment. We both seem concerned with the point made by the hon member for Brakpan who said that there are some inconsistencies as far as the penalties are concerned. We are trying to be more lenient in some instances than the hon the Deputy Minister, who is getting tougher all the time.

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

1. 1. On page 15, in line 56, to omit “R5 000” and to substitute “R10 000”.
2. 2. On page 15, in line 58, to omit “two” and to substitute “five”.
3. 3. On page 15, in line 58, after “years” to insert:
   • or to both such fine and such imprisonment
4. 4. On page 17, from line 3, to omit “one year” and to substitute “two years”.

These amendments result from the inconsistency in the penalties mentioned in clause 11. The hon member for Brakpan drew our attention to these during the Second Reading. I suggested to the hon member for Brakpan that he should move the amendments since he noticed these discrepancies first, but he said he had every confidence in me. However, Sir, I think, if you will allow me to say so, that this is an admission by the hon member that the Tukkies will not be able to beat the Maties on 14 April.

Order! [Interjections.]

The hon member dealt with the matter in the Second Reading debate and I reacted to it then. Now the hon member for Green Point says I am getting “tougher”. I suppose that is true. One has to develop a few “muscles” in this “game”—excuse my language. Unfortunately I cannot accept his amendment.

Mr Chairman, it goes without saying that I should like to support the amendments of the hon the Deputy Minister on behalf of the CP and indicate that we shall not support the amendment of the hon member for Green Point. I thank the hon the Deputy Minister for having corrected this inconsistency which was pointed out. I have said that I have confidence in him, but he should not deduce from this that I have confidence in the party to which he belongs. That is also the standpoint of the CP.

Mr Chairman, I should like to link up with the hon the Deputy Minister. I should like to support the amendments proposed by the hon member for Brakpan and moved by the hon the Deputy Minister. I also want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that as a loyal former Tukkie, as you are, Sir, and the hon member for Brakpan, on this occasion I am siding with the hon member for Brakpan against the hon the Deputy Minister. However, although we are ranged against him, we want to thank him for these amendments.

Sir, is three against one fair?

Mr Chairman, let us make it three against two to restore the balance a little.

I listened attentively to the hon the Deputy Minister. Apart from the statement he made about now wanting to become “tougher” …

No, I do not.

But that is what he said. Apart from that he gave no logical reason for this tremendous increase. I do not want to refer again to the matter of how this will affect Blacks. However, I know of people who travel to the casinos in the Transkei and Bophuthatswana, and to Sun City without taking their passports along with them. These are ordinary decent people. These measures apply to anyone leaving South Africa without a passport, or whatever. To make provision, in such cases, for a fine of this magnitude makes no sense to me. For that reason alone I believe that the amendment of the hon member for Green Point is far more logical and more rational.

Amendment 1 agreed to and amendment 5 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments 2 to 4 agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr Chairman, I should like to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. On page 17, in line 55, to omit “or employee".
2. 2. On page 17, from line 58, to omit subparagraph (ii).
3. 3. On page 19, in line 6, to omit all the words after “1981)” up to and including “1961)” in line 11.

Basically the issue here is the wide category of persons who may be appointed as immigration officers. Earlier on we mentioned what had happened here in the Western Cape in 1981 when a large number of officials from the Department of Co-operation and Development were declared to be passport control officers for the purposes of the 1972 Act. It seems to me that this office should, in fact, be held by persons with a specific status and authority. I know that the Bill states that the Minister may appoint them at his discretion, but I cannot understand why the existing provision in the Act, namely “an officer in the public service”, is not sufficient, and why “employee” should also be added. The hon the Minister may tell me that we should trust him when he exercises his discretion, but why should this be extended to all possible employees in the Public Service? It just does not make sense to me.

I have a similar problem in respect of sub-paragraph (ii), in terms of which messengers of the court may also be designated as immigration officers. There are most certainly messengers of the court who have the status of an immigration officer, but we are all aware of cases where one may with justification ask whether those messengers of the court could, in fact, be entrusted with the responsibilities and status of immigration officers. Consequently it seems to me, particularly in view of the fact that any officers in the public service may now act in such capacity, that it is wide enough to enable the Minister to appoint sufficient officials, when exercising his discretion, to be able to do this work properly.

My objection, as contained in my third amendment, applies similarly to the right of appointment also being extended to officials of any statutory body as defined in the Exchequer and Audit Act or to persons in the service of an institution or body referred to in section 84(1)(f) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. The latter section applies in respect of municipalities, divisional councils and any other local government body. Why we should consider empowering the Minister to appoint officials of municipalities, divisional councils and administration boards—they would also be local government bodies in terms of section 84(1)(f)—I cannot understand. I think that the present wording of the Act offers the Minister more than enough scope for the appointment of a sufficient number of immigration officers to apply the Act effectively.

Mr Chairman, I really cannot understand why the hon member Prof Olivier moved his amendment. If one accepts the principle of this clause, namely that there should be effective control over aliens, one should accept it as it stands. It is obviously there to exercise better control over aliens and to do so effectively and more economically. We have a tremendous manpower shortage. So why not use people who have an intimate knowledge of their particular sphere of operations?

One may pre-eminently use the example of the messenger of the court. A messenger of the court knows his area and his people, and knows when there are any aliens there. Consequently he will be able to act very effectively and far more economically in respect of aliens. The same applies to officials of local authorities and of statutory boards. The hon member must also explain why he accepts that employees of the SATS may be appointed, but when it comes to statutory boards and local authorities he suddenly does not agree with employees from those bodies being appointed.

Mr Chairman, I will be supporting the amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier for the same reasons that I gave previously. Whilst I accept that there may be good reasons for having additional immigration officers other than those who are formally employed at our ports of entry, I feel that the Bill as it stands is far too wide. It is the sort of function that can cause considerable embarrassment if some idiot—and I use the term advisedly— does something completely silly and embarrasses the Government. The Government appoints these people and what they do is ascribed to the Government. If it is an officer of the State then one can accept that one can have extension immigration officers from departments. However, now virtually all hands and the cook can be employed for this job and this is really quite an extraordinary thing. Not only State employees of one sort or another can now be appointed for this job but anybody can be used for it. I believe that immigration officers should have a certain status; they should be properly trained, and I do not believe that the department is going to be able to train this variety of people to do this job adequately. It is not indicated here that these people are going to be assistant or trainee immigration officers or third class immigration officers; they are going to be immigration officers, and this is the point that worries me intensely. I am therefore very happy to support the amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Chairman, there seems to be some misunderstanding. I should like to refer the hon member to the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate in which he said (unrevised Hansard, 21 March):

The hon member for Umbilo assumes that all municipal officers and the other people he mentioned will automatically be appointed, but that is not the case. The Minister will appoint persons as immigration officers after first appraising himself of their capabilities and ability to perform this rather responsible duty. This is, however a further step to utilize our manpower efficiently.

*The hon member Mr Schutte referred, as an example, to a messenger of the court who knows his area and the people who live there, or a municipal official who knows the circumstances in his area, whose services may be utilized in this regard. I cannot, therefore, agree with the hon member for Umbilo on that score.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I should like to pay a tribute to our passport control officers, who perform a very extensive and important task. The legislation prescribes to us who these people may be who may be appointed. I do not think there have been very many incidents involving these officials.

Now we should like to expand it. I said yesterday—and the hon member for Caledon again quoted my words here—that this was really the case. I am simply quoting the last sentence or two of what I said yesterday:

Now I must inform hon members, however, that the idea of appointing messengers of the court as immigration officers under specific circumstances, is still under consideration. Consequently, it does not mean to say that we are going to do so. What we are actually asking for is merely the authorization to be able to do so if it should appear to be necessary to apploint such people as immigration officers. The hon member for Umbilo said, quite rightly, that we have competent messengers of the court; people whom we can use. He also said that there were exceptionally competent people in local authorities, whom we could also use. I want to emphasize, however, that at present we have no one in mind. Actually, we are merely asking for authorization from this House—since we are now tightening up our control measures—to be able to appoint those people when it becomes necessary.

I therefore regret, Mr Chairman, that in view of what I have just said I cannot accept the amendments of the hon member Prof Olivier.

Amendments 1 to 3 negatived (Official Opposition and Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

1. 1. On page 19, in line 39, to omit “R4 000” and to substitute “R2 000”.

The issue here is once again an amount of money which is being increased here from R1 000 to R4 000. This is a fourfold increase. In my amendment I propose an increase to R2 000.

To motivate my amendment I can only say that this is not simply an arbitrary amount which I am proposing here. If we take note of for what purpose that money has to be applied, it appears to be for the following purposes. In section 6(4) of the principal Act it is provided that this money shall serve as a deposit, which may be paid when an appeal is lodged with an immigration board. It is further provided that such a deposit, fixed by the immigration officer, may be charged to cover the following costs. In the first place it is utilized to cover the cost of detention of the person concerned. Where is such a person detained? The obvious place of detention is surely a prison or a similar place.

For R4 000 he can be detained in the Carlton Hotel.

Quite. In the nature of things, the cost of detention will be nominal.

The second factor in the calculation of the cost is that if such a person prefers to appear before the board personally, this is the costs of bringing him before the board. What can those costs amount to? They must be minimal.

The third factor is such costs as shall be incurred in connection with the hearing of the appeal. This is the appeal before the Immigration Board. What enormous costs will be involved in hearing such an appeal?

The fourth factor—and this could in fact be the largest item—is the cost of the removal of such a person to any place outside the Republic to which he may lawfully be removed. Even if he should be removed to a remote foreign place, the most this can amount to is the cost of a single aeroplane ticket. Consequently, to say that the amount of R2 000 cannot cover these four items will not be correct. I readily concede that in view of the increased prices, etc, the amount of R1 000 can be too small. The amount of R2 000, however, seems to me to be entirely adequate to cover the four items I have mentioned. Consequently I feel that the amount of R4 000 is quite exorbitant.

Mr Chairman, when the principal Act was passed in 1972 with the amount provided standing at R1 000, that amount was, in terms of the value of money at that time, a very large amount. I want to concede at once to the hon member Prof Olivier that an increase of 300% since 1972 as far as this amount is concerned, is of course a large increase.

I was unable to work it out quickly, but possibly the hon member could tell us what the accumulated inflation rate between 1972 and the present time was. If he takes that into consideration then I do not think the amount of R4 000 is exorbitant. [Interjections.] I do not agree with the hon member Prof Olivier. I think that the amount of R4 000 is completely in line with the costs, and I also think that the diminished value of money warrants such an increase.

Mr Chairman, I just want to reply quickly to the hon member for Caledon. I have indicated how the money has to be applied. What we are dealing with in this connection, therefore, has nothing to do with the inflation rate. The legislation stipulates four specific items, the costs of which have to be covered. All that we have to calculate is what the costs ought to be on the basis of those four items. Inflation has nothing to do with it. In view of those four factors, I want to repeat that I think that the amount of R2 000 is quite adequate.

Mr Chairman, I cannot agree with the hon member Prof Olivier. I would so much have liked to have made some concession to him in the course of the day, yet we have investigated this matter thoroughly and we feel that we are not acting unfairly or unnecessarily strictly in this connection.

The hon member for Caledon said, quite rightly, that the value of money had diminished, and the four factors which the hon member Prof Olivier mentioned, are going to cost money. It is so easy for the hon member to talk about an aeroplane ticket, but, as he knows, they are expensive.

Apart from the aeroplane ticket, there are many other expenses which also have to be covered.

As I have said, we have investigated the matter and we feel that the amount of R4 000 which is being provided is a fair amount. In 1972 the amount was R1 000 and in those days R1 000 was a great deal of money. That was 12 years ago, just as long as I have been member of this House. If I think of how my salary has improved during that period, then R4 000 definitely does not seem to me to be an unreasonable amount.

I would have liked to have accepted the amendment, but our calculation is that R4 000 is a fair amount, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 negatived Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr Chairman, I should like to know from the hon the Deputy Minister whether the information which had to be laid upon the Table in the House of Assembly in terms of section 23 of the principal Act—that section is now being repealed by means of clause 20—will still, in fact, be available in future for interested members of the public, members of the House of Assembly or the Press.

I can understand that sometimes, when provision is made in legislation for specific information to be laid upon the Table in this House, it can cause unnecessary costs or problems. Nevertheless, I want to know whether it will still be possible to place that information at the disposal of persons who are interested in obtaining it. If someone should consult the department about it, will the information be readily furnished to such a person?

Mr Chairman, I can reply in the affirmative that the information to which the hon member is referring, will be readily available.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 23:

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

1. 1. On page 23, in line 19, to omit “30" and to substitute “60”.

This is actually a less important amendment, but I am of the opinion that 30 days are too short a period and that 60 days would be a more reasonable period. In the original legislation six months were allowed, but the Bill seeks to reduce this period to 30 days. This is the period which is granted before the money is declared forfeited to the State. Within that period the master or owner must prove that the person in respect of whom the amount was deposited, is no longer in the Republic. To give such a person only 30 days to find that proof can under certain circumstances be very onerous. It seems to me that a period of 60 days would be fairer, because in my opinion that allows a greater possibility that the person can find sufficient time to discharge his obligations in terms of the Act. Looking at the hon the Deputy Minister, and bearing in mind his previous remark, it seems to me that he will not be disinclined to accept the amendment. After all, there is no point of principle involved here; the issue is merely a fairer period of time. To reduce a period of six months suddenly to one month, seems to me to be asking too much.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend wasting anybody’s time. I support the amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier because I believe that 30 days is too short a period in which to investigate and to put in motion procedures to find such a person and certainly too short to get hold of the master of the ship, if the ship happens to have sailed, and to get back with the appropriate proof. I think 60 days is a reasonable period.

Mr Chairman, since we have now come to the end of the discussion in this way, I am prepared to accept a period of 60 days.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37:

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the hon member for Stilfontein cannot be present here this evening, but he mentioned during the Second Reading debate yesterday that there were so-called agents who sometimes exploited aliens in an unscrupulous way. That is, in fact, the case. The hon member undertook to prepare an amendment with the object of prohibiting this undesirable state of affairs. I saw the hon member’s amendment which he wanted to move, but since he touched upon certain aspects in that amendment which first had to be investigated in detail by the department, I unfortunately cannot consider such an amendment at this stage, since it also introduces a new principle into the Bill.

However, I want to give the hon member the assurance that the department will investigate the matter again so that ways and means can be found of combating the exploitation of aliens. A tremendous amount of exploitation is occurring, and we shall have to curb it in one way or another.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Estate Agents Act, 1976, which came into operation during August 1977, has shown in practice that it is an instrument with which the Estate Agents Board, which was established in terms of this Act, was able to exercise control over the estate agents business in general with a large measure of success.

Certain practical problems still exist, however, which to a certain extent hamper the board in the more efficient discharge of its obligations. With this amending Bill an attempt is being made to eliminate these problems, and I should like to discuss the main amendments briefly.

Owing to the fact that in modern-day society estate agents deal with a diversity of interests on behalf of their principals, the need has become apparent to insert the definition of “immovable property” in the Act. By means of this definition it is now being made clear and placed beyond all doubt that in future this concept also includes inter alia the following, namely a unit in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, an undivided share in immovable property, a share in a share block company, as well as the concept of a time-sharing interest, for which provision is made in the Property Time-sharing Control Act, 1983.

During 1977, when this Act came into operation, there were fewer than 7 000 estate agents registered with the board. Since then this figure has grown to more than 25 000 registered estate agents in 1983, which made the workload of members of the board considerably heavier. In view of the fact that members of the board have to devote personal attention to board matters virtually on a daily basis, and in order to alleviate the workload, provision is now being made in clause 2 of the Bill for the number of members of the board to be increased from 11 to 14.

A further important amendment which is contained in clause 3 of the amending Bill provides that the Minister may in future determine the remuneration and allowances paid to members of the board without consultation with the Minister of Finance. In this respect the position of the board is now being brought into line with that of other similar boards and councils which also do not rely on State funds, such as, inter alia the boards and councils for which provision is made in Valuers’ Act, 1982, and the Travel Agents and Travel Agencies Act, 1983.

In conformity with these Acts, provision is being made in clause 4 of the amending Bill for the Estate Agents Board to be empowered in future to decide for itself the conditions of service and remuneration of its staff. The reason for this amendment lies inter alia in the fact that the board has to compete for staff in a highly competitive labour market where time is of the utmost importance during the negotiating process with prospective employees. In practice the present rather cumbersome procedure presents problems, and it has consequently been decided to give the board greater autonomy in this connection in view of the fact that there are sufficient other overall control measures governing the expenditure of the board.

Another matter which is at present causing the board practical problems is the fact that the disciplinary committees of the board, established in terms of regulations, are not empowered to find an estate agent guilty or to impose a sentence on him and that all findings of the present disciplinary committees have to be referred to the board itself by way of recommendations in respect of convictions and sentences. The result is that all disciplinary hearing recommendations, which at this stage may vary from approximately 300 to 500 per annum, have to be dealt with by the board itself or by the executive committee of the board. This means in practice that the board has to consider all recommendations of the disciplinary committees together with all the evidence, after which the board has to convey its decision in writing to the persons who appeared before the committees. This imposes a heavy administrative burden on the board.

Clause 5 of the amending Bill contains an amendment to section 8 of the Act and empowers the board to appoint disciplinary committees, each consisting of at least three members of the board, which are then empowered to conduct the hearing of an estate agent against whom a charge has been laid, and to give a decision.

As regards the powers of the board in regard to convictions and sentences, provision is already made for this in the Act. Any person who feels that he was unjustly convicted and sentenced, acquires the right in terms of subsection (2) of the proposed section 8B to appeal to the board against his convictions and sentence. In addition the right to appeal to a court of law in terms of the provisions of section 31 is being retained in a case where an appellant is not satisfied with a decision of the board.

Clause 7 of the amending Bill contains an amendment to section 18 of the Act, which section regulates the application of moneys in the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund. This section is now being amended to include the following matters: Firstly, the board found that it sometimes happened that a misapplication of funds occurred in respect of pending or incompleted contracts; in other words, contracts which at that stage had not been signed by all the parties to the contract. In regard to such cases there is at present uncertainty whether they are in fact regulated by the provisions of section 18 and therefore whether the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund is in fact liable if financial losses are suffered. It is now being expressly stated that these cases do in fact fall within the scope of the provisions of the Act, which means that losses in this connection will in fact be covered by the aforesaid fidelity fund.

In the second place it frequently happens that immovable property is registered in the name of private companies and that transfer of such a property then takes place merely by way of a take-over of the shares in the private company concerned. In such cases there is also uncertainty as to whether this type of transaction falls within the purview of section 18. This matter is being rectified by amending the wording of section 18 in such a way that the sale of shares in a private company of which all the assets, or the greatest proportion of the assets, consist of immovable property is being included in the scope of the provisions of section 18.

†A further amendment to the Estate Agents Act concerns section 27 which deals with the disqualifications relating to fidelity fund certificates. An estate agent who does not cause his books to be audited in terms of section 29(b) of the Act, or an estate agent who fails to have his trust account and trust records audited in terms of section 32(3)(b), usually, in the experience of the board, fails to do so because there is a shortage in his trust account. In spite of the fact that there are numerous such instances annually, the board is presently obliged to issue a fidelity fund certificate to such an estate agent although he has failed to submit his auditor’s report for the previous year. In order to bring this matter into line, section 27 is now being amended to disqualify such person from receiving a fidelity fund certificate until such time as he does submit the necessary auditor’s report, showing that everything is in order with his trust moneys.

In terms of the present wording of the Act, the board seems to be obliged to issue a fidelity fund certificate to a person against whom claims have been received and paid by the board, but who then simply starts trading under another name and then applies for a new fidelity fund certificate. It is felt that, if claims are paid by the fidelity fund against a company or a partnership or a sole trader, that person should be disqualified from operating as an estate agent until he has repaid to the board the amount which the board has paid out on his behalf, or until he has made satisfactory arrangements for the repayment of such money. This matter is now also being rectified by way of an amendment to section 27 in terms of clause 8 of the Bill.

In terms of clause 9 of the Bill an amendment to section 29 is being effected. This section regulates the keeping of accounting records by estate agents, which records should, according to the provisions of paragraph (b) of section 29, be audited by an auditor. However, the said paragraph (b) does not specify within which time limit such auditing should be carried out. As it is considered appropriate to grant a reasonable time within which this obligation should be discharged, the section is now being amended to provide for a period of four months after the end of the financial year of that estate agent, within which period such auditing should be done. Due to the fact that the end of the financial year of each registered estate agent is on record with the board for the purposes of control, this section is further amended by providing that an estate agent may not alter the date of the end of his financial year without the prior written consent of the board.

A small but significant amendment relating to section 32 of the Act is contained in clause 12(a) of the amending Bill. Subsection (2) of section 32 provides that any money deposited in the trust account of an estate agent, which is not immediately required for any particular purpose, may be invested in a separate savings or other interest-bearing account opened with a bank, building society or other institution designated by the Minister. Paragraph (c) of this subsection further provides that the interest earned on such investment shall subject to the express terms of a particular mandate, be paid to the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund. However, financial institutions now also pay interest on moneys paid into current bank trust accounts, while the Act in its present form does not contain any provision in respect of this rather recent development. Clause 12(a) of the Amendment Bill therefore provides that, subject to the terms of a specific mandate, interest earned on trust moneys should likewise be paid into the fidelity fund.

Lastly, clause 12(b) of the Bill contains an amendment which extends to section 32(3)(b) of the Act the principle explained with regard to section 29. In terms of the proposed amendment to section 32(3)(b) the audit in respect of an estate agent’s trust account should now also be completed within four months after the end of the financial year of a particular estate agent. The amendment also prohibits, for purposes of control, any estate agent from altering the end of his financial year without the prior written consent of the board.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Bill. It contains one or two small matters of a technical nature, which we can deal with in the Committee Stage. Broadly speaking, when dealing with this Bill affecting estate agents, we are dealing with a section of people practising a trade which is very important to the economy of South Africa. They play a very vital role in the development of our economy, in the placing of business and in respect of development schemes, community schemes and particularly in respect of housing. They deal with public funds—a fidelity fund is established—and is therefore important that members of the public are protected.

Estate agents have come a long way since the original Act was passed by the House in 1976 and they were put onto a legal and recognized footing, and, in other words, their house was put in order. An estate agent today cannot be a fly by night. He has to be someone with a knowledge of mercantile law, of the Sectional Title Act and the Share Blocks Control Act, he must know something about financing and he must know how building societies and deeds registries operate. A lot of input is therefore needed. For this reason I think it was pertinent that the House passed an amendment more recently regarding examinations that should take place. It is rather a coincidence that on this very day examinations for estate agents to qualify as such are being written. In fact, 60 people are writing in Cape Town and 113 in Johannesburg. Altogether 230 people are writing the examinations throughout South Africa this afternoon. Estate agents have the opportunity to write these examinations four times a year. Those who were admitted and practised as estate agents before 1980 had three years to qualify because it had been accepted that they have the necessary experience in this field. Hopefully that is the case. Those who became estate agents after the date had 12 months in which to qualify. In these circumstances it is necessary that we pass legislation to ensure that the public is protected.

Estate agents handle money to the value of millions of rand—I cannot give an exact figure—in their trust accounts. On the same basis as lawyers who have trust accounts these must be adequately and tightly controlled. At the moment we are dealing with a quasi profession, if I may call it that, in the sense that they do qualify. There are currently some 21 000 estate agents in South Africa registered with the board. Obviously the figure fluctuates depending on economic times. We saw this not so long ago when the market was such that huge profits could be gained, particularly by speculators and people who needed accommodation. We found estate agents springing up overnight virtually. Therefore, in the light of that background, we support this Bill.

The board has had difficulties with regard to the disciplinary committees in the sense that they had to apply their discipline by taking a person to court. This is a long drawn-out process, which is not in the interest of the board, the profession or the public. We will therefore gladly support the idea of establishing the various disciplinary committees, as is being done in clause 1 of the Bill. I take it these disciplinary committees will be located in the main centres, wherever necessary, so that they will be accessible and be able to carry out their work quietly and efficiently. The fact that these disciplinary committees should consist of not less than three members, is acceptable. I think one does not want to have too big a committee. If one of the three members could include someone with some type of legal training it would be acceptable, although provision is made in the clause that the committee will be constituted from within the profession. They will therefore be estate agents as such as not legal people. There are estate agents who have a better understanding of the law and, hopefully, it will be able to use them for this purpose.

Another important aspect in clause 2 is the fact that a difficulty may arise if an estate agent who is going to be disciplined for some defalcation he is alleged to have committed, resigns. In this case the question of jurisdiction falls away. Some time ago we adopted a similar principle in this House in regard to teachers. We found that disciplinary actions taken against a teacher were defeated by the fact that he resigned and therefore we made provision for it. Here too we are now providing that a person who was a member can still be disciplined, and I feel that this is acceptable. We gave this matter much serious thought because it is not easy to do something retrospectively. However, I think the majority are in favour of the proposal and in my opinion it is only right that this step should be taken.

We also have a new definition of immovable property. In this clause share blocks, alienation of land, sectional titles and rights to obtain real rights are listed and in law these are all immovable property. When it comes to the investment of funds as proposed in the new section 8B, it is necessary to tie up the wider definition of immovable property with this proposed new section so that the control envisaged in the amendment will cover immovable property.

Do you know what that will eventually entail?

What does it entail?

What about the transfer of a block of shares that you may have bought?

There are deposits and moneys to be paid into trust in terms of the Share Blocks Control Act, and there are agents who deal with this type of thing. However, I would be very interested to listen to the hon member’s points when he has an opportunity to speak on this issue.

As I mentioned before, there are now 21 000 members registered with the board. It is alleged that 11 members are too few and they want to increase it to 14. Because of the increase in the number of estate agents, we accept that the membership should be increased to 14.

Clause 3 deals with remuneration to be paid to members of the board. This is now being left to the Minister. Previously the Minister was obliged to consult the Minister of Finance, and the same principle is now being applied in clause 4 with regard to the appointment of staff to the board. They previously also had to be approved by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance. We accept this amendment because it gives the board more autonomy. In our view this is a responsible body and they will now be allowed to decide on maters such as remuneration.

Clause 5 deals with disciplinary committees. There should be at least three members on these disciplinary committees and in terms of this clause they are entitled to carry out the functions of the board. In other words the disciplinary committee can carry out whatever duties the board is responsible for. I think the hon the Deputy Minister said that between 300 and 500 disciplinary actions are taken within a year. However, the figures I obtained from the board today indicate that there were 481 charges which are divided into two categories.