Mr Speaker, I move:

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr Speaker, at this the Third Reading stage of the Bill, we once again want to express the feeling that it was a great pity that the hon the Deputy Minister did not see his way clear to affect changes to this legislation to accommodate the difficulties expressed in the amendments moved by hon members on this side of the House, changes, to ensure that this legislation cannot apply to Black former citizens of South Africa who are now citizens of the TBVC countries.

In the course of the debates on this Bill we have heard some very curious arguments, some of which were of a very hypocritical nature. For example, the argument was used that we wish to introduce an element of discrimination into the legislation because we want to refer to former Black citizens of this country. However, very clearly one cannot hope to transplant a colour-blind piece of legislation on an entirely discriminatory basic structure. If people are deprived of their citizenship on the basis of their skin colour, how on earth do hon members expect one to rectify the situation with further legislation without referring to the issue of colour? It is simply not possible, and I think it is an extremely hypocritical argument to advance that our amendment in this regard is in any way racist and introduces an element of discrimination. The argument which was advanced that this legislation is in fact colour-blind, is a spurious one, because it is only colour-blind on the face of it, because although it is true that there is no mention of race in the Bill, it is very clear to anybody who wishes to see that it will have or may well have an effect of a racist nature, simply because people have been made citizens or aliens and are still being made citizens and aliens on the basis of their skin colour and race. Legislation of this nature is therefore anything but colour-blind.

I believe that we have given the hon the Deputy Minister an excellent opportunity to rectify the situation. With one amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier we gave him an excellent opportunity to prove his bona fides, to prove the attitude that this legislation is not really necessary for dealing with former Black citizens of South Africa, that it was not framed for that purpose and that that was not the primary intention of it. If he had accepted that amendment to clause 3, it would have made a lot to allay the fears expressed in connection with this measure, but clearly the hon the Deputy Minister was not interested in doing that. I believe that at the end of this the Third Reading debate the fears we had at the time we moved the amendment has in fact been strengthened. I believe it is a great pity that this should be so.

*Furthermore, I want to make the point that up to now the debate on this Bill has been particularly disappointing. I sometimes found it extremely irritating in the sense that hon members opposite have often shown a lack of sensitivity towards the effect which this kind of legislation might have in practice, towards the problems which we foresee and towards the arguments advanced by this side of the House.

Are the interests of aliens more important than those of South Africa?

Nobody is suggesting that the interests of aliens are more important than those of South Africa, but that does not mean that one should deal with legislation on aliens in a frivolous or absurd manner. That is what I maintain. I maintain that hon members opposite have reacted with everything but a responsible and sensible approach to the arguments advanced in connection with this Bill. In this connection, let me refer to clause 1. I moved an amendment in respect of the powers of review of the courts. I wanted the courts to receive powers of appeal as well. I still do not think that any hon member on the other side of the House understood my amendment. I am clearly under the impression that that is indeed the case.

We also moved amendments to clause 3 with which we sought to limit somewhat the scope of the prohibitions just to make sure that there would be no miscarriage of justice. Hon members then suggested to us that the courts would act in a fair manner. But the courts must apply the law as they find it on the Statute Books of this country. If the net is cast too widely in legislation, the courts cannot ignore it. One may then find absurd verdicts when the courts are expected to give effect to absurd legislation.

Clause 4 requires a return from employers on their alien employees and lays down the penalty of criminal sanctions. I am still awaiting a reply from the hon the Deputy Minister on whether the department normally requests the voluntary co-operation of employers in this regard, and whether they have problems if they do not have the statutory power to penalize these people if they do not co-operate. We also voiced objections to the legal presumption created in clause 4. That was also dealt with in a very superficial way.

I do not believe that this legislation has received the serious consideration which it merits. There is also the question of the approach of hon members to the penalties laid down in this legislation. Naturally one has to adjust penalties from time to time to changing circumstances. The value of money, etc, changes, but when I look for arguments from hon members on that side of the House which really justified the changes in some of these penalties, particularly in cases where there was a drastic change in the penalty—I am afraid that I cannot find any such examples. The hon the Deputy Minister even suggested imposing heavier penalties in certain cases after the hon member for Brakpan had pointed out to him that there were certain inconsistencies. The hon the Deputy Minister blithely doubled the penalties in quite a number of cases. There was clearly no consideration given to those penalties. The mere fact that those are regarded as the maximum penalties, is no excuse for dealing with this kind of thing in a frivolous manner. One has to accept that the courts and the judiciary must take the legislature seriously. If the legislature doubles or quadruples a penalty, as happened in some cases here, then one has to accept that the courts have to take note of it.

Consequently I was very frustrated during the discussion of this legislation because hon members did not always approach it with the seriousness that it deserves. This was also the case with our main objection to this legislation, viz that it could be utilized against people who were formerly citizens of this country. In that case our fears have been aggravated rather than allayed.

The hon the Prime Minister himself has indicated on more than one occasion that sooner or later we will have to look for a special dispensation with regard to citizenship for the citizens of those countries, presumably owing to the sensitivity which exists because these people were after all deprived of their South African citizenship. For that reason they deserve to be placed in a somewhat different category. However, there was no mention of that during the course of this debate. That is why it is so much more of a disappointment to us and leaves us with no choice but to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill as well.

Mr Speaker, in answer to the hon member I should like to say that I think it is very unfair to contend at this point, after the conclusion of the discussions in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, that we misrepresented the provisions of this measure, using absurd arguments, or that we represented them as different to what they are. I should like to say to him that we consistently tried to stay close to the actual provisions, the content and the spirit of the measure before this House. I think the problem of the Opposition is that they have decided consistently to use the content of the measure to apply to this measure what they regard as the spirit and attitude they impute to this side of the House. In that regard the arguments are in a certain sense ideological, and we can never reach agreement. We on this side of the House appreciate many of the arguments and standpoints they have advanced and the emotions and feelings to which they referred. However, those hon members really must not try to suggest that we want to introduce this measure blindly without taking into account all the realities of the country and all the emotions and compassion surrounding the realities.

†The hon member for Houghton also participated in the debates on this Bill. Obviously, after so many years in Parliament, we have come to know her. She is no numskull. We know that, when she enters any debate, she uses arguments which have some substance. In respect of this measure, however, I must honestly say that in my view she participated with an attitude and in a way that is not in the interests of our country. I want to say to her that we on this side of the House have an aversion of the image that has been created of South Africa over so many years with regard to measures such as this. We have that aversion inter alia because we honestly believe that we in South Africa are dealing with problems which also occur worldwide.

Yes, but why do you then …

Yes, most certainly. The hon members of the Opposition go all-out to stir up emotions when it comes to measures like these. Frankly, we are sick and tired of it.

What do we find if we look at the international situation? The hon member for Houghton has stirred up a lot of emotion about the very nature of measures like this to control the influx of immigrants and aliens in South Africa. I should just like to quote to her from the magazine Time of 16 January. The report from which I want to quote is really a tragic sort of report, but it reflects the realities of trying to control the problem of aliens and immigrants in other parts of the world. The report, with reference to West Germany, is headed: “Tragic New Year: Death in a detention centre”. I quote from it:

Listen to this:

The reason why I quote this report is simply to indicate that countries throughout the world have problems with controlling the influx of foreigners. In an effort to control that, one also has to take measures to provide for detention and other measures to assist officials. In that process things happen—as in the case of South Africa—that no Government obviously is in favour of. Tragic events happen. I want to make an appeal that when it comes to legislation such as this that we should not present the application of the law in such a way that the image of our own country can be damaged

I can quote many examples in regard to the question of immigrants and aliens worldwide. I think it will be of interest to the House that we pay a little more attention to this aspect. I know the hon member Prof Olivier knows quite a lot about this worldwide phenomenon that countries have to deal with. Let me quote from Time magazine of 13 June 1983 from a rather lengthy article on the whole question of aliens streaming into many countries in the world. I quote:

In all fairness, I think the hon member for Houghton when she deals with matters such as these before the House, should also look at the photographs of detention camps in the United States which appeared in Time. She must judge that according to Time, and not according to an Afrikaans newspaper in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to draw her attention to a photograph on page 29 of Time of 13 June 1983. The caption reads: “Immigrants at a Texas processing centre face a return trip home”. This photograph surely highlights the problem that faces so many countries in the world with regard to the influx of immigrants from neighbouring countries. This is the only point that I want to make. I want to appeal to those hon members that if they do enter into a debate on matters such as these, that they for Heaven’s sake put the matter in a worldwide perspective.

Mr Speaker, I should like to ask the hon member whether he sees the status of a Mexican, as an alien in America, as being on exactly the same level as that of a citizen of Venda, Bophuthatswana or Ciskei in South Africa?

There are very definite parallels, but there are also definite differences. Those differences are to be found in the historical reality in South Africa. We have had the argument relating to the TBVC countries with regard to this measure. The factual reality is that when those states became independent we passed—wrongly, according to the PFP—a measure relating to citizenship. This is once again relevant with regard to this measure that is under discussion. According to us, and according to any person of sober judgment, this is a statutory reality. The point they advanced in this debate, viz that certain people of the TBVC countries did not agree with the citizenship issue at the time and because they did not agree we should exclude them from the ambit of this measure, is in my opinion totally irrelevant to the discussion of this measure. This measure concerns legislation in the world of statutory reality in South Africa. According to statutory reality—we cannot run away from this—the citizens of Transkei, Bophuthatswana or Ciskei have a different legal status. For that reason they are also treated differently in accordance with agreements with those states.

I should like to elaborate on this argument advanced by the hon the Leader of the Opposition. We are all convinced that the hon the Leader of the Opposition is a reasonable and fair person. On many occasions he has shown that he has a well-balanced view of reality, and I ask him to try to instil that attitude among members of his party as well, so that in future, when we come forward with measures relating to the control of aliens, they will not make emotion-laden speeches in the debate.

I said in the Second Reading speech that one could also view the whole issue of alien control inter alia in the context of refugees. The problem of refugees in all the parts of the world where countries have had to introduce control measures relates to people who flee mainly due to the economic realities in their various countries. As I have already said, this is a refugee problem and this entails another aspect, viz the ongoing status of these people in the countries to which they have fled. This problem is well illustrated, particularly in West Germany and the rest of Europe where in the sixties those countries incorporated aliens and immigrants into their economies. Indeed, they went and recruited those people, and today they are battling with the problem because they do not know what to do with those people. The West Germany immigration policy has three legs. In the first place it concerns the integration of people who have lived in West Germany for a long time and now everything possible is being done to integrate them. The second is aimed at limiting all immigrants, to the point where no further aliens may enter the country. In many respects this is discriminatory legislation, but it appears on their statute book nevertheless. The third leg is particularly interesting and I should not like the hon members of the PFP to overlook it. It is policy to make repatriation payments to all aliens—“foreigners” as they are called there—who want to return to their country of origin. We find the same situation in France, where the French government votes enormous sums to pay the aliens to return to their countries of origin; and this also applies to many other countries in the world.

As far as alien control is concerned, we in South Africa are also faced with those realities and the problems that arise from them, and some of them manifest themselves in several spheres of society, inter alia in the educational spheres. In the USA the government is battling with an enormous problem that is being created by the vast numbers of aliens who are in that country legally and illegally. It costs the American government million of dollars to provide those aliens with mother-tongue education. In West Germany, too, vast sums are spent on the education of the aliens, and that is only one problem that arises out of the alien problem.

Whether or not this is good or right, we must recognize that further problems arise from this question, inter alia race problems throughout Europe, and hon members of the PFP who have visited Europe are aware of this. One encounters it in West Berlin, in Munich and in all the large cities of West Germany. Is it fair, then, to fight the West German government and say: “You have a racial policy”, when they impose limits on the influx of immigrants from certain countries? Is it fair to fight with the French government when they introduce certain immigration control measures with a racial connotation, restrictions on the influx of people from certain African countries, particularly North Africa, restrictions which undoubtedly can only be interpreted to have a racial connotation? And why is this so?

I once read a very interesting article about a football match which was to be played between a West German and a Turkish soccer team in Berlin in October last year. In passing, I want to tell the hon member for Houghton that it is not easy to speak about alien control. According to the report I read in Newsweek, there was about one policeman for every five spectators on that occasion and subsequently the people praised the West Germany police and the authorities for having perceived the potential for tension even before the start of the match.

We now come to the restrictions on the influx of people that apply in West Germany, elsewhere in Europe, in Africa and in the USA. In this regard I want to put it to hon members of the PFP that a racial connotation also attaches to these tremendous problems which in fact contain an economic element world-wide, and no-one can get away from that. Therefore, those hon members should not refer to this in derogatory terms in their own country and try to arouse emotions in this regard while knowing that this is in fact a world-wide problem. Let us briefly apply that world-wide to South Africa when we discuss measures relating to immigration.

For example, the hon member Prof Olivier said—and I believe this was unfair of him—that we were faced by a major dilemma, inter alia because we had no urbanization policy. This, or course, is not a subject which I wish to elaborate on in this debate. Hon members of the PFP who now contend that we want to use this measure to clamp down on people of the TBVC countries must, I believe, concede that to date the Government has not used the statutory measures in this regard exclusively for the purposes for which they contend they were used. The hon member Prof Olivier—I must admit this—is correct when he says that there have been occasions when measures of this nature have been used by appointed officials of the Department of Internal Affairs to act against squatters. Initially I did not understand him correctly when he referred to this aspect. This was because I could not quite hear what he was saying. I was under the impression that he had said that the squatters had come back here. However, this statement that the hon member made was correct. I must admit that.

However, if we were in fact to use the measures embodied in this legislation to act against people who are in the Western Cape illegally, or against people from the TBVC countries who are elsewhere in South Africa illegally, we could lawfully descend violently upon every person who is in South Africa illegally today. However, the statement we want to make is that we do not do so. Therefore I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition to consider this matter together with us. They must please accept that in the implementation of all the measures at its disposal the Government nevertheless— because it fully realizes the real problems that exist in this regard throughout the world—reflects in its actions a certain degree of compassion. Hon members of the PFP should really concede that point as far as the Government is concerned. By virtue of that specific compassion the Government realizes that despite its policy and standpoint that all people of the TBVC countries ought to work in their own countries, the Government nevertheless does not act without taking into account the realities of Southern Africa, with special account being taken of the process of urbanization.

Mr Speaker, I should just like to put the following question to the hon member for Innesdal. If the Government does not intend using these measures for the purpose for which we fear they will use them, can he tell us what his objection is to the amendment moved by the hon member Prof Olivier.

Mr Speaker, this measures relates to the control of aliens who are in South Africa illegally. The hon member for Green Point conveniently ignored this in his argument in this Third Reading debate. However, hon members of the PFP ought to concede that if we seek to streamline and overhaul the control of aliens and then try to introduce a measure in which penalties are substantially increased and in which the onus is placed on the employees as a far as employment is concerned, whereas restrictions are also imposed on the provision of accommodation to the people in question, we surely cannot be accused of unfairness. What we have consistently said to the PFP—indeed, the hon the Deputy Minister stated this clearly in his Second Reading speech—is that it is certainly not the intention of the Government to use this measure solely for the purpose for which the PFP fears it will be used. It has never been the intention to use this legislation against Black people. It is not the intention to use it against people of the TBVC countries. In spite of all these assurances we give them they still seize on certain incidents in which regulations of the Department of Internal Affairs were in fact used to act against squatters. Hon members of the PFP use those incidents to motivate their accusation with regard to the true intention of the Government, as they see it, in respect of the legislation at present before this House.

Whereas we are all in agreement at this point on the really major problems in this regard—and we surely cannot be blind to them—I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Opposition whether, if his party had been in power and he had been Prime Minister of the country, he would really have acted differently in a crisis situation, particularly in view of the fact that in a situation of this nature one is not dealing with individuals but with masses of people who have come to settle in this country overnight. I want to suggest to the hon the Leader of the Opposition that if his party was in power they would not for ever be able to permit absolute chaos being created with regard to the influx of people. I say that as a State with a responsibility, one has no alternative at certain points of crisis but to use measures at one’s disposal. Say for example we had decided, as far as the TBVC countries are concerned, to close our eyes to them. Where would be we heading? That is the point we must state very clearly. When we on this side of the House talk about the urbanization process up to the end of this century, about the approximately 17 million people who will be affected by that process, then we are also dealing with the realities of the TBVC countries. We accept this in our projections. In our estimates of the urbanization problems, which undoubtedly affect restrictive measures, we do not assume that the people of the TBVC countries are not there. We recognize the fact that they form part of the broad economic reality in South Africa.

I now come to the point raised by the hon member Prof Olivier. He says we do not have a policy and he therefore argues by implication that our only method of dealing with these problems is to introduce statutory and restrictive measures. To motivate his argument he says that we lack an urbanization policy. As regards the people of the other foreign states, too, there are several Government departments that carry out investigations into urbanization. As far as further controlling legislation is concerned, we also have a select committee of this Parliament, to which the hon member Prof Olivier could, in my opinion, make a worthwhile contribution. I repeat that we are not blind to the overall problems and for that reason we cannot close our eyes to alien control measures such as this one, nor shall we do so. Nor shall we display a lesser degree of compassions or—worse— racist arrogance in our implementation of the legislation. As far as we are concerned there is a legal reality as well. Is one dealing with a citizen of another country, yes or no? Yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister put this question to hon members of the PFP: What about the people who, at the time of independence of Transkei, Ciskei and the other states, were legally citizens of those countries? Are we, with regard to measures such as this legislation, also going to say that we are going to incorporate an exemption in this legislation in order to accommodate those people? I do not believe that that is the intention, nor that that is the intention of the hon members of the PFP.

I have several reports before me which in my opinion are very important with regard to the worldwide problems of illegal people, people who enter a country illegally but also people who are documented aliens. In order to grasp the extent of the problem, one need only consider that in the USA there are 6 million documented aliens. The hon members of the PFP argue in a certain way which is probably, in their view, the correct one. We understand that, and we also understand, when we refer to the people of the TBVC countries, that urbanization is not purely a negative process. That is not true. It is an absurd and false argument to say that urbanization leads to chaos. That would mean that all of us who are urban representatives, represent chaotic constituencies. We do not represent chaos. We have very orderly constituencies. That is the one point. We also recognize that due to the depopulation of the platteland—and this goes for each of the TBVC countries too—a tremendous process of urbanization is going to develop which will necessarily, in the light of the real economic situation in South Africa, put our measures in regard to alien control to the test. There is no doubt about that. This coincides with the issue of the availability of land in those Black states. The fact remains that rural development cannot accommodate our human masses, whether we like it or not. Human masses can only be accommodated in cities, and the question is whether the TBVC countries can urbanize rapidly enough to be able to handle masses of people up to the end of the century. Personally I believe that this will not be possible, not in every respect as we should like to have it. This does not mean that we lack a policy, nor does it mean that we are doing nothing. It merely means that we, too, are faced with economic realities.

When we look at aliens control we know that the Government does not close its eyes to people who can make a contribution to economic development in this country. When we consider the economic development in the USA over the past century, and particularly in the final years of the previous century, we realize that the fact of the matter is that the more than 40 million people who streamed to the USA from Europe were in fact the people who stimulated the economic development of the USA. We have no problems with this argument. Many of the hon members on this side—I am one of them—believe that with regard to this argument I am now advancing we must not be afraid to introduce more immigrants who can give rise to further creation of employment in the sense that they can be leaders and in the sense that they can generate economic initiative, because every person who can help to generate economic activity and economic development is of importance. When it is a matter of legislation on aliens control, one encounters another moral aspect. The question arises whether it is fair for a country to relax its control measures entirely so that one is constantly skimming off the cream of all the other countries around one, or whether one should try to introduce a degree of statutory regulation which will enable the people in those countries, too, to use their initiative there and allow them to feel that they have an economic task to perform there?

To sum up, I should like to say in a few words that we on this side of the House are very grateful to be able to support this measure here today. We do not believe that this measure is aimed at the people of the TBVC countries. We are grateful because we believe that aliens and immigration control must be stepped up dramatically because it is a pity, but nevertheless true, that one illegal alien from another country, a person with a criminal background, say, can keep many hundreds of policemen busy for weeks on end. Therefore one has to see to it that one introduces the right measures. One must have strict measures. One must know that the people who want to employ that person can be severely punished.

With regard to this point I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he and his department could give very serious consideration to launching a strong publicity campaign with regard to the provisions of this measure so that the people who are potentially guilty and, as a matter of history, have in fact been guilty of this kind of offence, will now know how serious is our approach as regards measures and amending measures such as those contained in this legislation. It is of vital importance that all people, recruiting organizations and people who employ large numbers of immigrants and other aliens, should know.

South Africa would be blind, we should be foolish, we should be irresponsible if we were to confine ourselves to introducing legislation on aliens control which only looks backwards. We introduced this measure because we believe one must have legislation which looks ahead. This legislation looks ahead at the problem that could arise, but the legislation also looks backwards, in the sense that we have been able to learn from experience. This legislation is based on the reality that we have an insufficient number of officials to carry out the responsibility everywhere. We feel that there must be an onus of responsibility on employers and people who provide housing to aliens.

With this one thought I should like to support the Third Reading of the Bill wholeheartedly on behalf of this side of the House and I should like to convey a final word of thanks to Mr Fanie van der Merwe and Mr Attie Tredoux and the other officials, as well as the law advisers who assisted with measures such as these. I should like to say that it is evident from the compassion with which the officials of the Department of Internal Affairs have applied the whole question of aliens control in South Africa and, I believe, will do so in the future, that the spirit in which this is done is very important. I think that the spirit of the officials and of this side of the House is far more important than the wrong attitudes that are attributed to us. I believe that a wonderful future also awaits a country which seeks to bring about a broad order and stability by means of a measure such as this.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House really think it is a pity, and unfortunate, that the emphasis with regard to this Bill is now being placed mainly on the question of citizens or aliens from the TBVC countries whilst, as far as we are concerned, the emphasis of this Bill should really fall on the presence in the Republic of South Africa of all illegal and undesirable aliens, regardless of which country they come from, or what the colour of their skin is. After all, this is mainly what the amendments are about. This is not merely concerned with the presence of aliens in the first instance, but with curbing the presence of illegal and undesirable aliens. Today we are really living in a small world because people have greater mobility between countries as a result of easier and more convenient methods. The possibility of the presence of aliens in a country, and particularly of illegal and undesirable aliens, is increased as a result. Every responsible government of a country has an absolute responsibility, for the sake of its own citizens and for the sake of legal aliens that are in a country with the approval of the government, to protect these people against the presence of illegal and undesirable elements. Because the authorities have this responsibility, they have the right to determine and decide with regard to their state what steps should be taken and what form those steps should take and to what extent they should be reviewed and intensified from time to time in order to make sure that at all times they have the necessary measures at their disposal to combat the presence of these illegal and undesirable aliens. They should have the right to be able to decide whether those aliens should be inside or outside the country.

When the authorities have this right and responsibility and they introduce measures, they cannot argue about exceptions in respect of people from one country or another, but should treat all aliens from all countries the same. I do not think we need to apologize for this, since this applies in all the countries of the world. I do not think there is any country in the world—to the best of my knowledge—that makes this kind of exception by saying that because an alien comes from a certain country, he will be treated differently in terms of the laws of the land. I cannot see why we in South Africa should make such exceptions and then make excuses if we do not make such exceptions. I think we are in line with what happens in the rest of the world in this regard.

This Bill has been introduced now, and it contains arrangements for intensified measures. To me this is only logical, since, as I have already said, aliens can easily enter a country in this large world that has become so small, and there must therefore be intensified measures to make sure that illegal and undesirable aliens can be kept out of one’s country. In this respect we on this side of the House therefore have no problems whatsoever with this Bill. During the Second Reading debate we pointed out that there was a slight imbalance with regard to the penalties. We welcome the fact that the hon the Deputy Minister conceded that we were right in this respect and that he moved an amendment to rectify that imbalance. We are pleased about that and we welcome it. The importance of this measure once it is placed on the Statute Book is that it must be implemented. It must be implemented with regard to every illegal or undesirable alien the Government does not want here, or against whom it wants to take action. We must implement this measure stringently in this respect, otherwise the whole thing will be watered down and it would not be worthwhile effecting these amendments to the Act to strengthen the Government’s hand in order to act effectively in this regard. I do regret one thing, however. As a result of the argument of the hon the Deputy Minister against it, we did not in fact get around to moving our own amendment during the Committee Stage. However, I am convinced that the hon the Deputy Minister and his department will realize in the future that they will have to effect a statutory amendment in this regard. I am referring to clause 3, specifically to the provision with regard to harbouring an illegal or undesirable alien. We felt that whilst provision is made in other respects that assisting an alien by getting him employment or placing him in a profession, is punishable, there will be a problem in the future, in that action will also have to be taken against people who assist aliens to obtain accommodation. I know this will be a difficult matter, but in future it will be found that action will have to be taken in this regard, since this position will be exploited.

I now want to refer to the question of the TBVC countries. The hon the Deputy Minister mentioned an enormous figure with regard to aliens from other countries that are present in our country, people we have problems with. If I remember correctly, the figure was approximately 13 000. It is much easier for people from the TBVC countries than, for example, people from Europe or America to enter the Republic as illegal and undesirable aliens. The fact of the matter is that those people are citizens of another country now, and when they want to enter South Africa, they must do so legally. In terms of existing agreements and laws, the presence of illegal people from the TBVC countries will be dealt with in a proper and legal manner. It is much easier for those people to enter this country due to their proximity and because they find themselves in the vicinity of Southern Africa. The possibility that some of them could be here illegally is much greater—in my opinion— than people from other countries. The problem is that it is those very people who would want to come here, and I therefore believe that we should have measures to deal with these illegal and undesirable elements as well. Nevertheless, we pointed out during the Second Reading that this Bill makes an exception with regard to the citizens of those countries who come here. In clause 24 these people are granted concessions and accordingly, we deal differently with those people than with aliens from other countries. The hon the Deputy Minister conceded that, viz that we make concessions. On account of the agreement we must do so, but we must be careful that this does not perhaps create an unnecessarily large number of problems for us in future.

The fact of the matter is that the citizens of the TBVC countries who come to South Africa and find themselves here as illegal or undesirable aliens, are dealt with in terms of the provisions of agreements. Why must these statutory amendments be used to shift the emphasis onto the people from the TBVC countries, as though this legislation were made for them? Surely these statutory amendments are not only being made for them in the first place. They are being made for all undesirable and illegal aliens, no matter which country in the world they come from. I therefore think that we should move the emphasis back where it belongs. I am really sorry that the hon member for Innesdal did not tell the official Opposition this in his long speech a moment ago.

He made a good speech.

I did not say that he did not make a good speech. I do not know why the hon member Dr Vilonel always makes such foolish interjections. I was merely referring to the fact that the hon member for Innesdal could have told them that. I regret that he did not do so. Then it would not have been necessary for me to do so. That is all.

With these few thoughts I want to say that we on this side of the House are convinced that these measures that are being introduced are correct, they are fair, and that if they are implemented correctly, we can combat and solve our problems with regard to the presence of undesirable or illegal aliens in the future. I hope that these statutory amendments will in future enable the authorities to deal effectively with this one major problem we in South Africa have to contend with.

Mr Speaker, I find myself agreeing, to a certain extent, with the hon member for Koedoespoort. One point he made was that there was an over-emphasis of the TBVC citizens who would supposedly now be affected by this measure. I just want to tell the hon member one thing, however, and that is that we cannot treat TBVC aliens in South Africa in accordance with the same criteria as, for example, citizens of European countries. As far as they are concerned, we must regulate matters more by way of agreement.

This measure will simply result in our being able to ensure more effective control over aliens. That is its purpose. According to the information and motivation obtained from officials of the Department of Internal Affairs in regard to aliens who do not adopt the correct procedure for entering the country, who do not have the correct documents and who are here unlawfully, this measure is essential. One would therefore trust that the department now has the necessary powers to act as it would like to act.

It is interesting that the PFP’s whole argument comes down to the following: Either the control is too strict and we must relax it, reducing the fines, or a too heavy onus is being placed on South African citizens when it comes to helping the department and the State with the control of aliens. We on this side of the House are satisfied that the measure before us places the department in a better position to meet its primary obligation in future, ie that towards existing South African citizens.

In the Second Reading debate, and throughout the Committee Stage, we again had the hon member for Green Point’s lengthy argument about this measure having a detrimental influence on the position of aliens who are citizens of states that previously formed part of the RSA, ie the TBVC countries. The hon the Deputy Minister and the Government have repeatedly adopted a standpoint about this, but we simply do not get any further. I am now really not going to repeat what the hon the Deputy Minister has said, but I do think that hon members should again go and read the hon the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech in which he motivated his standpoint in regard to the control in terms of this measure, including that over citizens of the TBVC countries. The hon member for Green Point again argued that if we had accepted the hon member Prof Olivier’s amendment, we would now have had a golden opportunity to escape our dilemma. It is not only citizens of the TBVC countries who are in South Africa, but also citizens of Lesotho, Swaziland, Botswana, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mozambique. For hundreds of years people from those countries have, from time to time, been economically active in this country. We do, after all, understand what the problem is. We know, do we not, why the people come to South Africa. When they are in South Africa, however, they remain subject to the accepted norms, conventions and laws of the Republic as far as individual community life, individual residential areas, individual schools and separate facilities are concerned. And what is very important is the fact that we do not allow unlawful squatting in South Africa.

This brings me to the single major argument of the hon member for Houghton in particular, ie that this measure has supposedly been used unlawfully in the past against the inhabitants of squatter camps. That this measure has been used in crisis situations, for example at illegal squatter camps, we readily concede. My hon colleague has also said so. Hon members must not argue, however, as if those unlawful squatters had every right to be there. Those hon members proceed from the standpoint that squatters are quite within their rights to come to our country and that we take unlawful action against them. What they are now alleging is that this measure is a veiled method of combating influx control. That is devoid of all truth. The hon member for Houghton and the whole PFP surely know that there are other measures that are applied with regard to influx control. There is also legislation that has already been tabled and referred to a select committee. I think those hon members should wait a little while and make their contributions in that select committee. We shall perhaps, at a later stage, be in a much better position to debate the matter.

That Bill has been withdrawn.

But that Bill will come before a select committee. The hon member will have every opportunity in the world to make her contribution.

*I should like to deal with one other aspect, ie what the PFP’s alternative is. Is it their alternative that there should be no control in regard to citizens of the TBVC countries? [Interjections.] Is it their standpoint that unlawful squatting should be permitted in South Africa, perhaps on that open piece of ground in Rondebosch, or on the large open areas in Constantia, or in Pinelands? Is that what the PFP wants? [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head. Every time we take action against unlawful squatting, however, we are accused here of having done so illegally. The unlawful squatting of aliens who simply arrive overnight can surely not be compared with urban Black people who possess section 10 rights. Surely that is not being fair. It is not being fair to the Black people in a city like Soweto to compare their position with that of illegals who arrive overnight and establish squatter camps in our cities. When we got to this argument, the hon the Leader of the Opposition jumped up and put a question about the status of TBVC citizens in South Africa, in comparison with that of other aliens. He mentioned the example of West Germany. I have a great deal of respect for the hon the Leader of the Opposition. When all is said and done, we both come from good South African Party homes. I share a great deal of sympathy with him. His argument by way of a question about whether an alien from the TBVC countries is entitled to the same status as an alien from Europe who finds himself in South Africa, however, requires an academic type of reply. That type of question or argument will get us nowhere.

What did the hon the Leader of the Opposition do? As an example he dragged Dr Motlana into the affair. So what is he trying to say? I contend that he is trying to say that Dr Motlana would suddenly be subjected to the same treatment as the illegal squatters arriving here from the Transkei.

It could happen.

That is the kind of story that is disseminated abroad by hon members on that side of the House. [Interjections.] Out of a feeling of sympathy for the Leader of the Opposition I have always said that he is not a radical, but I have recently heard that he is, in truth, the leader of the radical element in that party. Now a responsible person like himself, and a front-bencher sitting there next to him, come along and say that what happened to the squatters in the Western Cape could also happen to Dr Motlana. That is, however, devoid of all truth. Who is Dr Motlana? Dr Motlana is a Tswa na who obtained Bophuthatswana citizenship in terms of the relevant Status Act. He says he does not want it. That much I do concede. What is important, however, is that the Status Act that granted Dr Motlana Bophuthatswana citizenship does not have any effect on his section 10 rights that he has in the urban areas of South Africa.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware of the fact that any children born to Dr Motlana after independence was taken by Bophuthatswana, have no section 10 rights and that this law can apply to them?

I think the hon member is really going wild about this. The hon member knows as well as I do that the Government has accepted the permanence of Black people in Soweto, and they will be handled in that light. [Interjections.] Furthermore, a Cabinet Committee has been appointed to go into the political rights of urban Blacks in South Africa.

As good as your assurances, so good will the findings of that committee be. It is the law that counts.

Dr Motlana’s Bophuthatswana citizenship does not encroach upon the section 10 rights to which he is entitled. The Rikhoto case has proved to the hon member that now people also have the right to have recourse to the courts if they have problems. So dragging Dr Motlana into this issue, as the hon the Leader of the Opposition has done, is being completely unfair. People hawk Dr Motlana’s name around; they do the same with Bishop Tutu’s name. When one talks to overseas visitors, the first names they mention are those of Dr Motlana and Bishop Tutu. They are supposedly being treated so badly. That however, is simply not true.

What do PFP members achieve by doing this? They sow suspicion about South Africa in the TBVC countries. They sow suspicion about the Government in the minds of Black inhabitants of the White areas of South Africa, and it is a distorted picture that they blazon abroad. Now the hon the Leader of the Opposition comes along and questions the status of the TBVC citizens as against that of West German aliens in South Africa. In all fairness, however, one cannot directly compare these two situations; to do so is altogether too simplistic. Urban Black people who are citizens of the TBVC countries, but also have section 10 rights, are not comparable to aliens from Europe. In certain respects citizens of Bophuthatswana or Transkei having section 10 rights in the White area of South Africa, have a greater right to be resident in South Africa than an alien from Europe. That is a fact.

The hon the Leader advanced arguments in connection with housing, job opportunities and school training, quickly trying to score a political point. There surely are some similarities with the TBVC countries when it comes to housing and school training for their citizens in South Africa. So those few attempts on the part of the hon the Leader of the Opposition to try to steal a march on us will not benefit him at all.

I also want to dwell on job opportunities. If an alien with a residence permit arrives in South Africa, in many cases it has been determined in advance to what industrial category in South Africa he may be admitted. In his residence permit it is also stipulated that he may reside in a certain area in South Africa, and in many cases a time limit is also placed on his stay in South Africa. When that time expires, he must either adopt citizenship or leave the country. My contention is that Black people with section 10 rights are not affected on that basis. If they have the right to live in Soweto, they retain that right; it is not taken away from them. [Interjections.] I therefore think it is unfair to make comparisons of this nature in this way. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the Opposition is having a good laugh now, Mr Speaker. During the Committee stage I asked him—and he now has the opportunity to reply to us— what his party’s immigration policy was. What is his party’s approach, in its immigration policy, to the control of aliens entering South Africa? [Interjections.] The hon the Leader of the Opposition asks us here whether a citizen of the TBVC countries with the right to reside in South Africa could apply for the right to be permanently resident here. He is therefore asking whether a citizen of a TBVC country, having the right to reside in South Africa, could apply in the normal way to immigrate to South Africa. The answer has always been “no” and it still is “no”. We do not even argue with each other about that. Our immigration policy involves Black people from every corner of Africa. Our immigration policy also involves Asians who want to come to South Africa. So, too, does our immigration policy involve White people who want to come to South Africa from communist countries. Let me now put this question to the hon the Leader of the Opposition. He still owes us an answer. If his party were to come into power in South Africa, would it adopt a colour-blind immigration policy? That is what hon members of the PFP must tell us. [Interjections.] They contend that they are colour-blind when it comes to political rights. So in South Africa are they also, as far as immigration is concerned, going to adopt a colour-blind policy? It would be a good thing for the party to have adopted that principle, because then we could argue with them about the status of a citizen of the TBVC countries, but of course also the status of a citizen of Mozambique or a citizen of Zimbabwe, in contrast to the status of, for example, a citizen of West Germany. The hon the Leader of the Opposition still owes us a reply as far as this is concerned.

The hon member Prof Olivier feels aggrieved because we accuse him and his party of quickly trying to make a little political propaganda against this legislation. I contend that the hon the Leader of the Opposition, in the short little speech he made here yesterday, went altogether out of his way to try to embarrass the Government by the questions he asked. He just wanted to see whether he could not score a few political points against the Government. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Green Point argued that the Government was hereby giving evidence of its lack of sensitivity. The hon member must realize, however, that the Government is specifically adopts a sensitive and sypathetic attitude to citizens of the TBVC countries. They are, after all, our creations. We created those countries, and we would like to ensure that those people’s relationship with South Africa is maintained on an absolutely sound footing. Our relations politics are sound as far as those countries are concerned. They are, after all, products of the creative efforts of this Government, and we therefore regard our mutual relations as a treasure that ought to be preserved by everyone in South Africa.

The hon member for Innesdal contended that if we were to implement this measure today, by tomorrow we could be witnesses to chaos in South Africa. We do know, after all, that there are thousands of illegal citizens of Black states here in South Africa. So if we wanted to use this measure today, we would only be creating chaos in this country. The Government, however, is not prepared to do that. In the spirit of our relations with the TBVC countries, and in the spirit of peaceful and orderly co-existence with those people, the Government is not prepared to do so. The whole philosophy and point of departure of the Government is to decentralize and deconcentrate in both the political and the economic spheres. In future this debate on citizenship is again going to be highlighted when we have to talk to each other about the possibility of a confederation or a constellation of states here in South Africa. Citizenship will be a future topic for discussion, and on that occasion we shall be able to debate this matter further with hon members of the PFP.

I think that the emphasis that hon members of the PFP wanted to place on the TBVC countries was completely misplaced. Their accusations have been refuted. The Government has no intention of implementing this legislation for such purposes. The true object of the legislation was very clearly set out by hon members of this side of the House, and we therefore have great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the measure under discussion.

Mr Speaker, as I have indicated throughout the discussion of this Bill in all its stages, we are very much in favour of a tightening up of the alien control legislation. This is necessary and, in fact, in respect of other Bills that have come before this House, when speeches have been made from these benches, we have given a clear indiction of being very perturbed at the very large number of aliens in South Africa who owe no allegiance to this country at all. In that respect, therefore, we are very pleased to see a tightening up of the alien control legislation.

I am rather sorry that the hon the Deputy Minister could not see his way clear to accept the fifth amendment of the hon member Prof Olivier. Without doubt, assurances have been given that the Bill is not intended to be used in respect of TBVC people. If that is so, what was the real objection to having some indication that it would not be used for that purpose? I feel that that is rather a pity.

I very rarely find myself fighting a battle on the same side as the hon member for Houghton.

It must be quite a pleasant experience.

Actually, it is a horrible experience in a way. [Interjections.] However, in this instance the hon member for Innesdal remarked that the hon member for Houghton made a point of stirring up emotions. I am inclined to agree that on many occasions the hon member for Houghton does do so. In this instance, however, I do not believe that that was the case. As I saw it, the hon member had a positive fear that this Bill could and would be used for purposes for which it was not intended. Precedents were quoted where other pieces of legislation had been used for purposes which they too had not originally been brought into being. Personally, I do not consider that as stirring up emotions. I consider that as bringing facts to light and, in this regard, I cannot help but feel that the assurances and the intentions of the hon the Deputy Minister while being very acceptable under normal circumstances obviously cannot have the weight and force of law.

In this regard I cannot help but bring in the question of the acting/temporary immigration officers who are going to be appointed. Whilst one concedes that there may well be the necessity to have temporary immigration officers under certain circumstances, I feel that embarrassment can be caused, especially in respect of the TBVC people, as far as the acting immigration officers to be appointed are concerned. In my opinion they will have neither the training nor the experience to handle these situations in the same way as a properly trained and experienced immigration officer. I cannot help but feel that in so far as these people from erstwhile parts of South Africa and their contacts and links with people in this country are concerned, these temporary officers may not have the sensitivity that is required in the handling of these matters so as to avoid causing a great deal of embarrassment to a large number of people.

I still have strong reservations about the question of businessmen being brought in to undertake the functions of a state department although I do appreciate the acceptance by the hon the Deputy Minister of the amendments that I moved in this connection. Those amendments do make the Bill a little more acceptable and the position a little less difficult for the businessman. However, in all sincerity I still do not believe that that is the sort of function that should be imposed upon businessmen.

Overall the Bill is, I believe, sound enough. In so far as the penalty provisions are concerned, while I am fully in favour of heavy penalties for people who break our laws regarding aliens control without having a really good reason for doing so, where one has such heavy penalties, almost savage in one or two instances, it is of vital importance that the people who will administer this, the immigration officers, are properly trained. I know that there will be court cases and that penalties will be imposed, but where heavy penalties are involved court cases are going to be pretty expensive, particularly for the defence.

So while we are going to support this Bill at the Third Reading, I do have the regret that certain amendments were not accepted during the Committee Stage.

Mr Speaker, we on this side of the House do not always agree with the arguments of the hon member for Umbilo, nor do we agree with a few aspects in this case. However, we must concede that the hon member always puts his case in a responsible and balanced manner. I appreciate his general support of this measure

I want to deal with the question the hon the Leader of the Opposition put to the hon member for Innesdal. He wanted to know, if it was not the intention to make this legislation applicable to citizens of the TBVC countries, why the fifth amendment which the hon member Prof Olivier moved in the Committee Stage was not acceptable. The obvious answer is that when we give preference to citizens of foreign states, we must do so by way of agreement, and not by way of legislation, and I have sound reasons for making this statement. Firstly, the relations between the Republic and those states could change. I hope that this never happens, but if it should happen that the Reublic’s relations with one of those countries is not on a sound footing, it is going to affect our attitude towards the citizens of that country within our borders. In that case, the Government of the Republic should have powers to act immediately and it should not first have to come back to Parliament to pilot legislation. In addition, it also depends on how those states act towards the citizens of the Republic there. In turn, this would determine our attitude towards the citizens of that country in the Republic. Let us look at visas. Visa privileges are not determined by way of legislation, but by way of agreements and decree, precisely because it is a mutual and changeable matter.

Allow me to refer to legislation on our Statute Book that deals specifically with matters such as this. Those statutes make provision for agreements with the TBVC countries and go a long way, even as far as providing that laws—the legislation we are dealing with now as well—can be repealed when they are inconsistent with agreements entered into with the TBVC countries. In this regard I wish to refer specifically to the Designated Neighbouring Countries Act, Act No 41 of 1978. The long title of that Act provides:

There are only three sections. It is therefore a very short Act. I do not want to read section 1, but I just want to point out that it makes provision for the State President to designate certain areas by way of proclamation in the Gazette. What does section 2 provide? I should like to read it:

What does this mean? It means that the legislation we are deciding about today is subject to, and can be repealed by, agreements that can be entered into with those states in respect of these matters. I suggest that one cannot go any further than that. A reasonable country that wants to act in a reasonable manner towards citizens of friendly countries cannot go any further than that. It simply gives preferential treatment by way of agreement.

The hon member for Green Point was very unhappy that he did not get any answers to his questions. This argument is before this House for the third time now, and on not one occasion was an attempt made from that side of the House to furnish answers to this argument.

The argument of the hon member Prof Olivier with regard to his fifth amendment to clause 3 was that it would not affect this matter. Therefore, what he is saying is that citizens of the TBVC countries are still being prohibited from entering, and that section 5ter should therefore not be applicable to them. His argument is not valid. Section 5ter is, in fact, creating the instrument with which the control measure can be implemented effectively.

The premise of this legislation is that control over aliens is in the interest of the community. It is in their interests that there should be order, that moral standards be maintained and that the inhabitants of this country should be employed. Because it is to their benefit, they can also be expected to implement control measures and not to undermine them. The most stringent measures, as proposed in this legislation, are therefore fully justified in order to see to it that those control measures are properly implemented.

The alternative is very clear. We are a prosperous country in which standards of living are rising, and if there is no proper control we are simply going to be inundated by people from Europe and the East. The wrong kind of people are going to come in and there is going to be competition in those unskilled labour markets in which we, too, have too many people.

During the Second Reading I pointed out that the necessity for many of these control measures could be due to ineffective and outdated immigration measures, whether as a result of tedious procedures or heavy demands. I have referred to the Kleu report, which calls for the more unobstructed admission of immigrants.

Since this is concerned with the control of immigration, immigrants and aliens, I have no choice—for the sake of balance—but to emphasize the opposite as well, and that is that it is important that we involve the right immigrants in a dramatic way. Personally, I believe that the immigration of skilled immigrants should be given extremely high priority. No one would deny that we have a relatively high inflation rate and that it is due to cost pressure factors. These cost pressure factors are caused by an absence in the market of competition for trained manpower. If we compare this with the USA and Europe, it appears that their inflation rate was almost just as high as ours. Their inflation rates are relatively low now. They also had high interest rates, but the main difference is that they did not have a shortage of skilled manpower. If we do not give this problem urgent attention, we will not be able to lower our inflation rate. I should like to refer in this regard to the latest economic survey by the University of Stellenbosch. It indicates that 60% of all undertakings are experiencing a shortage of skilled manpower at present, during this recessionary phase. One shudders to think what is going to happen when the economy experiences an upturn if there are simply not enough skilled workers, and what influence this is going to have on our inflation rate.

I also want to refer briefly to the Kleu report. The shortages in the various occupations amongst the Whites are indicated on page 97. The shortage of engineers is 8,5%, and in the case of chemical analysts, it is 8,7%.

Are you not dealing with the wrong Bill now?

The hon member for Langlaagte must just be a little patient. The shortage of metallurgists is 9,8%, and of arms assemblers, 17,5%. In the report a comparison is made between South Africa and other countries as regards the percentage of our population in managerial and administrative posts. In the USA it is 8%; in Australia it is 6,7%, and in South Africa it is 1%; eight times lower than in the case of the USA.

The point I want to make in this regard is that since we are dealing with restrictions on aliens and immigration and we are regulating the situation as far as they are concerned, we should also give attention to the other side of the coin, viz bringing immigrants into the country on a larger scale.

Mr Speaker, at the Third Reading of this Bill I think it is essential for us to make it very clear that the discussion during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage was concerned with two aspects. The one aspect was the streamlining of our ordinary immigration laws to meet the problems which had arisen from experience gained in the past. It specifically concerned immigrants and people who enticed away immigrants who had been brought to this country by other employers, and so forth.

Aliens.

Yes, in the ordinary sense of the word. Many of the amendments we moved in that regard were moved not because we did not have any realization of the need for streamlining the legislation but particularly to protect South African citizens against practices which, in our opinion were being carried too far. I am referring, for example, to the obligation being placed on employers to furnish returns regarding their employees and the stiff fine which can be imposed on South African employers who employ illegals. In addition there were certain legal aspects about which we were unhappy, for example, the onus being placed on people and certain penalties which, in our opinion, were being increased excessively. So most of our amendments were not aimed at protecting illegal aliens but at the way in which the proposals contained in this Bill affected South African citizens. Most of our amendments were aimed at improving the position of South African citizens as regards the application of the legislation.

The second aspect of the Bill deals with the question as to how it affects the people of the TBVC countries. I want to say at once that if in the past this legislation had not been used in an improper fashion against citizens of the Transkei, we probably would not have had any reason to complain about any possible abuse of this legislation. The hon member for Innesdal, as well as other hon members, admitted reluctantly, after we had drawn attention to this repeatedly, that this did in fact happen. The hon member Mr Schutte even said at one stage—if I heard him correctly—that if this had happened it must have happened in co-operation with the Government of the Transkei. What does it mean when the hon member says “if this had happened”? It means that he wants to deny by implication that this did happen. He should not have made the statement that in this case it must have happened in co-operation with the Transkeian Government because the Transkeian Government, after all, clearly and strongly resisted it. As a matter of fact, it was one of the reasons why relations between the Transkei and RSA were seriously strained at that stage. Consequently the hon member should reflect before making that type of statement.

I am sorry that the hon the Deputy Minister did not indicate that he had considered accepting my fifth amendment to clause 3. I am also sorry that the hon member for Innesdal indulged in …

Are you angry at him too?

I am dealing with the hon member for Innesdal at the moment. This point should be left to the hon member and myself. He is able to defend himself. We know the hon member for Innesdal as a person who is usually fearless in stating views which he believes to be correct and as a person who argues matters logically.

You are on the same wavelength.

I did not say that the hon member for Innesdal and I are on the same wavelength. In certain respects we are but in other respects we are not. The hon member for Kuruman and I, however, are definitely not on the same wavelength. [Interjections.]

It was difficult for me to understand the hon member for Innesdal. On the one hand he maintained that he could not visualize this legislation being used against the citizens of the TBVC countries. He had a great deal to say about that and about how inhuman that would be and about what the realities were. But then he made a quick volte face and ask this side what we would do in times of crisis. If, in other words, a time of crisis were to arise, the legislation would be used. That is the crux of the matter. One cannot reconcile these two views. There is other legislation which we can use for countering illegal squatting, illegal presence in cities, but we should not be able to use this legislation against citizens of the TBVC countries. Nor should the hon members turn around and say that this legislation can be used in a time of crisis. Many of the factors to which the hon member referred in connection with the situation in Germany, France and America are completely irrelevant as far as this specific point is concerned. He should not blame this side of the House for images which are created. He should rather discuss the image which the department, the Government, created during the steps taken in 1981 when the legislation was used against the citizens of the Transkei. These are the things which create the image and not our actions.

Would you concede that the image of South Africa suffered a great damage as the result of the unnecessary excessive and emotional publicity which was given to the realities surrounding a matter such as this with which we had to deal?

Our image was marred by the fact that we even removed persons who were legally present from the Western Cape in terms of this legislation. That is what marred our image, and not the fact that we pointed it out. It is not we who are acting emotionally. I really cannot understand the hon member.

I want to continue because my time is limited. I want to come to the statement which the hon member Mr Schutte also made here, that if there had to be preferential treatment, it should be by way of agreement. Section 6 of each of the independence laws already places those people in a preferential position because section 6 of each one of those laws states that, apart from citizenship, the rights and privileges of the Blacks from the TBVC countries who were citizens of South Africa will not be violated.

I also want to tell him that present legislation, for example section 12 of Act No 25 of 1945, already makes an exception in the case of the people from the TBVC countries. He also discussed the Designated Neighbouring Countries Act. He will know that I asked the hon the Deputy Minister whether that Act had already been applied. That Act has been in existence for five to six years now, and has still not been applied. I cannot understand how the hon member Mr Schutte can argue that that Act solves the problem for us. The provision which the hon member quoted from that Act cannot abrogate this legislation. Does the hon member Mr Schutte want to tell me that in terms of an agreement which could, for example, be entered into with Bophuthatswana, we can abrogate the rule in terms of which a penalty can be imposed on the employer who employs illegal immigrants? Surely it is totally absurd to say that that Act will enable us to solve this problem.

Then I want to come to the way in which Government members dealt with the questions put by the hon the Leader of the Opposition, more specifically with reference to Dr Motlana. The hon the Leader of the Opposition used him as an example. He put that question of his with reference to the statement made by speakers on the Government side that in this legislation we were in fact going to treat Blacks precisely in the same way as any other immigrants. It was with reference to that that the question was asked whether that was then the correct thing to do in the case of a person like Dr Motlana, who was deprived of his citizenship in terms of the independence legislation. There was a great deal of humming and hawing about this, but the simple fact remains that Dr Motlana will not and cannot be dealt with like a citizen of any other country which is not a Black country. We asked whether Dr Motlana could apply tomorrow to become a South African citizen. The reply to that was: “No, because it is contrary to Government policy”. An immigrant from Germany, France or any other European country for that matter is not only able to apply for permanent residence, but may also apply to become a citizen of South Africa. What is more, we passed legislation here in terms of which such a person could become a South African citizen after five years of permanent residence. Therefore I cannot understand what the argument is all about. I cannot understand why these sober facts are being ignored. If Dr Motlana wishes to travel abroad, he is not, as we all are, entitled to a South African passport because he is not a South African citizen. Sir, I can continue in this vein. When we quote Dr Motlana or Bishop Tutu as examples, we do so only to illustrate the untenability of the policy which is being followed, as well as the fact that, in spite of what is said, there is discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he really thinks that it is fair to compare the position of Dr Motlana, with his rights in terms of section 10, with an illegal Transkeian who arrives here overnight in the Cape Peninsula? That is the question.

That was not the question to which …

But that is what I am asking.

Sir, the hon member has put a question to me, and he should really have the decency now to give me a chance to complete my reply to it. I was saying that that was not the point in regard to which the hon the Leader of the Opposition put his question. The hon member for Houghton indicated that in many respects the existing rights of Blacks who had previously been citizens of South Africa were at present being protected. The hon member for Turffontein ought to know that that protection does not apply to the children or the children’s children of those people, even though they have been living in Soweto for generations. We also see this in terms of the legislation pertaining to the 99-year leasehold.

This debate has once again brought home to me that even though the Government says that it does not wish to or is not going to do certain things, it is not prepared to convert its stated intentions into any form of action. I have already indicated that if my amendment were to be accepted, nothing would be lost. The legislation would then remain unchanged, except in respect of the provisions affecting the residence and employment of citizens of the TBVC countries. Why the hon the Minister did not want to accept that amendment, I cannot understand. If the Government were honest and sincere in its intentions not to use this legislation against those citizens, I cannot understand why the amendment is not acceptable.

Mr Speaker, I agree with the hon member Prof Olivier that the first part of this legislation deals with the normal regulation of immigration laws. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to exchange a few words with the hon member concerning the second part, which deals with the bearing this legislation has on citizens of the TBVC countries and, in view of the question the hon member for Innesdal put to the hon member, concerning the image which is being reflected.

In his Second Reading speech the hon member Prof Olivier created the impression that by way of a one-sided action Parliament had deprived the citizens of the TBVC countries of their citizenship rights without their having been consulted or without them having had a choice in the matter.

That is correct.

The hon member is confirming this. He says they were not consulted and they had no choice in the matter. He is implying that this one-sided conduct is projecting an image to the outside world that is harmful to South Africa. The hon member says that it is not the insinuations on his part, but the actions taken at Crossroads that is projecting a harmful image. [Interjections.] The hon member said that the action taken by the department at Crossroads was the incident that created that image, and not the hon member’s insinuations. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens—I think it was he—said by way of an interjection a moment ago “We have in fact created foreigners” with this independence.

Yes, that is so.

The hon member must just save his argument for a while. We shall come to it in a moment. I do not want to come back to the case of Dr Motlana, but I do just want to say that by quoting the example of Dr Motlana the hon the Leader of the Opposition once again succeeded in sending a false image of reality into the world. Unfortunately that is the case. As hon members have already pointed out, Dr Motlana enjoys section 10 rights in terms of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act. The hon the Leader of the Opposition is doing this against the background of his own philosophy of a unitary state, which has been repeatedly rejected by the overwhelming majority of White voters in this country. I cannot understand why these incidents have to be dragged up continually by those hon members.

Let us proceed. Legislation concerning aliens in South Africa has to be tightened up, and this is being done with this legislation, and it will also affect the citizens of the TBVC countries. The hon member Prof Olivier said that this decision was a one-sided action on the part of Parliament and that the citizens of the TBVC countries who were formerly citizens of South Africa have no choice in this regard. With all due respect to the hon member, that is not correct.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member intimating that individual Black people who are now citizens of the TBVC countries have ever been given a choice to retain South African citizenship?

The citizens of the TBVC countries took these decisions through the various leaders of those countries, just as the White voters of the Republic are subject to legislation of this Parliament which is approved by members of Parliament as representatives of the people. [Interjections.] Let us just ascertain what the position was. In 1972 the Chief Minister of Transkei introduced a motion in the Legislative Assembly which reads as follows:

The Leader of the Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of Transkei moved the following amendment, which corresponds with the philosophy of the PFP:

The hon member claimed that we deprived the citizens of the TBVC countries of their citizenship rights in a one-sided action, but, in reality, this was done at their own request. In the case of Transkei it was approved by a majority of 75% in their Legislative Assembly.

Mr Speaker, is the hon member aware that in the last election of the Legislative Assembly of Transkei just before independence, only 3% of the so-called Transkei citizens outside the Transkei voted? [Interjections.]

That is a good question, and my reply is that I am aware of that. However, the hon member is also aware that that was not the only consultation that took place. Does the hon member not recall that tribal and urban authorities were also consulted? Out of the 229 tribal authorities consulted, 149 accepted it unanimously. [Interjections.] Out of the 60 urban authorities consulted, 53 decided to accept it unanimously. Out of the 125 000 people involved in these meetings, only 14 000 said “no”. In other words, the statement of the hon member that it was a one-sided action on the part of this Parliament does not hold water.

I quoted the example of Transkei because Transkei was the first to become independent. What did the President of Bophuthatswana have to say on the becoming independent? According to reports he said that:

If there was a parting of political paths, it also implies rights of citizenship, which, in turn, implies the right of movement across borders. Mangope went on to say:

This aspect was therefore not determined on a one-sided basis. What does the President of Bophuthatswana have to say about citizenship? He says the following, and I quote:

Does the hon member Prof Oliver now want to claim that President Mangope was not speaking on behalf of and in the interests of his people? [Interjections.] The case of Transkei and Ciskei is wellknown to all of us. In both cases it was the result of a referendum in which a decision was taken with an overwhelming majority.

This image projected by hon members of the official Opposition that people are supposedly simply being deprived of their citizenship—the hon member for Green Point also made that allegation—is really something with which we cannot agree. In addition, the hon Leader for the Opposition said yesterday that this legislation was essentially concerned with conflict. He said that the central point of the argument, the central problem in South Africa politics, viz citizenship, necessarily contained an element of conflict. I agree with him. We on this side of the House concede that. Issues with regard to citizenship contain every element of conflict. Our very object with these measures is to eliminate the possibility of conflict. This legislation will therefore eleminate the possibility for conflict, not heighten it.

Surely the simple principle of good neighbourliness is that there should be a proper border between two neighbours. In this case it is a sound border in terms of the proper regulation of the movements of aliens.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Green Point and the hon member Prof Olivier have stated clearly the attitude of the PFP to the Third Reading of this Bill. We tried very hard during the Committee Stage to get certain amendments accepted, which in some way would have mitigated, we feel, the damage that is going to be caused by the heavy penalties provided for in this Bill. We were not successful in having any of our amendments accepted, and our attitude therefore at Third Reading remains unchanged. We are going to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

I do wish, however, to take this opportunity of replying to some of the arguments advanced this morning by the hon member for Koedoespoort, the hon member for Innesdal and the hon member for Turffontein. I want to start off by reminding hon members on the Government side that whatever their intentions are as far as this measure is concerned, and irrespective of how they envisage this measure is going to be used, they ought to remember that there are other people who may also have the power one day to execute the legislation which is being introduced here today. Listening to the hon member for Koedoespoort expressing his views on the whole question of immigration from the TBVC countries ought to give the hon the Deputy Minister pause in that he is introducing, by way of this measure, powers that may very well be extremely widely used in the future, contradicting the very intentions which the hon the Deputy Minister and other hon members of this House have indeed expressed during the course of this debate.

The hon member for Innesdal had some very harsh things to say about the PFP and the way in which we besmirch South Africa’s image overseas. I have on occasion been accused of asking questions of hon Ministers in this House with the express purpose of embarrassing South Africa overseas. I can assure hon members that it is not my questions that are embarrassing South Africa; it is the answers which the Government has to give to those questions which are embarrassing to South Africa. Think for instance of the number of pass-law arrests, the number of people in detention without trial, the number of people who die in detention, etc. It is not the asking of those questions that is embarrassing but the answers we get to those questions. These are really embarrassing.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Speaker, when proceedings were suspended I was replying to the arguments advanced by the hon members for Innesdal and Turffontein, and also the hon member for Caledon who is not in his seat at the moment.

I want to tell the hon member for Turffontein who asked what the PFP immigration policy is that it will be a colour-blind immigration policy. We will adopt the policy that is adopted by all Western democratic countries namely that we shall admit citizens according to our needs and whom we feel will be of benefit to the country. Obviously people will be admitted on compassionate grounds as well. These criteria will be employed irrespective of colour. Very simply, that is immigration policy of the PFP.

As far as the mobility question is concerned, it has long been the policy of this party that mobility is an elementary right that must be accorded every citizen in his own country. He must be free to move, free to live where he pleases and free to sell his labour in the best market. Let us be quite unequivocal about that aspect of our policy. I want to remind the hon member—who is obviously ignorant of the fact—that the privileges presently enjoyed by citizens who have been deprived of their South African citizenship and have become willy-nilly citizens of the TBVC countries, the section 10(1) privileges that they enjoy, if they held them before independence, are not enjoyed by any of the people born after independence. Even if they are born in Soweto or Langa or anywhere else, those privileges no longer apply. Therefore, it is a one generation only retention of section 10(1) privileges and thereafter these people become total aliens with no right whatsoever.

They may be aliens but they still have rights.

Let us suppose that a Bill is introduced—as was proposed, let me remind the hon member for Innesdal—to the effect that permanency in the urban areas will depend upon accommodation and a job. All the people born after independence will be subject to that legislation and, if they lose their accommodation or their jobs, they will be liable to be deported instantly to a homeland that they have never seen. The hon member shakes his head but that is the law. That is the legal position. It may not be the intention of the Government to act as brutally as that but in point of fact that is the law and the law can be implemented. Let there be no mistake about that.

That law has not yet been accepted.

Right, that law has not yet been accepted.

How can you surmise such a thing?

Just a minute. In the event of such a law being introduced we trust that that hon member will stand up and oppose it. That is all. [Interjections.] We are taking note of the hon member’s objection.

I should like to remind the hon member for Caledon who has now resumed his seat about a few facts of life in regard to those countries that took independence. Does he realize that as far as Ciskei is concerned, the people were offered a package deal on the occasion of the referendum? Most of the people living outside Ciskei did not vote in that referendum, but in any case those who did vote voted on a package deal that they thought they were being offered. This package deal included an enlarged section of Ciskei including the White corridor. There were also number of tax concessions in which money would be collected and paid over in taxes. This is one of the few aspects that have been followed. However, the third and most important was the retention of South African citizenship. That was what they voted on when they voted for independence. Of course, the minute independence was granted, every single Xhosa of Ciskeian origin, ethnicity, language link or anything as remote as one can think of, was forthwith deprived of his South African citizenship. Therefore, the hon member Prof Olivier was absolutely correct when he said that people had been deprived of their citizenship. That is exactly the expression that should be used.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 69.

Mr Speaker, we have discussed this subject for a very long time and very extensively. During the lunch break one of my colleagues asked what the word “alien” actually meant. He wanted to know whether it was a kind of drink. [Interjections.] Oh well, that just goes to show.

In this Bill we are dealing with aliens, with control measures in respect of aliens and in particular illegal aliens in the Republic. I want to begin my reply to this Third Reading debate by stating in very plain terms that I make no apology for the amendments we have proposed and that I can live very peacefully with my conscience as far as these amendments are concerned. I want to emphasize that our motives in respect of these amendments are absolutely pure. There are no ulterior motives whatsoever here.

In the first place we are dealing here with stricter control over illegal aliens. This was very clearly spelt out by my colleagues on this side, the hon members for Innesdal. Turffontein and Caledon and the hon member Mr Schutte. It was also very strongly stated by the hon member for Koedoespoort. We are dealing with stricter control over illegal aliens.

In the second place—this is the consequence—it is concerned with the protection of people who may and can be in South Africa legally, and this certainly includes Black people as well. Surely that is correct. Surely it is not only White people who may legally be in South Africa. There are Black people, too, who may legally be in South Africa. By means of these control measures I wish to protect them too. I wish to protect the South African citizens. This was stated in very clear terms by the hon member for Koedoespoort, and I express my thanks for the support from that side. I also thank the hon member for Umbilo for his support. I also say thank you for the contributions from this side of the House.

We must understand one thing very clearly, and that is that South Africa is a sought-after country, very much so in fact. Very nasty things can be said about this country, this country which is described as a country in which people are being oppressed, but from our experience in this department I can say that if we were to throw open the portals to this country this afternoon, people would stream into this country in their thousands. I have to deal every day with applications that have been submitted to me, to say nothing of those received and disposed of by the department. I repeat, if we were to throw open the portals, people would stream into this country in their thousands.

Do they want to become citizens?

Yes, they all want to become citizens of this country. They want to come and live here. They want to enjoy this country. I also want to say straightaway that they want to come and live under a NP government. [Interjections.] The Black people, too, because they know they are safe under a NP government.

We are therefore under an obligation to protect them. We must protect the people who may legally be in this country and the citizens of this country, for surely there are limits to our economic capacity. We should like to receive everyone, but we cannot because we do not have the economic capacity to take care of everyone. Surely there are limits to the employment opportunities which this country can offer. The employment opportunities which this country can offer its children are limited. Once again these are not only employment opportunities for White people, employment opportunities for young White men and women. Surely they also include the young men and women of the Coloured, Indian and Black populations. Surely we have a duty to see to this. Surely we have limits in respect of our capacity to provide housing. People must live in houses. Once again this includes everyone. Surely we want everyone in South Africa to be established and to have the opportunity to be able to work and be happy. Hon members must therefore tell me whether they want these control measures or not. They must tell me whether they do not want order in this country and whether they want chaos. If they tell me this, we may as well do away with all these control measures. The NP Government, however, wants order in this country and it will see to it that order is maintained in this country.

The hon member for Green Point said that it had been a disappointing debate because we on this side had revealed a lack of sensitivity. Surely that is not the case. After all, I have just spelt out to him how sensitive we in fact are about protecting the people of this country. He, however, wants to deliver up the people of this country. He wants to deliver us all up in the process. What we want is an orderly continued existence for everyone in this country, but the hon member is accusing us of not being sensitive enough. We are simply a bunch of ruffians and are adopting these measure in order to take action against people.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, the hon member said that he did not think we understood what it was all about. We understand very clearly what it is all about. The State has its law advisers, and we understand what it is all about. In addition there are legal people on this side of the House. Not all the jurists are sitting on that side of the House. We have taken a very thorough look at clause 1, but we cannot agree with the amendment moved by the hon member. We believe that the Director-General should be able to decide who complied with these conditions and who did not comply with them.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, the hon member went on to say that we could not get the voluntary co-operation of companies. The hon member said that I had not replied to him. Surely I did reply to the hon member during the Committee Stage. I told him that we did have the co-operation of companies. These are companies that are prepared to co-operate on a voluntary basis. I also told the hon member that we did not have the co-operation of all companies. We want the information so that we can formulate our immigration policy more satisfactorily and establish which category of immigrants we require. Surely the hon member for Green Point knows how far voluntariness extends and surely he knows how lax people can be. After all, he does not attend the sittings of this House voluntarily, but is obliged to be present here. Surely he does not submit a return of his income voluntarily, but is obliged to do so. With this legislation we are simply asking for the right to approach companies so that they can furnish us with a return regarding the aliens who are in their employ. We are not talking about legal aliens now, but about aliens in general. We will then be able to determine how we should implement our immigration policy.

The hon member also spoke about the penalties and said that they were not fair. He said that we had not given thought to the penalties and that the reasons we had advanced for the strict penal provisions were not good reasons.

When one is dealing with immigration, residence permits and so on, one is dealing with unscrupulous people. There are people who avail themselves of this opportunity to make money. We are dealing with people who will try to enter this country in any way they possibly can. I want to reiterate that we are not going to allow our people to be crowded out. That is why we have increased the penalties. We have adjusted the penalties to the present-day value of money. They have to serve as a deterrent and once again I make no apology for them. People who act in an honest way and go through the correct channels, will not be penalized, but the person who contravenes these measures, will pay. We do not want illegal aliens in this country. The hon member said that his party’s main objection was that this measure would be used against persons who had previously been citizens of this country. That is the main objection of the PFP, and that is what they kicked up all this fuss about. The issue is not the penalties, and the hon member Prof Olivier tried to imply that it was. However, it is not; the actual issue was that when hon members read the legislation all they could see was Black. They were guided by articles in the Financial Mail and the Sunday Express and decided that they had to echo the sentiments of those people. Surely the hon members know that they are wrong. They know what the policy of this side of the House is. I want to put it to the hon members again that we established four independent states for the respective Black peoples. Surely these people are citizens of their country. There are also means and methods whereby they can be present in South Africa. The question is being asked whether they can be South African citizens, and our answer in that case is “no”. It is different from the case of a person from West Germany for example. The number of applications from West Germany is very small. Surely we have to build up these independent states now and allow them to be built up by their own people. Surely it is not a disgrace for a Xhosa to be a citizen of the Transkei.

It is very inconvenient.

In what respect is it supposedly so inconvenient now? [Interjections.] We are building up those states economically, and this is also being done by the citizens themselves. We must engender a pride among people in the citizenship of their own country. If inconveniences exist…

They cannot even find work.

That indictment by the hon member for Pinelands is not true. [Interjections.] There are more people employed today than there are unemployed people. There has been great development in respect of Black people and in respect of these states that became independent. The hon members now wish to create a bad image of our country and of this policy. If the hon members of the PFP were to come into power, what would their policy be? Would all the citizens of these four independent states be allowed to become citizens of South Africa.

Yes. [Interjections.]

If the hon members were to allow that, I want to know from the hon member for Pinelands whether there would be employment opportunities for all? Then South Africa would be a heaven on earth, it would be wonderful, glorious; it would be a paradise, a land of Canaan. [Interjections.] Surely that demonstrates how unreal the approach of the official Opposition is. They attack us on a policy, and when I ask them what should be put in the place of this policy, they do not have an answer. Consequently they must tell me this afternoon that a policy of one man, one vote in a unitary state should be introduced. [Interjections.] Then what are hon members going to put in its place? We have now established these people in independent states, and they have the franchise in their own country, a franchise which they had been exercising for many years now. They are exercising it in a democratic way. They have their own Cabinet, their own State President and their own Chief Minister. Even the good friend of the hon members, Chief Buthelezi, is a Chief Minister, and he is participating in this system. If the hon members were to come into power now, would they draw a line through these four independent states? Where are they then going to give these people the franchise? Are they possibly going to do it in Houghton?

We will allow them to join our federation.

It seems to me the hon members do not have an answer.

This side of the House and the Government are looking after these matters every day. We realize that there are problems, but we have already eliminated many of these problems. [Interjections.] I believe that the debate on this Bill has demonstrated that there are hon members in the ranks of the official Opposition who have no grasp of the necessity for control over aliens in the same sense of the word as that in which it has always been used. The hon members do not want control. I am sorry to have to tell hon members that I got the impression that they did not want any discipline. [Interjections.] The PFP always feels pathetically sorry for people, and in the process they are burdening other people with greater problems. The hon members have been walking around with this feeling for all of 34 years now, but the people do not accept it because they do not vote for the PFP.

You are an oppressor.

We have just held a referendum and hon members of the official Opposition said that they were on the “no” side. What has happened to them now? I want to say that when it comes to control measures and the intensificiation and tightening up of such measures, there are people on the opposite side of this House who are constantly portraying the Government as a government which exploits people within the boundaries of its country. This has just been repeated. It was said that I was an oppressor. They accuse this Government of exploiting people. If one travels through South Africa does one find people who are being exploited? Is there such great unhappiness in South Africa? [Interjections.]

Since the hon members are accusing this Government of so many things, I want to put a question to them. Surely there are many other countries which also became independent, and not only the Transkei, the Ciskei and Venda. Over the years Ghana also became independent. Did they hold a referendum? India became independent. Could their people remain citizens of England? Sir, let us simply be consistent now and not place all the blame on this beautiful country of ours. Let us not always see this Government as an exploiter and oppressor. Those hon members sit on the opposite side, and I see them as people who are constantly accusing the Government of placing measures on the Statute Book purely for political reasons and therefore not caring two hoots about the people who serve the Government. I see them as people who are constantly questioning the motives of the Government and wilfully trying to make political capital out of what we, as a Government, consider to be essential in order to protect people within the borders of this country.

In an amendment which he moved during the Committee Stage, the hon member Prof Olivier undoubtedly demonstrated that he did not want to accept the bona fides of the Government. He did not want to accept the assurances I gave him. He suggested that we were going to apply this legislation to the Black people. He kept on referring to 1981. I gave him the assurance that this was not an intensified influx control measure. This was also indicated by the hon members of other parties. What did the hon member move as an amendment? He moved that the following words be inserted in clause 3:

Why did the hon member Prof Olivier move that amendment? I want to ask him this question: Does he consider the Black citizens of the TBVC countries to be a different category of aliens?

Yes, certainly.

Then I want to say in reply to that that surely the question of who are aliens is not relevant now. Surely the legislation gives us the definition of who are aliens. Now the hon member wishes to insert another category of aliens. When I say that he is going to discriminate in that way, the hon member for Green Point denies it and says that it is not discrimination. This afternoon I want to ask the hon member Prof Olivier, in all fondness, whether this is not perhaps wilful politicking?

No.

I shall indicate why I am asking this question. I am asking it because it seems to be quite a coincidence that in The Natal Mercury of 21 March a challenge was issued to the Government. Who issued that challenge and what the challenge was will be apparent from the report which I now wish to quote. I read in The Natal Mercury of 21 March:

Surely that is precisely what the hon member asked for. [Interjections.] I quote further:

Surely that was also what the hon member Prof Olivier said. [Interjections.] I quote further:

That is precisely what the hon member asked for. I want to ask the hon member: Who is dictating to whom? Who are bedfellows in this whole process? [Interjections.] Let us be frank with one another. In The Natal Mercury of 21 March precisely the same was asked for as the hon member Prof Olivier asked for. The UDF also said precisely what the hon member for Houghton said. I quote further from the report:

Those are also the words the hon member Prof Olivier used. He wanted me to amend clause 3 in such a way that it would not refer to citizens of the TBVC countries. Consequently I ask again: Who is dictating to whom? Who is running down this road together? If they are running down the same road, where do they really want to take South Africa? [Interjections.]

What about the CP? They are in fact being protected by the legislation.

The CP support this legislation, but they do so purely on legal grounds. The hon member for Brakpan as well as the hon member for Koedoespoort made this clear. Is it a sin if they support the legislation on purely legal grounds? [Interjections.] It seems to me those hon members are mournful now because their friends from the referendum are against them now. We are aware—we have said this before and we are not denying it—that the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, has in the past been used to remove citizens of the Transkei from the Republic. We are not denying it, but surely we did not use that Act to exploit these people. We used it because at that stage these people were illegally present in the Republic in their thousands. I repeat: We cannot tolerate a disorderly situation in the Republic. I want to ask the Opposition not to help create such conditions in this country. They must not help to create crisis conditions in this country. If those crisis conditions are not created, this legislation will not be used. I want to make that very plain this afternoon. This legislation will be used to ensure that people are not illegally present in this country and that this country is not abused. The whole essence of alien control is in fact aimed at preventing aliens from exploiting those people who are rightfully present in this country.

I want to conclude by saying that I find it absolutely deplorable that in this debate a specific category of alien was accentuated. It was not we who read it into this legislation or placed emphasis on it, but the official Opposition.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Speaker, for the sake of clarity I want to recapitulate very briefly our approach to this Bill as I began to set it out yesterday. That is namely that in dealing with this Bill we are dealing with a body of people who are mostly quasi-professional persons. There are at the moment some 21 000 people registered with the Estate Agents Board. They handle millions of rand in funds and trust moneys. We are now amending the existing legislation in order to provide for a tighter control over that profession. That will give the public better security while at the same time it will improve the autonomy of that body in respect of its own members.

I dealt with the so-called personal clauses yesterday, and I was about to deal with clause 5 when the House was adjourned. Clause 5 seeks to insert section 8B after section 8A in the principal Act, and deals with discriplinary committees. Reference is made here of certain offences which can be dealt with by the board without them being referred to a court of law. I believe it is reasonable that people who may feel aggrieved as a result of a derision made by this board will have the opportunity firstly of obtaining the reasons for the board’s finding within a period of one month, and secondly, will then have the right to appeal to the full board. I believe that is quite fair and just.

The board then has the power either to amend the finding or to refer it back or even to set it aside. My first problem in this respect, however, is one which should actually be raised during the Committee Stage. I do, however, give notice to the hon the Deputy Minister now that I shall deal with this more fully during the Committee Stage. If one reads the proposed new section 8B(6) it appears that provision is made there that reasons for the board’s derisions can be obtained within the period of one month. Thereafter, however, in the proposed new section 8B(6)(b), provision is made for an appeal to be lodged with the board. In this instance, however, no reference is made of any time limit at all. It does not lay down a time limit in which an appeal must be made to the board. As I read this provision, the period of one month applies to the question of obtaining reasons, and I do not think it would be right to allow an appeal to remain pending indefinitely. There should be a limit in this regard. I am not married to any particular period although it is usually 21 days. However, if we follow the provisions in this Bill where the period of one month is referred to on two occasions, then perhaps we could fix one month as the period. I will be satisfied as long as a period is laid down in which an appeal to the board has to be made.

Clause 6 deals with the funds of the board and amends section 9 of the Act. In terms of these provisions, if an agent has failed to comply with an order of the board in regard to, let us say, the payment of subscriptions or a fine or the refund of moneys misappropriated, then the only recourse that the board has is to take that agent to court in order to rectify that matter by way of civil proceedings. In terms of this provision if the board has incurred liability to pay attorney and client costs in respect of any investigation of this nature, it may recover the taxed amount of such attorney and client costs from the estate agent concerned. As he is a member of the profession, I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister knows what the term “attorney and client costs” means. As he knows, there are two tariffs applied by the courts in awarding costs. The court awards party and party costs and it awards attorney and client costs. I am not sure whether the rule which applies now only to attorney and client costs will exclude party and party costs. It is quite possible that in attempting to recover the amount for which proceedings are instituted, the court may award attorney and client costs only in exceptional circumstances if there has been an unnecessary delay or if the person has acted grievously in the action. It is only in those special circumstances that attorney and client costs will be awarded. While I am quite happy that the board should recover its costs, attorney and client costs are subject to weighted scale of costs, and I would say that if we amend this provision simply to recover legal costs it should cover the position completely so that the board will not be the loser.

Clause 7 amends section 18 of the Act and deals with the application of funds. I understand that there has been some difficulty in regard to the interpretation of immovable property. This is consequential upon the amendment of the definition of immovable property in clause 1. What we are really doing here is legalizing the board’s ability to recover funds in regard to immovable property in terms of the wider definition. The board is also empowered to pay the client any money that may have been misappropriated or that is due to such client.

Clause 8 amends section 27 of the Act and deals with the question of disqualification. Every estate agent must have a fidelty fund certificate and the board will now have the power to withhold that fidelity fund certificate unless the estate agent concerned has repaid the relevant amount in full to the board or submitted the necessary audit certificate. If he is short in his trust account he will have to make that payment as well. It is very important to tighten the control and the board now has the power not to reissue a fidelity fund certificate unless these conditions are complied with.

The hon the Deputy Minister did mention that what some agents do is to apply in a different name, particularly in the case of a company. I am not sure whether this provision will prevent their avoiding that responsibility if they trade in the name of a certain limited company in regard to which a fidelity fund certificate has been refused and then, apply again under the name of a different limited company. I do not know how an individual is going to be identified with either company and whether he will not be able to hide behind a new company that is entitled to apply for a fidelity fund certificate. Therefore the board and the inspectors will have to smell out whether this is a person who is associated with both companies, but he might not have given his name as he may have nominees. The broader aspect of this principle is accepted.

Clause 9 deals with section 29 which applies to audit certificates. There is a duty upon the estate agent to maintain proper accounting records so that he shows a record of all moneys received, of all assets and liabilities concerning himself and of all financial transactions relating thereto. Whereas he was obliged to have his books audited, there was no time limit for the filing of the auditor’s certificate. Here it is provided that it should be filed within a period of four months. I accept that it is often not the estate agent’s fault when a certificate is filed late because we all realize that people who have a business or carry out professions have to rely very much upon auditors and the pressure of their work determines very much when they are going to hand in those certificates. Perhaps four months is a reasonable time and when there are special circumstances, the board has the power to extend the period. We shall therefore not argue about that.

Clause 10 is an important clause. It relates to section 30 of the Act. The clause deals with improper conduct. When we deal with the improper conduct of estate agents, I am reminded of the military discipline code in terms of which anybody whose tie is not straight or his boots not polished can be booked. The code which applies to estate agents is also a very broad one, and now it is broadened even further.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper which I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to consider. It is now to be complied with within 14 days—previously it was three months—and I think this should be reconsidered. If we look at this section, we will find that one of the matters to which the agent has to attend is the repayment of money that has accrued on this investments. He must also balance his books once a month. Bearing all those aspects in mind, I think it will be more proper to have one month instead of 14 days so that the agent will not become the victim of a prosecution. The books have to be balanced within one month and the building societies only pay out once a month when the money is invested with them. Therefore I think we should co-ordinate the whole provision on the basis of one month and not on the basis of 14 days.

As far as the new paragraph (g) of section 30(1) is concerned it also deals with the question of taking action in respect of improper conduct. This is the provision where the period of one month comes into consideration. The agent may fail to comply with some small aspect, for example, not allowing the inspector to come in or not making the provisions which the inspector requires, and then he will fall under this particular section.

Clause 11 deals with appeals and the amendment which it contains is consequential. In view of the fact that the proposed section 8B is a new provision it is merely consequential that that reference should be included when it comes to the question of appeals.

Clause 12 deals with section 32 which relates to trusts and investments. The agent is obliged to keep the money which he invests in a special trust account. This is correct. Here I think he will experience the same difficulty which attorneys experience with their trust account. I am referring to a change in the attitude of the banks who will now pay 5% interest on moneys lying in a current account. Whereas the attorneys were obliged to pay that 5% interest into the fidelity fund, I think we cannot really quarrel now about the additional 5% having to be paid into fidelity fund of estate agents. It will be in the interest of the board itself.

I now come to the question of the balancing of the books. This has to be done once a month as I mentioned earlier. There is also a final period of four months during which the auditor’s certificate has to be submitted.

The last point I want to mention concerns once again a difficulty. I refer to the proposed section 32(4) in terms of which the auditor, having conducted an investigation, must submit his report forthwith. I think the hon the Deputy Minister will again, because of his legal knowledge, know that the courts have great difficulty in interpreting “forthwith”. This can mean an hour, a week or even a month depending upon the circumstances. A business may close on a Friday and the next four days may be public holidays; when is “forthwith”? I think that to remove the difficulty that the court has in interpreting “forthwith”, let us lay down a period. Since there is an urgency, I have no objection if a period of three days is laid down so that everybody will know where they stand, including the courts. In these circumstances we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, we welcome the support given to the Bill by the hon member for Hillbrow on behalf of his party. The hon member has proved himself in this House to be an authority on the property industry, and his contribution to this debate has again testified to that fact. I believe we can say that it was positive and constructive. With regard to the few amendments which he propsed, I may refer to one or two of these in the course of my speech.

The amendments that are being proposed in the Bill are aimed at improving the existing Act in two main areas. Two categories of amendments are being proposed. In the first place, there are the provisions which will enable the Estate Agents Board to improve its internal administrative control and its discipline with regard to its own members in the profession. In the second place, certain proposals are embodied in the Bill in order to provide better consumer protection. The measures are actually aimed at protecting the profession against its own weaknesses and errors. Indirectly it will also serve to protect the public.

The main instrument for consumer protection which has been embodied in the legislation is the fidelity fund which has been established and the requirement that all estate agents have to take out such a fidelity fund certificate. In this way, members of the public are being protected against financial losses which could be suffered because of the dishonesty of estates agents or any fraudulent or irregular acts performed by such agents. In addition to this, and with the same end in view, there are the provisions which require estate agents to deposit all monies received and handled by them on behalf of clients in a separate trust account. These are all precautions against irregularities which on the one hand could harm the reputation of the profession, but which on the other hand, and this is even more important, could harm the public.

The amendments that are now being proposed and which are aimed at providing better consumer protection are all related to the provisions in the principal Act, ie those in connection with the fidelity fund and those in connection with separate trust accounts. These are all matters that are important to the profession in the sense that they are intended to protect the reputation of the profession. I believe that all the amendments relating to these two categories are commendable and are to be welcomed.

I first wish to deal briefly with the amendments concerning the administrative control and the discipline in the profession itself. In clause 1 we have the amendment of the definition of “estate agent”. The effect of this is to widen the scope of disciplinary action against estate agents who commit offences or who are guilty of unprofessional conduct. The arm of the law is being extended, as it were, to reach such a person even after he has stopped practising as an estate agent. I believe that this is a very valid and very necessary provision, because it will prevent a person who simply resigns from the profession from escaping the consequences of his misconduct. The same clause contains the amendment of the definition of “board”. This will be conducive to better administrative control and discipline, because it will now be possible to establish a disciplinary committee to act on behalf of the board. The concept of “board” will include a disciplinary committee, therefore. This makes it possible to delegate powers and will certainly promote discipline and better administration.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, it is being provided that the membership of the board be increased from 11 to 14 members. This will make better administrative control and discipline possible.

The same could be said of clause 4, in terms of which new powers are now being conferred on the board which will enable it to take decisions independently concerning the conditions of employment and remuneration of its staff. The board is getting full autonomy, as it were, in respect of staff matters.

Clause 5 increases the powers of the disciplinary committees. This is connected with the definition of “board” in clause 1, to which I have already referred. The effect of the delegation of responsibilities will also be felt here and will make more effective administration possible. Because of the number of disciplinary hearings, it is a practical impossibility for the board to conduct all the hearings itself. The hon the Deputy Minister said in his Second Reading speech that there were between 300 and 500 cases a year. The board cannot possibly deal with all of them properly. Where delegation can take place and a committee will do the work of the board, members will still have the protection and security of knowing that if they are not satisfied with the decision of the disciplinary committee, they have a right of appeal to the full board. In any event, the right of appeal to the courts will be preserved.

I now want to refer to clause 10, which provides that an agent is guilty of an offence if he practises without a fidelity fund certificate and also if he fails to comply with the requirements relating to the auditing of his books. The way the Act reads at present, he has to be charged with this offence and criminal proceedings have to be instituted against him. This is a time-consuming process. What is now being done is that these offences may be declared to be improper conduct. This means that the board itself may then take disciplinary action in terms of section 30 of the Act. All the disciplinary measures provided for in section 30 can then be applied here immediately, without such an agent having to be prosecuted and convicted in court.

I now wish to refer briefly to the category of amendments aimed at providing better consumer protection. A definition of “immovable property” is being inserted into section 1 in terms of clause 1. The hon the Deputy Minister has pointed out that estate agents have to handle a large variety of interests on behalf of principals. This definition ensures that it will now be possible to call an estate agent to account for his activities in respect of any of the wide spectrum of transactions connected with interests in immovable property. He will not be able to evade or escape responsibility with regard to any dubious conduct merely on the basis of technical arguments, simply because there is uncertainty as to whether a particular transaction is included under the concept, or because there is some legal uncertainty about what is included and what is not included. He will not be able to get away with that and to prejudice his clients with impunity.

Clause 7 is intended to remedy a deficiency and to close a loophole as a result of which members of the public could suffer material less. Here, too, the spectrum of transactions in respect of which an estate agent has to comply with the requirements concerning the investment of funds is being widened. The result is that any legal uncertainty about which transactions are covered by the provisions of the present Act is being removed in this regard as well.

A possible loophole that is being closed is in connection with what are called pending or incomplete transactions, such as contracts which have not yet been signed by all the parties. It is uncertain at the moment whether the fidelity fund is liable if financial losses are suffered in such a case. That uncertainty is also being removed. This means more effective protection for the public and for the consumer. The wording of section 18 also ensures that the alienation of property in the form of the transfer of shares in a company is covered by the concept of the sale of land.

Clause 8 amends section 27 of the Act, and in this connection I have already pointed out that the most important instrument in the legislation for consumer protection is the control measures in respect of the trust moneys handled by an estate agent as well as the fidelity fund which insures the public against losses due to fraud by agents. In this connection there is still a shortcoming in the existing Act. Clause 8 is intended to remove this. The issuing of an annual fidelity fund certificate to the estate agent is the method which the Act prescribes for ensuring that everything is in order in the particular agent’s trust account. The existing shortcoming is the fact that the auditor’s report in respect of the previous year is not yet a prerequisite for the issuing of such a certificate. That shortcoming is now being remedied.

Another essential improvement concerns the provision that when a fidelity fund has paid out compensation due to fraud committed by an estate agent, the board cannot refuse to issue a new certificate to him until that amount has been repaid. This is also being rectified now. Before he may start practising again, he must first compensate the fund for the damage he has caused it.

Furthermore, provision is being made in clause 9 for interest earned by an agent on his ordinary account also to be used on behalf of the fidelity fund. The hon the Deputy Minister has pointed out that experience has shown that when an agent fails to meet his obligations under section 22(3)(b)—this is connected with the auditing of his books— the reason is usually that there is something wrong with his trust account. I may just mention in a lighter vein that it is a standing joke in the attorneys’ profession that there are usually signs which indicate that all is not well with a person’s trust account. One of the signs, they say, is when he develops a conspicuous taste for expensive Persian carpets. Another sign is when he never goes away on holiday. We have learnt that these are signs which indicate that all is not well.

Then I just want to say something about the amendments proposed by the hon member for Hillbrow. He suggests that the proposed 14 days provided for in clause 10 should be extended to one month. I do not know whether the hon the Minister has any problem with that, but it seems to me that there should be no objection to it. It seems innocuous to me. I do not think it is of material importance. Therefore it could probably be considered.

Then the hon member said that the word “forthwith” in clause 12 should be replaced by, I think, “three days”. I do not know whether this would make much difference. The position is that a practitioner has to have his books audited within four months after the end of the financial year. The onus is in the first place on the practitioner to have his books audited. This probably means that it has to be completed within the four months and not that he simply has to give the instruction within four months for the books to be audited. The auditor has now done the work, and the question is when he has to submit it to the board. Of course, it is difficult to ascertain from outside exactly when the auditor has completed his audit. Therefore I do not think it makes much difference whether we refer to “three days” or “forthwith”. In fact, I believe that the standing of the profession would be better served by using the word “forthwith” rather than the words “three days”. Therefore I am inclined to think that the hon the Minister should rather keep to the present wording, namely “forthwith”.

To sum up, I just want to say again that the proposed amendment will promote some of the most important objectives of the legislation. The first objective is to maintain and promote the integrity of the estate agent and, in so doing, to enhance the standing of his profession. The object of the board, as defined in section 7 of the Act, is to maintain and promote the integrity of estate agents. I believe we may argue that this is exactly what we are trying to do here—to help the profession itself to enhance its standing.

The second objective is to tighten up the measures for consumer protection. I believe that these two objectives will to a large extent be promoted by the amendments that are being proposed here. I think these are highly commendable objectives, and for that reason, the Bill should receive general support.

This legislation is the charter of the estate agents’ profession. The profession plays an important role in the South African economy. The property industry is an essential component of our national economy. Time has also shown us that the property industry is a dynamic industry. In fact, the history of this legislation testifies to that. I am referring to the fact that we are now effecting the fourth amendment—a fairly drastic one—to the original Act since 1976. The reason for this is that the spectrum of forms of property ownership and the possible forms of interests in immovable property recognized in the legislation are constantly being broadened. This is indeed the reason why amendments have to be introduced from time to time. It is inevitable that our legislation should keep pace with developments in the property industry. This Bill testifies to that. Therefore I believe that it deserves our support and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr Speaker, in general the CP would like to agree with the thoughts expressed by the hon member for Sundays River. I think he dealt with the matter fully. He made a thorough study of the Bill and its implications.

I should like to refer to one aspect which the hon member raised, namely the definition of “immovable property”. He said its purpose was to bring about greater consumer protection. This is indeed true. However, it is also intended to eliminate any uncertainty regarding the definition of “immovable property”, and it serves to protect the estate agent as well. It is concerned with the matter of commission which will be payable in certain cases. It is therefore to be welcomed that any possible misunderstanding in connection with immovable property should be eliminated. The CP supports this legislation.

It was also apparent from the speech of the hon the Deputy Minister that most of the proposals were received from the board itself, and that it was intent on improving and clarifying the conditions under which estate agents do business and to place greater emphasis on the professionalism of this profession.

The Estate Agents Act was passed by this House in 1976, and the hon member for Sundays River mentioned the fact that this was the fourth time the legislation was being amended. In contrast the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act was placed on the Statute Book as long ago as 1934. Since then it has been amended 20 times. It is therefore clear that the legislation in connection with every profession has to be constantly refined and changed.

I agree with hon members who have already spoken, when they said that the development in the field of property transactions, which now also includes sectional titles, time-sharing provisions, share blocks and the like, has assumed such proportions that any doubts which may arise as regards the definition of immovable property should be eliminated.

As far as clause 1 is concerned, the hon member for Hillbrow said that the problem had cropped up in the teaching profession that after a person had resigned from the profession he could exculpate himself by saying that he was no longer a member of the profession and was therefore not subject to the discipline of the profession. However, I assume that this uncertainty should be eliminated because morally speaking it goes without saying that when a person commits an offence while he is practising a certain profession, he should remain answerable for it even if he subsequently resigns from the profession.

The fact that a disciplinary committee is now being established, is undoubtedly an improvement and we accept it as such. We are also satisfied because the right of appeal still exists and because an estate agent who feels aggrieved still has the remedies at his disposal. The fact that people wishing to enter the estate agents profession have to study more and pass examinations, and cannot simply start a business as was the case in the past, also means that the number of disciplinary cases will diminish in future.

As regards the enlarging of the board, it is obvious that the membership of the board should be increased from 11 to 14, for when one bears in mind that this organization has to serve the entire country, a membership of 14 is certainly not unusually large.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, the hon member for Hillbrow expressed his concern about the attorney and client scale according to which an estate agent who has committed an offence has to pay. I cannot share his concern because in my opinion it is desirable for an estate agent who has committed an offence and has not complied with certain provisions to know that when a civil claim is instituted against him, he is going to be liable for attorney and client costs. By the way, I think that the entire concept of attorney and client costs compared with party and party costs, which quite probably does not apply here, is a confusing concept. One would like to see that difference removed because it is one of the biggest problems in the legal profession to explain to a client that he has won his case but that he will receive the amount he claimed less attorney and client costs. It is difficult to understand and also difficult to explain to a client. However, in the circumstances it is also fit and proper that when an estate agent commits an offence and he is aware of the fact that he is going to be answerable for it, he should also know that he is going to have to pay attorney and client costs. Obviously it is unfair to expect the board to issue a fidelity certificate when the required auditors reports are not yet available. In this connection I am referring to clauses 8 and 9. For that reason it is also a good thing that this matter is being rectified; namely that an agent may not continue to operate his business until he has received the fidelity certificate.

I agree with the hon member for Hillbrow as regards his standpoint on clause 10. It seems to me the hon member for Sundays River also agreed that a period of 14 days was rather short, particularly when one took the size of the country into account, as well as the fact that it would sometimes not be possible in practice for an agent to react within a period of 14 days.

As far as clause 12 is concerned, I should like to refer to the present section 42(2)(d) of the principal Act, which is to be amended. In terms of that section the board may, under certain circumstances, repay a prescribed part of the interest paid by an estate agent to the fund in terms of paragraph (c). This is what was stipulated in terms of an amendment made to the Act in 1980. I submit that this is an amendment which is causing problems at the present stage. It goes without saying that estate agents handle large sums of money on behalf of their clients. The fact that an estate agent receives a certain amount of interest—one could also refer to this as compensation—from the relevant trust investment is, I feel, not a good principle. I therefore want to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to give further attention to this matter. It tempts the estate agent to leave that money in the institution where he has invested it for a longer period of time— to the detriment of the client of course.

Now I see that there are estate agents who allow the benefit of that interest to accrue to the client. This is also indicated on the statement they send the client. However, this is not always the case, and I believe this is an unfair state of affairs in comparison with the obligations resting on attorneys in this connection. Attorneys enjoy no benefit whatsoever, except of course that they need not pay those compulsory contributions to the fidelity fund. I believe this is a matter which could receive attention.

In conclusion I want to refer to the idea expressed by the hon member for Hillbrow in connection with clause 12. In this connection he said that the word “forthwith” was difficult to interpret, and that it would therefore be desirable to stipulate a fixed period in which that obligation had to be complied with. It would also be in the interests of greater clarity and greater legal certainty. With these words we in the CP support the legislation under discussion.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan expressed a few interesting ideas here. I share his concern regarding the matter he referred to, and I am sure the hon the Deputy Minister will also give attention to it. In this regard I am referring specifically to clause 1, which the hon member for Brakpan mentioned and in particular to the provision relating to the definition of “immovable property”. Of course it is important to note that in the Bill under discussion a better definition is given of “immovable property” than was previously the case, specifically as far as the property industry is concerned.

In practice and even in academic circles, there is uncertainty owing to the number of Acts one has to refer to in order to find out what immovable property is in the property world. Perhaps I could just refer hon members to the February 1984 edition of De Rebus, the publication of our South African attorneys. I am referring specifically to an article on page 70, written by Prof Pienaar, entitled “Eiendomstydsdeling: Enkele Aspekte”. When one reads this article one finds that immovable property may be defined differently in certain legislation. There is, for example, the Property Timesharing Control Act regarding which there is speculation. Prof Pienaar also referred to section 31 of the Companies Act. He referred to the Sectional Titles Act, No 66 of 1970. He also referred to the Share Blocks Control Act, No 59 of 1980. When we consider all these pieces of legislation then we get an idea of the confusion which prevailed, not only in academic circles, but also in practice. For that reason I should like to support the hon member for Brakpan because I believe that this legislation is a step in the right direction as regards the new definition of immovable property in clause 1 of the Bill.

The hon member for Hillbrow also raised certain interesting aspects. He referred specifically to estate agents as professional people and I agree with him. He also said: “Estate Agents play a vital role in the economy” and “Estate agents have come a long way”. These are important points the hon member for Hillbrow made. Nowadays an estate agent has to have knowledge covering a wide economic field. In view of the fact that one of the largest investments by a family is the possession of a house, the public expects to receive professional attention. It is also gratifying to see that the property profession—and I take pleasure in calling it a profession—not only makes use of legislation to put its house in order. It is also taking the initiative in putting its own house in order. I need not refer to the academic examinations etc which have to be passed, because previous speakers have already done so.

In order to prove that they are putting their own house in order and playing their part, I need only quote the words of the chairman of their board, Mr Andrew Harrison, who said: “If they want to be treated like professionals they have to behave like professionals”.

In the Financial Mail of 13 January of this year a very interesting and illuminating article appeared under the headline “Estate Agents turning Pro”. This article read inter alia as follows:

It is a good thing that this has now become a rule of ethical conduct because reference has already been made to the so-called “fly-by-nights” where people believe that they have a perpetual mandate to sell the same house, and it is therefore important that these people are controlled by their own ethical code. The article goes on to say:

A further aspect is the following:

This is further proof that the board is prepared to control its people and in this way not only give them professional status but also protect the man in the street.

Another important aspect is the matter of so-called “nominated conveyancers”. Every one of my learned friends in this House will know what I am talking about. Nowadays it is a very sore point in the legal profession when one thinks one is going to receive transfer from a client and it is then snatched from under one’s nose by certain friends in the profession. I am quoting again:

I consider this important, and in view of the sincere intentions of these people and the fact that we want to do what is best for the estate agents and the public here in this House, I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I was most interested to hear what the hon member for Overvaal had to say. In fact, I am very pleased with what he had to say about the need for the estate agents of South Africa to take a far more professional look at their job. It may be recalled that last night while we were debating another Bill which concerned the accountants and auditors, I made the point that we are quite often faced in the House with amending legislation concerning the control and the disciplining of certain professional organizations or the members of such organizations. This has arisen because obviously there are people who have been acting in an improper manner. I said last night very much what the hon member for Overvaal has said, and that is that any profession, any member of a profession should act in a professional manner. I am very pleased that the hon member has emphasized this. He said that the estate agents profession should not look at the principal Act just as a guide as to how they should act in conducting their business, but that they should put their own house in order and that they themselves should act in a professional manner. I am pleased that he has raised this because I feel that there has been a tendency in recent years for certain professions or members of professions to forget about some of the code of ethics which certainly my engineering profession has for engineers. They then act in a manner which is totally unprofessional.

It is important that estate agents should act in a professional manner seeing that the hon the Deputy Minister told us that the property business has expanded tremendously in recent years. We have been partly responsible for that, I suppose, in that we have passed legislation concerning time-sharing, sectional titles and so on probably in response to these new forms of property ownership which have developed over the years. The hon the Deputy Minister pointed out that the number of estate agents had increased from something like 7 000 in 1977 to the huge figure of about 25 000 in 1983. This certainly gives an indication as to how this industry has grown and certainly of the number of increased job opportunities produced over the years. Therefore there is need for the industry as a whole to act in a very professional manner.

The board which is the responsible body of this industry should, I believe, obtain more authority and this is what I think the measure before the House tries to do in some respects. Of course with the added work load of this board especially since this measure will cause a disciplinary committee to be established, it is necessary to increase the members of the board from 11 to 14, and we go along with that.

I think clause 3 is another indication of a greater degree of self-administration and self-regulation in that it removes the requirement that the Minister and the board must get approval of the Minister of Finance before they can alter the remuneration and allowances of the members of the board. I think this is a good trend. I think if we can pass on more powers to these various bodies, we should do so. However, bearing in mind what I have said and what the hon member for Overvaal has said, namely that there is a need for these professions to accept and to acknowledge their responsibilities, they must acknowledge the fact that they have these responsibilities as a professional body. As they show that they are able and capable of conducting their affairs in the correct manner, no doubt this House will endeavour to pass more and more of these duties over to them.

As I see it, the main purpose of the Bill is to set up a disciplinary committee. Clause 5 does this, while other clauses clearly set out the duties of this disciplinary committee. As a result of the establishment of this committee other consequential amendments are required which we find in clauses 7, 9, 10 etc. For the reasons I have given we will support the Bill.

The hon member for Brakpan referred to the matter of interest on trust moneys. I agree with him in this respect. I have never been able to understand why a person who deposits money with an estate agent for the eventual purchase of a property should not be earning interest on that money even if it is paid into a trust fund.

He can.

Yes, I agree, but such a person should be informed that if he so wishes, he can earn interest on that money. This brings us back to the professionalism of estate agents. How many innocent people deposit their money with estate agents only to find, after perhaps some considerable time, that it has not earned any interest? I believe that the estate agent should have the duty of informing such people that they can earn that interest. In the past I believe that some of these estate agents have pocketed this interest themselves. This legislation now provides that in future it has to go to the trust fund.

They get a portion of that.

There you are. I think it is unfair.

We believe this legislation is necessary and we will support it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Amanzimtoti mentioned a few very interesting points. This was also the case with other hon members who spoke before him. In this regard I think that members of all parties in this House made positive and constructive contributions. I shall try to keep my contribution very short and not to repeat what has already been said. If I do repeat things, I shall do so in reverse, just to make things interesting.

Since the Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1976, it has only be amended three times. I think this gives a good indication of how comprehensive and effective the 1976 legislation was. It worked so well that it was not necessary to bring amendments to this House every year. Those amendments to the Act that are contained in the Bill would seem to have become necessary as a result of changed circumstances and adjustments which became necessary in practice. Before I deal with the details, I should like to refer to two specific clauses, namely clauses 3 en 10.

In 1976, when the measure was placed on the Statute Book, there was a discrepancy in the wording of section 5, to which reference is made in clause 3 of the Bill, between the English text and the Afrikaans text. The wording of the English text in section 5 does not correspond with that in the Afrikaans text. A translation of the words “van tyd tot tyd” do not appear in the English text. They would seem to have been omitted when this Act was passed in 1976. With this amendment this has now come to light, and because the Afrikaans text was signed by the State President at the time, it is necessary for the English text to be brought into line with it.

You are quite right, Johan.

Thank you. The support I am getting is overwhelming. I appreciate it.

†I therefore give notice that I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage to remedy this omission by inserting the words “from time to time” after “determined”, on page 5, in line 30.

Likewise in respect of clause 10, my motivation being the same, I shall move during the Committee Stage that on page 9, in line 23, after “board”, the words “or in respect of the fund” be inserted.

*This legislation is becoming increasingly important in the economy of the country. From the figures it is clear that the number of estate agents has increased tremendously during the past few years. In 1977 there were 7 000 estate agents, and that number had increased to approximately 25 000 by 1983. The number of disciplinary cases has also increased to such an extent that there are now more than 400. One therefore realizes that the scope of the work being done by this board is becoming increasingly important.

It is interesting to note what psychologists say about this profession. They maintain that the public takes travel agents and estate agents into its confidence far more frequently than it does clergymen, doctors, advocates and even MPs.

That is not true.

No, it is apparently true. I may disagree with the pastoral psychologist, but I am now referring to the general psychologists who have made this statement. They maintain that one has to remember that a person only travels once a year, particularly as regards overseas trips. It is therefore very important for that person to know where he is going to live, how he is going to live and what his breakfast, etc is going to be.

As regards a house or property transaction this is even more important because, as hon members have already stated, not only is this usually the single largest asset in the estate of the average man, like myself and others …

Modesty does not pay, does it?

I have never suffered from those delusions of modesty. [Interjections.]

It is usually the largest single transaction in the life of an ordinary family, whereas all other transactions, such as the purchase of a car or a refrigerator, or even other things one sometimes should do and should not do, at least crop up more than once in one’s lifetime. The purchase of a property is normally a non-recurrent transaction as far as the average family is concerned.

It is therefore very important for this profession to be regulated and kept on a sound and even keel and it is also very important for legislation in connection with this profession to be kept up to date, on a very sound basis, as the profession develops. Normally the commercial transactions a family enters into only involves the persons who are part of the family at that moment. A property transaction also differs in this regard, because it is not only entered into with the persons who are part of the family at that moment, but also extends to the still unborn portion of the family. It therefore focuses on the present and the future, in contrast to other business transactions which only have a bearing on the present. It is therefore important for this profession to be a very sound one. It is interesting that with this legislation the estate agents’ and attorneys’ professions are, legally speaking, moving much closer to each other and also have to work together very closely. It is also interesting that the amendments now being introduced refer to those matters in respect of which the Estate Agents Act deviated from the legislation pertaining to attorneys. The estate agents’ profession is now slowly but surely moving closer to the principles adhered to in the legal profession for many years now. I am referring here specifically to trust funds, staff, disciplinary committees …

Fidelity certificates.

Yes, and fidelity certificates and other matters. In this connection let me also refer to the matter of attorney and client costs, as contained in clause 6 which amends section 9 of the Act. In referring to attorney and client costs, I should like to go along with the hon member for Brakpan.…

Where to?

Sir, only thus far and not a step further. [Interjections.] I agree with him in the sense that attorney and client costs are the only criterion that can be used here, because the estate agent is the person who has aggrieved some other person and he should therefore pay attorney and client costs. My question to the hon the Deputy Minister is simply whether or not this is taxed attorney and client costs. I take it that is the case. Although it is not quite clear to me, I accept that this is so.

It is stated here.

The hon member for Brakpan says it is stated here. I suppose I merely overlooked it. I take the hon member’s word for it. [Interjections.] No matter how difficult it may be, I must say that when a fellow is right, he stays right. [Interjections.] On the other hand the hon member for Brakpan is not very often right. If I therefore get the opportunity to concede that he is right, I should do so.

This Bill is bringing about some very good changes. As the hon the Deputy Minister said in his Second Reading speech, the amendments resulted from certain practical problems connected with the more effective carrying out of duties of the board. There is no further criticism I can offer in this regard and I therefore give my unqualified support to the Bill.

I should like to thank the hon member for Vasco at once for his interesting contribution and remarks. He is our energetic chairman of the study group for industries, commerce and tourism, and I also wish to thank him for the guidance he provides when we discuss legislation in that group.

The hon member has two amendments in his name on the Order Paper. He has explained them and has also received support for them in this House. I should like to tell him that I also support his amendments. This goes to show what a penetrating study the hon member has made of the legislation.

The hon member rightly said that to the vast majority of families, a property transaction is their biggest single transaction. Therefore it is essential, I believe, that there must be legal certainty that the chances of members of the public losing their money are reduced to an absolute minimum. As regards the attorney and client costs to which the hon member referred, we shall probably be able to discuss that matter again in the Committee Stage. I shall also make some further remarks in that connection presently.

†I should like to come now to the hon member for Hillbrow. At the outset I should like to thank him for his contribution and support. In my reply I shall deal with some of his arguments and when we get to the Committee Stage, I shall of course deal in greater depth with the arguments in respect of the specific clauses. If I may summarize the hon member for Hillbrow’s lengthy speech, I think he has conceded that this is fair legislation we are passing and that he welcomes it apart from a few minor alterations he has suggested.

As far as the question put by the hon member with relation to clause 5(b), dealing with the time limit in which an appeal should be heard by the board, is concerned, as I have it, no time limit is imposed within which the board should hear the appeal. The intention is that the normal principle in respect of an appeal should govern here, namely that the judgment pending the outcome of the appeal will not become operative. I think that will satisfy the hon member, although I would invite him to argue the matter further in the Committee Stage if he so wishes.

I refer to the time within which the appeal must be noted.

That is within 30 days after having received the reasons. [Interjections.] I would welcome further debate on this clause from the hon member in the Committee Stage. That is how I understood his question when he spoke.

The hon member also referred to the question of attorney and client costs. His suggestion is that we accept an amendment to use the words “legal costs” instead of “attomey and client costs". I should like to debate this with the hon member in the Committee Stage. For the hon member’s consideration I want to invite him to give us a definition of “legal costs” at the Committee Stage. If the hon member would give us his definition I would be grateful.

*I shall also refer in the Committee Stage to the hon member’s further amendment to clause 12, in connection with the substitution of the word “forthwith” for the words “as soon as may be practicable”. The hon member proposes a period of three days, but I believe he has already shown his amendment to be invalid in terms of his own argument. I do not feel inclined to accept that amendment, but I shall be glad to debate it with him in the Committee Stage. Nevertheless, I wish to thank the hon member for his contribution and his support.

The hon member for Sundays River made a good contribution this afternoon and referred in particular to the fact that this measure improves administrative control and discipline and strengthens the integrity of the profession. He also referred to the question of consumer protection and pointed out that this should be promoted. I shall say more about the question of consumer protection shortly, in replying to the hon member for Brakpan.

An important point made by the hon member is that greater autonomy is being conferred on the board, and that this obviously places a greater responsibility on the board as well. Another very important point which the hon member made was that the measure brought about greater legal certainty, and that in this respect as well, as far as the public was concerned, it should therefore be universally welcomed. The hon member also discussed the amendment to clause 10 proposed by the hon member for Hillbrow, and I am inclined to agree with him in that respect as well.

I also wish to thank the hon member for Brakpan for the support which he and his party have given to this Bill. He also referred, among other things, to the definition of “immovable property”, as well as to consumer protection, to which the hon member for Sundays River referred. It is true that the insertion of the definition of “immovable property” into section 1 of the Act will also serve to protect the estate agent, as the hon member for Brakpan said, in the sense that all doubt is being removed concerning the transactions on which he is entitled to commission. That is the one aspect. The second aspect, which is connected with that, is that it does in fact contribute to consumer protection, because there must be certainty on the part of the public. If a member of the public concludes a transaction and deposits money with an estate agent, he must be sure that his money is in fact covered by the fidelity fund of the estate agents. If he does not conclude a transaction which falls within the purview of this legislation, he will not be covered by the fidelity fund. Therefore this measure contributes in particular to consumer protection, as the hon member for Sundays River indicated. Both elements are present in this connection, therefore.

The hon member also referred to the payment of interest on trust investments in terms of section 32 of the Act, and I just want to quote this section. Section 32(2)(c) provides:

So a person who deposits his money will in fact be able to give the estate agent a mandate on how that interest is to be dealt with.

As regards the repayment of a part of the interest, which is in the discretion of the board, the legislation makes the position very clear. With regard to the repayment of a part of the interest, it is the intention of the board that this should serve as an incentive to strengthen the fidelity fund. This is a young profession which is being regulated, and if there is no incentive for the estate agent to make the investment—because he has to take administrative steps to do so and this may sometimes be very difficult for the smaller estate agent—he may very easily decide that he is not going to take the trouble. However, if there is the incentive that the estate agent is going to receive a part of the interest, and if in addition he helps to strengthen the fidelity fund, this measure will serve to protect consumers as well.

It is important that the fidelity fund of the Estate Agents Board should be strengthened and expanded. If the hon member requires further figures, I am prepared to make them available to him, but I can assure him that there has been considerable growth in the fidelity fund precisely because of these provisions. As a result, there is greater certainty among the public today that claims will in fact be met. The hon member will understand that a single misappropriation by an agent could mean an enormous claim against the fidelity fund, and for that reason, the board has arranged for an equitable portion to be returned to the estate agent. According to my information, however, the department has not received many complaints about estate agents who deal with money in an unreasonable manner or who invest it for longer periods than their clients wish.

I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon member for Overvaal for his contribution this afternoon. He also referred to the definition of immovable property and the certainty which this creates. He also touched on an important matter when he referred to the estate agents’ code of conduct and the ethics which should apply in this profession, and he also drew our attention to certain provisions in the code of conduct. I shall also refer briefly to another aspect of the code later on in my speech, but as the hon member for Amanzimtoti also said, this is a very important aspect, especially since greater autonomy is now being conferred on the Estate Agents Board.

†The hon member for Amanzimtoti has also given his and his party’s support to the measure, and I thank him for it. The hon member indicated this afternoon once again that he feels very strongly about the code of ethics in the various professions, and I wholeheartedly agree with him. The board is, as the hon member indicated, obtaining greater autonomy and in that sense it places a greater responsibility on the members of the board as well as on individual estate agents to cope with the greater responsibility and to act in the interests of both the industry and the profession, as well as in the interests of the public.

*Mr Speaker, I wish to thank hon members for their contributions to this debate. There are just a few more aspects concerning this measure which I want to mention briefly. I should like to point out that the Estate Agents Board has performed an important task in recent years. Therefore I should also like to thank the Estate Agents Board this afternoon for that work which they have done. I am impressed by their serious attitude towards their task, the industry as a whole and the general public. The board is seriously concerned with maintaining discipline, with regard to its members as well, so it does not hesitate to provide guidance to estate agents.

The regular newsletter of the board, which appears every month, and which is a very well-prepared document, sounds specific warnings from time to time and also points out specific requirements which members of the board have to comply with. I should like to give hon members one example of this, because I also endorse this appeal made by the Estate Agents Board. The board refers to the fact that there are municipalities which have brought to the attention of the board the fact that estate agents sometimes furnish incorrect information, something which is apparently occurring more and more frequently when properties are advertised for sale. According to the board, this offence is committed when it is alleged that a specific property is situated in a particular urban area, while it is actually situated in an adjoining area, which is normally not as popular as the other one. It is also pointed out that as a result of this practice, a higher status may be conferred on such a property, whether deliberately or inadvertently, while it is actually situated in a less popular area.

Furthermore, the board says that apart from the fact that estate agents who do this are guilty of a possible breach of the code of conduct, this kind of behaviour also leads to unnecessary problems for municipalities when they re approached for information. Errors or sales tactics of this nature reflect adversely on the professional status of estate agents. I should like to endorse this standpoint of the Estate Agents Board, and I should therefore appreciate it if the industry and the board would make a point of counteracting this phenomenon. It is not in the interest of the profession; and it is certainly not in the interest of the general public either.

Then I should like to convey my sincere thanks today to Mr Boet van Straaten, who retired in December last year as chairman of the Estate Agents Board, for the important contribution he has made over a period of many years in helping to regulate this industry. Both my department and I always received the fullest co-operation from Mr Van Straaten. The hon member for Hillbrow referred last night to the fact that the first examination set by the board for prospective estate agents had been conducted yesterday and that more than 200 candidates had sat for the examination. I also wish to express the hope, therefore, that this first examination, as well as its results, will come up to our expectations. A brief description of the consolidated syllabus which has to be studied by estate agents may be of interest to hon members.

The syllabus covers the property industry and property business, the trade in property rights and the nature of private legal circumscription of ownership, the role of government in the property industry and the nature of public legal circumscription of ownership. Furthermore, it includes contracts, property economics, the time value of money, estate agents and the estate agency business, government control over the estate agency business, a survey of market valuations, investment analyses, finance and feasibility studies. So it is indeed a comprehensive syllabus which is intended to improve considerably the standard of training as well as standards in the industry itself. It is a fact—and hon members have said so this afternoon—that the Estate Agents Board is in fact achieving success in regulating the profession and promoting the essential business ethics. As the hon member for Amanzimtoti said, the number of registered estate agents has increased, since the establishment of the board, from approximately 6 300 in 1977 to more than 25 000 in 1983. The number of estate agencies has increased from 2 330 to more than 5 000. What is important is that while the industry has grown rapidly, 16,2% of estate agents were found guilty of improper conduct in the period 1977 to 1978, as against 1,7% during the year which ended in 1983. This indicates, therefore, that the profession is already much more disciplined and that the standards have indeed been improved.

Mr Speaker, it is my wish that this measure which is before the House at the moment may also serve to promote the activities of the board.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr Speaker, if there is any objection, I shall withdraw my motion, but since it is raining in the Transvaal, it may be a good idea to adjourn at this stage. I therefore move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Agreed to.