I move—

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he has any intention of remedying the situation in the dairy industry by making amendments which I regard as urgently necessary to close up the present loopholes. The hon. the Minister knows full well that the dairy industry has to be cleaned up, and we expect him to take the necessary steps at the very earliest opportunity.

I can assure the House that this amending Bill is necessary in order to enable us to consolidate the whole of the Marketing Act, and, accordingly, the Dairy Act. This Bill is the forerunner of a consolidation Bill which we hope will cover all these problems.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Clause 4 (2) reads—

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell me what provision is made for those people who have broken periods of service. Take a man who works in a canning factory for four months; the canning factory closes down for some reason or other, and that person is engaged immediately by another canning factory just across the road. He then works there for another period of four months, without any break in his service in that industry, except to walk across the road from one canning factory to another. What happens to that person?

It will be calculated as part of the period.

Would that be a continuous period of service?

Yes.

I would point out to the Minister that it is stated in this sub-section that the person must work for the same employer; that is the difficulty. In the case I have mentioned the period of employment is continuous but the period of service with one employer is not continuous, I should like that point to be clarified. This sub-section specifically provides that he must work for the same person. Will the hon. the Minister be good enough to tell me whether there is any reason for that provision, and whether provision is made for such cases administratively perhaps.

I think there may be something in the hon. member’s contention. The clause reads—

he would still be in continuous employment for eight months if he simply went over from one factory to another—

Looking at this clause again, it would appear in the case mentioned by the hon. member that the period of employment would have to be re-calculated with the second employer; the employee would have to start again on a new eight months period. The hon. member raised this question during the Second Reading debate. Of course, the difficulty here is that one cannot determine the categories of workers to be treated as seasonal workers at the commencement of the year or the beginning of the season when you have to put in your application under the Unemployment Insurance Act. At the commencement of each year employers have to submit their applications and say who they are employing for that year. Of course, if a worker moves from one industry to another as a seasonal worker, I think it will be quite impracticable, if not impossible, for the Commissioner to determine what the assessment to be paid by the employer should be. As I told the hon. member during the Second Reading debate the board considered this question very carefully because representations had been made over the last two or three years. As I have said, the test has to be applied at the commencement of the period of employment. The hon. member will appreciate that if a person simply went from one industry to another during the eight months it would be quite impossible to make an assessment of what the employer should pay. My reply is, therefore, that if there are broken periods of employment during the minimum period of eight months laid down employees would have to commence their term of employment each time they started with an employer who would then be responsible under the Act for paying the assessment. I am sorry but I cannot make any provision for broken periods.

The hon. the Minister has explained what the position is when a seasonal worker leaves one employer and goes to another. In a case like that I can understand that the position in regard to the eight month period may be as indicated by the hon. the Minister. But what is the position of the seasonal worker who works for the same employer? The hon. Minister knows that I have for years been making representations on behalf of the food and canning workers in regard to seasonal workers. It would obviously be unfair if they are put off for a month or two during the eight months because there is no work for them to do, to have that break counted against them. They have worked with the same employer for eight months but with a break of say a month or two. Take the canning industry. Let us say they work from October to February—they don’t work for eight months in the canning industry. They are then put off because the fruit has been picked. They have to wait another month or so before the green peas have to be picked and they return to the same employer. They are then put off for a couple of months before some other section of that industry has to be attended to. Throughout the year they have worked for eight months with the same employer. Are these people not to benefit? Are they to be prejudiced because the industry demands a break in their service? It is not a voluntary break: it is a break which is brought about as a result of the type of industry in which they are employed. Would the Minister consider some form of aid to these people where they work for the same employer? Can they not get a certificate from that employer that they have worked for eight months even though there has been a break in their service? I am thinking about the word “continuous” in this clause. It says—

“Continuous” means that it has to be eight months without a break.

Yes.

You are cutting out thousands of seasonal workers who in fact work for eight months. I know the Minister is sympathetic; he knows my case. But that does not help these people. I hope the Minister will consider helping these people if they can prove by means of a certificate that they have been in the employ of the same employer for eight months. I want to emphasize, by way of conclusion, that the break in their service is not due to any fault of their own but due to the type of work in which they are employed.

Of course the break is not of their own choosing. It is what we call a seasonal break and that is why this provision has been inserted. It deals only with seasonal workers. The hon. member is quite right when he says he has raised this matter with me for some time. I have gone into it. I was quite sympathetic. I submitted it to the board and they pointed out the difficulties which I tried to explain to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). I can see those practical difficulties. I agree with the board on the decision they have made. They have tried to find ways and means of meeting the case of seasonal employees but the hon. member will appreciate that the Commissioner has to make his assessment on the basis of a continuous period of employment and if a worker only works for two months, for example, it is obviously impossible to make an assessment of the employer’s liability to the fund. If a person works for six or seven months and is then laid off and he returns to the same employer, the principle is still the same. It is still a broken period of employment. That is the difficulty that faces the board. I have told the hon. member from time to time however much we would like to meet the position, it has been found quite impossible. The board has tried, we have tried, and it is impossible. I am afraid I must insist on the provision as it is printed in this clause.

I think the prerogative is in the hands of the Minister and not in the hands of the board. I don’t think there should be any great difficulty in overcoming this position. It says—

Surely when the case of a factory, as that referred to by the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), is brought forward the Minister can act accordingly. He does not have to declare it as being a seasonal business. It is quite evident that the type of business re-referred to by the hon. member for Boland is an all-year-round business. There are quite a number of factories that have a break for a month or two which could be considered by industry as all-year-round businesses. The Minister is now guaranteeing the contribution in the case of the permanent seasonal workers, i.e., the maintenance people and so forth, and by using his prerogative he can declare the business as not being a seasonal business. I think the Minister has the power to do so and that will cover the people referred to by the hon. member for Boland.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation and for his sympathy, but sympathy, with the greatest respect, does not help these people. I have not got the Act before me but does it not provide that if a person works for 13 weeks continuously, i.e., that no person can receive benefits unless he has worked continuously for 13 weeks?

That does not refer to seasonal workers.

I know. Surely if people, other than seasonal workers, can get benefits when they have worked for 13 weeks, can’t we try to find some means of helping these people if they work for 13 weeks and then have a break? I want to make it particularly clear to the hon. the Minister that these people do not expect any benefits under the Act other than those benefits they are entitled to by reason of the contributions they have made. If they have worked for 13 weeks or six or seven months they do not expect to be paid for the balance of the year that they are unemployed. That is not what they want. What they want is this: If they have worked for so many months and contributed so much, they should be paid unemployment benefits in proportion. They do not demand it for the rest of the year when they are unemployed. They do not want to live on the fund. They merely want the opportunity of getting some benefit for some weeks at any rate in proportion to the period they have worked. Now that I have made that point, I hope the Minister will at some early date find a formula which will assist these people for whom I have been pleading for so many years.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give me some further information in regard to this clause. Sub-section (3) states—

I think this sub-section calls for further clarification. The White Paper explains that in cases where the Department of Labour is unable to appoint a member of its own Department to act as an assistant to the claims officer, officials from other Departments will be appointed to do so. The position of the claims officer is a vitally important one and one which can cause a great deal of difficulty from time to time. This appointment can possibly affect the position to some extent and I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister which officials from which Departments has the Minister in mind to appoint as assistants to the claims officer?

In terms of the existing law the Secretary can only designate an officer or employee in his Department. It is proposed that the Secretary can now designate any officer or employee of the State. This has been introduced to assist in those cases where there are towns in which there are no representatives of the Department of Labour, particularly where Bantu are concerned. The idea is that the Secretary can designate an officer or employee of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in districts where we have no labour offices.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I wish to move the following amendment—

In his introductory speech to the Second Reading the hon. the Minister explained to us what the background to this period of seven years was. He said that in consultation with the Auditor General it was felt that seven years would be a reasonable period. I pointed out what the difficulties of the Department were and that those difficulties also obtained in the case of the employers. I also pointed out that under the Industrial Conciliation Act and Factories Act a period of three years was prescribed. If you look at the Prescription Act, No. 18 of 1943, you will find that it says the following in Section 3 (2) (c) (ii)—

In other words, for any labour done by him the prescription is three years. There is an enormous turnover in staff in industry to-day. Some factories have between 3,000 to 4,000 members on their staff and they have enormous turnovers. The Minister’s own Department is faced with the difficulty of keeping records accordingly. In terms of the Prescription Act the employee has no claim as far as the employer is concerned but the employer could still be called upon by the Department to pay in certain disbursements as far as the employee is concerned if it is found that he has not paid this money in. So you have these two in conflict. In the one case the payment of remuneration becomes prescribed after three years but the employer remains liable to the Department for a period of seven years. I think the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to this particular Clause in order to bring it into line with the other Acts I mentioned—i.e. Industrial Conciliation Act, and the Factories Act and into line with the Prescription Act.

As I explained to the hon. member during the Second Reading debate I have gone fully into this question as to why the prescription period should be seven years. I indicated to him that this period had been arrived at after consultation with the Controller and Auditor General. I may also tell him that the period of seven years is in accordance with Treasury instructions relating to the disposal of records. Right throughout the Service the period of seven years is accepted by the Treasury for the disposal of records. I should imagine that the Board itself would be only too glad to accept three years. It would give them less work and reduce staff. However, I think one has to be quite fair in this case that where refunds have to be made and other adjustments made, the period should be seven years. I think it is a reasonable period in the circumstances. I know quite well that a period of three years is laid down in the Prescription Act after which certain remuneration or payments cannot be claimed. But in the present case it is not completely similar to the position which obtains in the case of the contracts mentioned in the Prescription Act. Here it is simply a matter of over-payments and under-payments. We think that a period of seven years is quite reasonable. I think that is the reason why the Controller and Auditor General has agreed that seven years should be the period.

I notice that the hon. member has not moved the same amendment in sub-section (b) of this Clause. If the hon. member will look at subsection (b) he will see that it reads—

If this argument is correct then I take it he must move the same amendment in respect of (b), or does he want to give preference to the employer in this case? Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I am unable to accept this amendment.

Naturally I do not expect the employer to have any advantages which the Department has not got. I think that is quite understood, and I move accordingly—

The Minister has referred to this period of seven years within which to keep records as a period laid down by Treasury. But this is a period, in this case, where the Department could claim contributions from employers; the employee would already have left the employer’s service. Seven years is a very long period. This does not only refer to records, but where the Department can claim contributions. As far as the employer is concerned, he is naturally in the same position; he cannot claim a refund of contributions to the fund. That is understood. In terms of the Prescription Act, the employer is relieved of his liability after three years, and we now find that the Department goes beyond that and makes it seven years. This seems wrong in principle. I am not so sure whether this clause does not go beyond the Prescription Act. I do not know which one comes first.

But we can do that, of course. There is nothing to prevent Parliament from amending the Prescription Act in any subsequent law. The whole question is merely one of keeping the records. The proposal is that, after seven years, we should not be placed in the position where we have to investigate claims for over-payment or underpayment. All we are asking is that we should be able to dispose of the records after seven years. That is the reason for this clause.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I wish to move the following amendment—

This amendment alters the clause as it stands in respect of the payment of extended ordinary benefits and illness allowances. I believe this clause is perhaps the most important clause in this Bill in that it affects the payments that are to be made out of the fund. There is a reference to Section 40 of the principal Act which deals with the conditions covering the payment of benefits, and Section 39, which deals with the right to have certain benefits extended, first of all by the Unemployment Committee and then the board. We have no objection to the clause, which provides that an application for extended benefits should go direct to the board and not via the Unemployment Committee. However, we do have objection to the restriction placed upon the board regarding its right to extend those benefits beyond a certain period. As the clause now stands the board will have the right to extend benefits at its discretion to certain class of contributors “at either full or such reduced rates and for such period as it may deem fit”. The words I want omitted are in the proviso, which states that the board will be subject to the provisions of paragraph (m) of sub-section (1) of Section 40. Paragraph (m) is a paragraph which was inserted when the amendments were made to the principal Act in 1962, and it reads as follows—

The board is restricted by this particular provision. This means that after a person has received his initial 26 weeks’ benefits and the board, in its discretion, decides to extend those benefits for a further period either at a reduced rate or at the same rate, the board is limited by this provision in that the person concerned must have been a contributor for 13 weeks during the 52-week period immediately prior to the commencement of the date of unemployment. It means in effect that the board will only be able to grant an additional 26 weeks’ benefit. In other words, an over-all benefit of 52 weeks. It is in this particular regard where a great deal of hardship comes about and the contributors to the fund feel very strongly about it. I know the Trade Union Council also feel very strongly about this. These persons build up benefits. After six weeks’ contributions they are credited with one week’s benefit. It used to be four weeks’ contributions to obtain one week’s benefit. They build up these credits, but although in dire circumstances in which they may require assistance from the fund, particularly in regard to illness allowances, the board will be subject to this restriction. I feel that if the Committee accents the proposed amendment, it will still be left to the discretion of the board to continue to pay such extended benefits or allowances beyond that restricted period. The case I am pleading is that where there are genuine cases of hardship —I refer particularly to persons who are receiving illness allowances; people who feel that they will return to the labour market—they are excluded from receiving any further extended allowances by the board. So, in spite of the fact that it states in the clause that it is in the discretion of the board to extend those benefits, at a reduced rate if it wishes to do so, it does leave the discretion to the board. But I feel that the insertion of this proviso, which restricts the board to paragraph (m) of Section 40 of the principal Act, prevents the board and precludes it from granting further assistance and relief to those contributors who are deserving such assistance and relief, contributors who would, indeed, qualify for further assistance and relief had it not been for this particular proviso. We raised this matter during the second reading, and the hon. the Minister is well aware of the fact that we strongly opposed the inclusion of paragraph (m) when the amendments were made to the Act in 1962. I therefore know that the Minister would not be surprised to find that we have an objection to this particular provision which restricts the board in extending benefits or allowances.

When the amendments were adopted in 1962 there was a long argument in regard to whether we should regard the Unemployment Insurance Fund as a fund which could be called upon to make provision for people suffering from a protracted illness. I think that we made out a case for saying that it was not the function of the fund to make provision in such cases. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) contends that this provision will result in a great deal of hardship, but I want to draw his attention to the figures appearing in the report—in regard to the number of people to whom disbursements were made in 1963. This was the year in which that provision was applied. In 1963 a sickness allowance was paid to 23,069 contributors as against 27,000 in the previous year. These sickness benefits are new benefits which have been brought into being under the fund, and I do not think that we should allow these sickness benefits to be misused. As was said at the time, a person who cannot work for 13 weeks out of any period of 52 weeks is actually a person who is no longer on the labour market, and so such a person will have to look to the Department of Social Welfare for assistance. We have been trying to eliminate malpractices in connection with the fund, and I do not think that the hon. the Minister should make any concessions in this connection. If he does, he will once again be opening the door to all the old malpractices which we have been trying to eliminate.

We keep on hearing of these cases where misuse has been made of the fund. I am still waiting to hear about these multiple misuses by so many thousands of people. I do not think it is true. I am still waiting to hear from the hon. the Minister how often the fund has been misused. I do not believe that there is such a vast number of won’t-works who keep on making demands on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I do not think the figures the hon. Minister has will bear out misuse on a big scale. We are particularly concerned about the genuine person who finds, particularly because of illness, that he is unable to return to work after 26 weeks. The 13 weeks become then imperative for the worker—he must go back for that period and work before he can qualify, and that is a great stumbling block to the genuine case. The hon. Minister knows that there are many conditions which a person can suffer from which will not permit him to go back to work for 13 weeks after he has been laid off from work for 26 weeks. He may not have recovered fully from say a serious operation. That is why I say to the hon. the Minister that in such cases he has to keep the door open so that these people can come and get a further period of sick allowances. It is for these people particularly that I ask for assistance. There are not thousands of them, there are handfuls of them, and surely the fund can stand this “burden”, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) calls it. It is not really a burden on the fund. We are dealing here with a small number of people who genuinely apply for assistance. They have paid into the fund. I do not say that people who have not got credits should get this privilege, but I am pleading for those people who have built up the fund. Surely they should be entitled to get assistance. And the Minister must bear one point in mind, and this is the most important of all points, that the longer a person is ill, the more trouble he has to keep his household going, and it is towards the end of the illness that he suffers most financially. At the beginning of his illness he may have some savings, but as the weeks and months go on. those savings dwindle and it is at the end of the period of 26 weeks that he is hardest hit. Then the Minister says: Before he can get an additional allowance from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, he must first go back to work for 13 weeks. What happens if he cannot go back to work for 13 weeks? It is during those 13 weeks and the following few weeks after that that he finds himself in dire difficulties. I must appeal to the hon. Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) and say that he will go into the matter, that he will give these people a chance to prove that they cannot go back to work because of this or that condition, and that then he will not put the restriction of 13 weeks into the Bill. If he does that, I know that those few people—there are not thousands of them— that make requests to the fund for assistance, will be grateful: they will be genuine cases and the Minister will then be able to help them in their difficulties.

I am unable to accept the amendment. If I were to do so, it would completely vitiate the amendments of 1962, which were the subject of debate in this Committee for days and days during the 1962 session. The arguments for and against were canvassed and listened to. The hon. member for Umbilo has, quite rightly, in view of the attitude of the opposition, seized the opportunity now of this legislation to move an amendment which, as I have said, would vitiate the 1962 amendments, and I am not prepared to accept it. I do not want to traverse all the same arguments again, but I would like to point out that there is still the provision whereby the maximum payment of 26 weeks benefits in any one year can be extended by the Unemployment Insurance Board, but subject to the 13 weeks qualification. Extended benefits on these lines have in fact, I am informed, been granted by the board, particularly in the case of illness allowances, provided that there is some indication that the applicant will return to the labour market. If there is an indication that he will return to the labour market, they may grant these extended benefits. I take it that could be evidenced by medical certificates to indicate whether a person is chronically unable to work again, or whether there is a possibility that he will return to the labour market. Therefore there is really no reason why this condition should cause any hardship to the genuine work-seeker who is temporarily ill. I think that is the basis of the case. But. as I have said, I do not propose canvassing all the arguments again. I did so in my second-reading speech and out of courtesy to the hon. member for Umbilo and the House I replied at some length to the same arguments that were advanced in 1962. I don’t feel that I am called upon now to go into all those arguments again. All we have done in this particular clause is to make it easier to allow the application to go straight to the board. But the board has still got that discretion in the case of illness allowances, and if they are. satisfied that the applicant can return to the labour market, additional benefits may be granted.

There is one point which I think must be clarified and that is that this particular clause where we are dealing with the extended benefits is slightly different from the fight we put up in the 1962 debate on this particular paragraph (m) which is referred to in this clause. The main difference is that the clause we are dealing with is a clause in regard to extended benefits which only the board can grant, in its discretion, under certain circumstances. I know that the hon. Minister did reply fully and that he gave certain figures which showed that in 1963 there were 83 applications for extended illness allowances of which 56 were granted, granted on the basis that the person would be fit to resume work within a reasonable time. Now here we are taking away to a certain degree the discretion that was placed in the hands of the board to extend those benefits beyond an over-all period of 52 weeks. That, I think, is the real crux of the matter as far as this amendment is concerned. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Van Der Walt) referred to abuses of the fund. Obviously we are not in favour of persons being dealt with lightly if they abuse the fund, but there is ample provision for penalties to be imposed and for that matter to be dealt with. All we are asking here is for the board, at its discretion, to be able to extend the ordinary benefits, or illness allowances beyond that period of 52 weeks, leaving it entirely in the discretion of the board to decide whether those benefits should be continued at the normal rate or at a reduced rate for an additional period should it be deemed that such a person will possibly be fit to resume work within a reasonable time. The board is completely restricted by this particular provision which refers to paragraph (m) of Section 40 of the principal Act. It is on this basis that I feel that certain genuine cases that might exist will not be able to receive the sympathetic consideration of the board, even if the board in its discretion feels that that person might be able to resume work at a later date. The board will be completely restricted in granting any further benefits to that person after they have granted him the full maximum of extended benefits to which that person might be entitled in terms of the ruling of the board. So I feel the argument is not so much in regard to the principle contained in paragraph (m) as far as the 13 weeks are concerned, but we must take into consideration that this clause allows the discretion of the board to be used, and it is that discretion by which they can extend those benefits without being subject to this particular proviso that was passed in 1962.

It appears that the hon. Minister has made up his mind not to relax the provisions and provisos of this particular paragraph. I would ask him, in view of what he said, to ask his Department to make out a questionnaire which can be given to those applicants who apply for extended relief, people who cannot go back to work for 13 weeks after they have received allowances for 26 weeks during their illness. I would suggest a questionnaire in which it is stated what the illness is and what chance there is for such a person to go back to the labour market. You see that when certificates are issued by doctors the provision of further employment is not set out in the certificate. The certificate usually contains the type of disease and approximately how long the person will be off work but it does not state to my knowledge, and it has never been asked in the certificate, whether or not the person is able to go back onto the labour market. If I understood the Minister correctly. he says that if it can be stated that applicants are able to go back to the labour market. after an extended period of illness he will consider helping them for a further period, irrespective of whether they go back to work for 13 weeks. So I ask him to have a type of Questionnaire prepared so that the applicant can take that questionnaire to the doctor who will state quite clearly whether or not this is a permanent incapacitation, whether it is a chronic condition which will permanently prevent him from going back to work, or whether it is a temporary illness of an acute form which requires extended treatment. I think that will help.

Before I sit down, I want to come to another section of Clause 10 which I dealt with in my second-reading speech. I am referring to paragraph (d), Mr. Chairman, in which we deal with those persons who are employed in work where there is ionizing radiation going on. The hon. Minister thought that I was not quite serious when I spoke to him about those other people who are working in these particular consulting rooms. Let me make myself quite clear to the hon. Minister. I am quite serious about this and I think the hon. Minister misunderstood me. I did not mean that every typist or every receptionist working for any doctor should come under this provision here. I was particularly asking for those women who work for radiologists. Those were the doctors that I was referring to. If they do typing or reception work and go into those Departments of the consulting room where radiation goes on, that they should be covered in the same way as the radiographer is covered. I want the hon. Minister to understand clearly that the radiographer is instructed to take certain precautions about herself. The hon. Minister will know that their period of work and their periods of holidays are laid down, but the typist and the receptionist who are also in the same set of consulting rooms where this type of work is going on, are not covered in the same way. They are not subjected to the same precautions as the radiographer. I say that the women engaged in this type of work should be given the same cover and have the same privileges as the radiographer.

What about the patients?

I do not want to be frivolous about this, but if the hon. Minister would like me to show him what can possibly happen to a foetus even with one X-ray examination—I can show the hon. Minister a paper that has recently been written showing the dangers of radiation. But I am not saying to the Minister that he should consider the patient. The patient is a person who comes voluntarily to the radiographer for treatment and I am not asking for cover in that case. There are other ways in which this person can receive cover. But I am referring to a person working in this department where this is going on and where this person is subjected day after day because of her livelihood to certain risks. I say that it would be no hardship for this large fund to give the small number of persons the privileges that are now going to be extended to radiographers. It is not a large number of people, and I am quite serious about this and I ask the hon. Minister before he gives a decision to think the matter over, to get further advice. Furthermore it will then not be necessary to amend this paragraph. because it says here if you read it carefully from line 13 onwards—

“If she was connected with work.” Yesterday, the hon. Minister said “only the radiographer is included”. I contend that he is wrong and that people other than radiographers who are working in radiologists’ rooms or in hospitals are covered by this paragraph. He has not got to alter it, but before he gives a decision that only radiographers are covered, I ask him to please get further information about this and perhaps in the Other Please he will be able to give a definition of who those people are.

It is now a question of interpretation, and I will bring the hon. member’s remarks to the notice of the board. As the hon. member says, there is no necessity to alter the clause as it reads. I will ask the Unemployment Insurance Board to go into the question and to look into the representations the hon. member has made.

I want to thank the hon. Minister, and I leave it at that.

Amendment put and negatived. (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

Clause 15 deals with the short title and commencement, and it is in regard to the “commencement” that I would like to have some clarification from the hon. the Minister, where, in paragraph 2. it says “different dates may, in terms of sub-section (1), be fixed in respect of the several provisions of this Act.” I would be grateful if the hon. Minister could give an indication as to when he will bring into effect and bring into commencement the portion of this Bill dealing with the raising of the ceiling as provided in Clause 2. It is an important matter which will affect the position of the fund.

The first sub-section, of course, contains the usual provision that the Bill shall come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. The reason why the second paragraph is added is that it relates to the seasonal workers, and here we have to have an investigation to see what dates will be most suitable.

Clause put and agreed to.

Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move as an amendment—

I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister a question which has occurred to me. I refer to the proposed new subsection (1) “subject to the provisions of Section 25bis, the rights in all discoveries, inventions and improvements made by officers of the Board, or by persons to whom grants-in-aid have been made by the Board, in relation to any matter within the purview of the Board in terms of this Act, shall vest in the Board on behalf of the State”. There is no objection to what I believe is intended, but it seems to me that there is a set of circumstances that perhaps the Minister would be prepared to look into. I am not suggesting that the clause be amended now, but it seems clear that if a discovery. invention or improvement is made by an officer of the Board, that belongs to the Board on behalf of the State. That is proper.

Then it goes on “or by persons to whom grants-in-aid have been made by the Board”. It seems to me that if a grant has been made by the Board to any person, then any subsequent discovery by that person, even if it is in no way related to the grant made by the Board, would vest in the State. It seems to me that that is not the intention of the hon. the Minister. The clause as it stands seems to be all-embracing, and if a grant has been made to a person, the vesting of rights in the Board on behalf of the State should be limited to cases where the discovery of that person is related to the particular grant which has been made. I know it is a technical point and I do not suggest that the hon. Minister should try to deal with it here, but I would like to ask that he should have the matter investigated, unless he has already done so, and if it appears necessary, he could make an appropriate change in the Other Place.

Only discoveries related to atomic energy should be covered, not any discovery not related to atomic energy. But I will have the matter investigated.

That is not what I am referring to. If a person gets a grant from the Board, then it appears to me that any discovery in the atomic field that person may ever make, even if it is in no way related to the particular grant which may have been for a special purpose, because he has had a grant from the Board, would vest in the Board, on behalf of the State. That person would have no rights in respect of that discovery. I take it that what is intended by the clause is that if for example there is a study grant in a particular field. any discovery in that particular field would belong to the Board on behalf of the State. But the position as I see it is that if any grant is made by the Board to a person, then any discovery whatsoever that person may make subsequently in the atomic field would automatically belong to the Board. I cannot think that that was the Minister’s intention.

It only covers that particular field in respect of which the grant was given to him.

I am glad to know that, and I hope that the Minister will consider inserting an appropriate amendment in the clause in the Other Place. I do not think we should rush through an amendment here at this stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

In dealing with this particular clause, I should like to get the Minister’s reaction to the anomaly which, I think, seems to exist in sub-sections (3) and (4) of this clause. In (3) it says that if the rights in any discovery, invention or improvement vest in the Board, the Board “may make” such discovery, invention or improvement available for use in the public interest. In other words, the Board is not obliged or compelled to make this discovery available in the public interest; but in sub-section (4), which deals with the right of an individual to any discovery or invention, it says that if the rights in any discovery, invention or improvement vest in any person, other than the Board, it “shall be made” available for use in the public interest. In other words, it is obligatory on the person to make that invention available in the public interest. I am wondering whether the Minister can enlighten the House as to the differentiation between a discovery made by the Board, and one made by a person. I feel, particularly in view of the remarks just made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in regard to the previous clause, that we should encourage further research in atomic energy in this country, that we are placing the individual at an unfair disadvantage in comparison with the Board. Either both should be made obligatory, or both should be made subject to the decision of the Board. Can the Minister enlighten us as to whether my interpretation is correct, and if so, the reason for this differentiation.

The reason for the difference is that it is based on an agreement. As is provided here, the Board may, by way of agreement with a person, entrust that person with special investigations and to make discoveries and inventions. It is the view of the State that private bodies should be given as much opportunity as possible to do that work. But when that work is too comprehensive it is often not possible for a private body to do it and then the Board is compelled to do the work itself. These agreements which are concluded with private individuals will be chiefly in connection with work in industry or in the medical world and that is why provision is made for the discoveries to be made known. The research which the Board itself will do will be chiefly fundamental research. Nuclear research is a comparatively new science and that is why we think that this provision should not be made compulsory. The desirability or otherwise in this regard will be considered according to circumstances. Because we are dealing here with a Board which consists of a the public sector as well, I do not think hon. members need be concerned lest the results of the research be not made known if it is at all in the public interest that those results should be made known.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Clause 6 deals with the question of secrecy …

Order! I should like to point out to the hon. member that he must confine himself to the amendment moved to this section. The hon. member cannot discuss the original section as printed. He must confine himself to the amendments.

There are the words “or use” in this clause. This clause says that no person shall communicate, transmit or make known to any person, or use any information in regard to reserves of ores containing any prescribed material, or the annual output of such material or ores, without the consent in writing of the Chairman of the Board. The Minister is aware that it is the custom of mining companies to disclose to their shareholders in their annual reports, the reserves of ore the particular mine has, and based on this reserves of ore, shareholders can make an estimate of the life of the mine and its profitability. I see in this clause, as amended by the words “or use, any information in regard to reserves of ores containing any prescribed material” that you are putting an unfair legal disability on shareholders who may use any information disclosed by their companies as to the reserves of ore, which may contain uranium. I am worried that a number of our mining companies may unwittingly commit an offence, according to the wording of this clause. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is not so, and that mining companies will be free to use any information that they feel advisable in their discretion— and I am sure that we can leave that discretion to these mining companies which are responsible bodies—and that they should not be unduly prevented from disclosing any reserves of ore. I would like to get an assurance from the Minister that this will not have the effect of restricting companies from disclosing their true reserves of ore.

This is not a new clause. It is only the words “or use” which are being inserted. This clause does not contain an absolute prohibition. It says that no person shall, without the consent in writing of the chairman, communicate or use any information. So it is possible to communicate, transmit or make known to any person or use any information, but it must be with the consent of the Chairman. This is not new in so far as the information published by companies is concerned. Some information was published in the past and so it is not an absolute prohibition. When it is in the public interest that information should be published, the necessary permission will be obtained.

I thank the Minister. I quite see that mining companies, as such, can get consent from the Chairman of the Board, but what is the position of the shareholder who, having got that information, uses it? If the company discloses its reserves containing uranium ore, up to now a shareholder using that information has not been committing an offence, but with the introduction of the words “or use”, are we not putting a very onerous responsibility on the shareholder?

It is quite clear that whenever the chairman has to give consent to information being communicated or transmitted, he has to bear in mind that it will be used. He cannot allow information to be given to the public and then prohibit anybody from using it. I think it must be considered in relation to the whole approach.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move the amendment as printed—

I dealt last night with certain aspects which had been raised by hon. members opposite and I also referred to Clause 5 of the Bill in regard to suitable alternative accommodation. I now wish to deal with certain other aspects of the Bill and ask the hon. the Minister to give us some information. In sub-section (2) on page 6 the Minister will see that it deals with a notice in the newspapers in regard to areas it is proposed to proclaim. Then in sub-section (3) it says that they should also take note of applications made in respect of areas to be included in such notice. It says the Secretary must allow a written application to be lodged with him prior to the expiration of the first-mentioned period, and proposals as to any area or areas to be included in such notice, together with the reasons in support of any such proposal. I presume that means that when a notice appears in the Press the members of the public can write to the board and say that they wish a further area to be included. But I submit that the same privilege should be given to people who wish to exclude a certain area from that proclamation. It may be that they have no valid argument why a certain area should not be declared a group area, but as there is now to be the right for people to say that they want another area to be included, I submit that there should also be the right granted to people to say that they want a certain portion of that area excluded. I submit that the Minister should give that right to Such people, because in sub-section (4) it says that the board shall not reject a proposal unless it has afforded the person who made the proposal an opportunity of being heard of or submitting written representations to it, and the Minister has approved of the rejection of the proposal. I submit that all those rights should also be given to people who want certain portions to be excluded. The Act also goes on to use the words “the desirability or otherwise of issuing, amending or withdrawing any proclamation”. I now wish to give the Minister certain facts as to what happened in the past, and I hope we will not have a recurrence. There is an area not far from Cape Town where people apply for permits to erect dwellings or to purchase dwellings. That area was not a proclaimed area. They were given the permit and were permitted to purchase, and after they did that—and there were hundreds, according to my information—suddenly that area was declared a White area. I say that is misleading and unfair to the people. The people do not know where they are. The Government gave them a permit to purchase and occupy and then clamped down on them and said that this would now be a White area. I submit that in cases of that kind the people affected should not lose a single cent, and that they should be reimbursed completely for the purchase price of the property, the cost of construction plus all incidental expenses such as the costs of transfer, etc.

To which area are you referring?

I think it was Claremont, but if the Minister wants me to give him a case which I have just received I can give him the instance of where a man bought a house, I think in Port Elizabeth, and got a bond and when he took transfer of the property it was declared a White area. Surely people should know where they are in regard to this legislation. Nobody is safe, particularly the Coloured people. They do not know where they are. They are running around trying to find an area where they will be safe from the operation of the Group Areas Act, only to find that the Group Areas Board has followed them and they are expelled. What guarantee has anybody got? Must the Coloured community forever live in fear and trepidation that if they buy property under permit or otherwise in areas not yet proclaimed they will have no security of tenure? That is what happens not in one case but in many, and it means a tremendous loss to them. My appeal to the Minister is that in cases of that kind there should be no loss and that in the operation of the Act this 50 per cent on surplus should not apply, or the 80 per cent on loss. This man whom I mentioned was almost ruined. He bought the property in good faith and suddenly a group area was proclaimed there.

The Minister referred to Clause 12. On a strict interpretation of that clause it would mean that you cannot have a servant living on your premises without a permit. I want to know from the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government, if they proclaim an area say in Sea Point or Kenilworth, where you have a servant’s room in your flat or in your house, you must have a permit of occupation? Because as the Bill reads it says that from the date specified in the proclamation no disqualified person shall occupy, and no person shall allow a disqualified person to occupy, land or premises to which the proclamation applies except under the authority of a permit. Does this refer to domestic servants? If that is so, it will affect the whole of our daily lives. I want to repeat what I said yesterday, that everything we do in our lives is regulated by permits. Surely a strict interpretation of the Act would mean that you cannot have a domestic servant without a permit; and if it is not so the Minister must tell us that domestic servants are excluded.

They have been exempted by proclamation.

Does this new Bill not override any proclamation made prior to this? It says “notwithstanding anything contained in any special or other statutory provision”. If the Minister tells me that any proclamation made prior to this Act will stand and that this Act will not affect any prior proclamation, I will accept it, but it does not seem to me as if that is what this particular clause means.

May I refer you to Section 23 (2) of the Act?

If that is the correct interpretation I am quite happy. But we have been told in the past by Ministers; Do not worry about what is in the law; just leave it to our good nature.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I accept the Minister’s assurance. In conclusion, I want to deal with what has become known as the “police section”. Section 15. Surely a strict interpretation of this means that the policeman can barge into any person’s house at any time merely because he suspects that an offence may be committed. Surely you are not giving the police all that liberty to barge into a man’s home at any time, and I want to ask the Minister to delete the word “suspected”, because we are dealing with a specific offence under the Group Areas Act. Surely once there is an alleged offence, that is sufficient reason for the police to act.

It is only if they suspect that an offence is being committed in terms of this Act.

Then the Minister should say “reasonably suspect”.

Order! That can be discussed in Committee.

But I must give the Minister time to think about it, because I can only speak three times in the Committee Stage. I say to the Minister that he must delete the word “suspected” because otherwise I am going to call this the “Gestapo clause”.

Yes, you will select a word like that. That is now a true South African speaking!

No, I am making an appeal to the Minister not to give the people of the country the impression that they are not free to have a home or to enjoy the security and the privacy of their homes without the fear of the police coming along and saying they suspect that these people are contravening the Group Areas Act. I say it is sufficient if there is an offence or an alleged offence. It is not right if a policeman walks by and enters your house and says that he suspects that an offence is being committed. Hon. members must not get so excited. We are trying to protect the good name of South Africa more than they are. [Interjections.] I say it is to prevent the impression being created in the minds of people that we want to try to change the law in this respect. I make that appeal to the Minister now and perhaps it will be set right in the Committee Stage.

If the results of the provincial elections for Coloured voters in the northern and southern Cape constituencies has had one good effect in this House it is that it has caused the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), who has just spoken, to expose the United Party in regard to this question of group areas. Hon. members of the Opposition have tried to evade this matter by saying: “Yes, we are in favour of social segregation but it must not be compulsory; there has to be contact and consultation,” but at the same time, hon. members of the Opposition have been trying to sell a policy of White leadership to the voters during the provincial election campaign. The hon. member who spoke just before I stood up is also a member of that same party; it is true that he is not a member of the party caucus but he is still a member of the United Party. He was elected a Coloured Representative for the Boland constituency with the assistance of the financial and organizing machine of that party.

On a point of order, I did not receive any financial assistance from any person or body.

Order, order! That is not a point of order.

I can well imagine that the hon. member for Boland is very sensitive in regard to this matter which I have just mentioned. But the fact remains that he was elected with the support, in all respects, of the United Party.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am coming to the point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member expressed himself in the strongest possible terms, and, unlike the hon. members for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and Simonstown (Mr. Gay) who tried to pose as the protagonists of the principle of segregation, he said that he made no secret of the fact that he condemned the principle of separate residential areas. Those were the words which he used here yesterday. He said: “I make no secret of it.”

I despise it, I detest it, I abhor it.

There you have it, Mr. Speaker. I want to go so far as to say that while frontbenchers of the United Party posed yesterday as the so-called protagonists of the principle of separate residential areas and segregation …

Graaff said it again last night.

Yes, I have already said that hon. members of the United Party are trying to sell their so-called policy of White leadership to the public and are posing as the protagonists of social segregation, of separate residential areas, but on this condition: “We want this to take place on a voluntary basis; we want consultation; we do not want to make it compulsory.” I say that I see this game which they are playing simply as a screen to hide two completely divergent points of view on that side of the House in regard to this matter. The hon. member for Boland has interpreted the views of one section of the United Party here; he says that he abhors social segregation. There are more hon. members of the United Party who hold the same view but they have been told to keep their mouths shut at this stage. The hon. member for Boland could not but say what he did; because the results in the two provincial constituencies I have mentioned have forced him to say the things which he has said; they have forced him to describe this legislation as Gestapo legislation.

On a point of order, I did not say that; I said that unless it was changed I would be compelled to call it Gestapo legislation.

That does not alter the matter at all. I say that he has been forced to use these extravagant expressions in order to express his disapproval of social segregation. Although he may feel the same way in his heart of hearts he has been forced to give expression to these feelings. But if it were not for the election results in these two constituencies, he would not have come out with remarks of this nature. That is why I say that all this effort on the part of frontbenchers of the United Party is merely a screen to hide the great disunity in their ranks in regard to this matter.

Hon. members of the Opposition discussed this amending Bill yesterday without actually dealing with the provisions of the Bill itself. The principle of group areas was adopted by this Parliament years ago—in 1950. The provisions of this Bill only deal with the new procedure since the coming into being of the Department of Planning, a step which nobody with any sense in this House will deprecate because, when we have to plan for residential areas and orderly communities, it is obvious that these functions will also have to be performed by the Department which has to plan economic development. While up to the present we have had the proclaiming of group areas chiefly in order to avoid the disturbing factor of residential integration, we will in the future have to proclaim group areas while also bearing in mind the economic circumstances of the groups involved, and that is what this Bill makes provision for. But the abysmal ignorance of hon. members of the Opposition has become apparent, inter alia, from the attitude which has been adopted by the hon. member for Simonstown.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member must give me an opportunity to make my speech; I am dealing with another hon. member, not with him; he can ask his question later. The hon. member for Simonstown spoke about the officials of another Department who will now have to perform the functions of this Department. The hon. member is so naïve that he does not know that when the Department of Planning was established, there was a reshuffling of the officials in the old Department of Community Development and a number of them were transferred to the Department of Planning. In other words, there is an abysmal ignorance displayed by hon. members of the Opposition in regard to the provisions of this Bill. But in order to try to justify their opposition to this legislation, hon. members of the Opposition told the House with much emotion about the sorrow and the heartbreak and the human suffering caused by this Bill. Mr. Speaker, that has actually nothing to do with this Bill. Those are matters which fall under the principal Act of 1950. Indeed, I can say that if there have been cases of heartbreak and human suffering, then this Bill before us will reduce the incidence of that heartbreak and suffering.

What about the Coloureds in Stellenbosch?

The hon. member speaks about the Coloureds in Stellenbosch. That hon. member made all sorts of promises to support them in their campaign when they did not want to fulfill their obligations in respect of rents, so he is only reaping what he has sown. If there are cases of hardship as a result of the policy of compulsory group area segregation, if there are cases of human suffering as a result of compulsory residential segregation as applied by this Government, then I want to put this question to the Opposition. Are only those people who are affected and have to move as a result of the proclaiming of group areas heartsore and suffering hardship? Is it difficult for them to move to another house, which is perhaps a far better house than the one they had? Is it not a fact that in the Cape Peninsula we have one of the best examples to prove that development, not for the sake of residential purposes, but development for the sake of the better control of traffic in the urban area, has made it necessary for people to leave properties which they may have been occupying for generations? Is it only those people who have to leave their homes as a result of the proclaiming of group areas who become heartsore and suffer hardship? Are there not farmers in our country who have also had to forfeit the land which has been dear to them for generations; who have had to forfeit this land for the sake of development, for industrial purposes, for other purposes and even for the development of group areas? This brings me to my next point: If one is to accept what the hon. member has told us, is it only the non-Whites who are heartsore and who are suffering hardship as a result of the proclaiming of group areas? Is it not a fact that numbers of Whites who have for generations lived on land which is dear to them, have also had to make the sacrifice of giving up that land for the sake of the provision of decent housing for members of another race group—the Coloureds?

In Bellville South.

We have the wonderful example of Bellville South, which was formerly part of the constituency of the hon. the Minister himself. Did Whites not also have to be moved from this area in order to make way for the development of Coloured areas? In other words, we are not dealing here simply with the question of the unjust treatment of the poor Coloureds, as is suggested by hon. members on that side of the House. We are dealing here with a development, with a need which has grown up over a period of 300 years; this is the inheritance of 300 years; this development is necessary because of the neglect of orderly planning over those 300 years; it has been this neglect which has led to the fact that sacrifices have to-day to be made not only by Coloureds but by Whites as well. But I want to go further and say this: In almost all the cases in which people have been moved as a result of the proclaiming of the group areas, better conditions have been created for them. Where people have had to leave land on which they were practising farming of some or other kind, they have been compensated in a way which redounds greatly to the credit of this Government and which has also made the more worthwhile for those people. Though there may therefore be some cases of privation, though there may be cases in which people feel unhappy as a result of the proclaiming of group areas, even then, we cannot do otherwise than stand fast by this legislation and by this programme of the Government for the sake of the more important ideal of residential segregation and because of the humane way in which people in similar circumstances have been dealt with. The fact remains that no matter what attitude may be adopted by hon. members of the Opposition, no matter how they may oppose this legislation, if they can obtain the advantages to be obtained from group area legislation, some of them will not wait for one moment. When I speak of advantages, I do not mean compensation if they themselves are affected; I am referring specifically to what happened in Natal. When this legislation was passed— it was strongly opposed by the Opposition— a deputation from the Durban City Council went to see the then Minister of the Interim to ask him please to put the legislation into operation as soon as possible because conditions had deteriorated to such an extent in Durban that the Council simply could not cope with the position.

I want to come back now to the specific provisions of this Bill. Because this Bill now makes provision, inter alia, that a new group of disqualified persons will not come into being in terms of the Group Areas Act; in other words, that people will not be able to defy this legislation and try, after proclamation, to enter an area in which they are no longer allowed to live is this fact not to the advantage, particularly to an area like Natal and is it not to the advantage to the Durban City Council? For this reason we cannot understand what has caused hon. members of the Opposition to oppose this legislation. The hon. member for Simonstown said that the principal Act was now being amended for the umpteenth time. But it is obvious that in a programme of this nature, because of the new ground covered since 1950 and because of the new circumstances which of necessity arise and of the efforts which are often made to find loopholes in legislation in order to evade its provisions—in other words, to oppose what hon. members of the Opposition tell us they also want, namely social segregation—the principal Act should have to be amended from time to time.

But what is more, is it not obvious that legislation of this nature particularly should be amended because we are at present finishing off our original task and because we now have to cover a wider field in which when new group areas are established the economic development has also to be considered. Even if the principal Act is amended every year in the future, I shall support every amendment most heartily indeed because we are not living in a stagnant community; we are living in a developing community and the fact that amendments are being made to this legislation is proof of the alertness and spirit of enterprise of the Department concerned and the hon. the Minister as its head. But what is more, each time amending measures of this nature come before the House, the country will be made more aware of the listless attitude adopted by hon. members of the Opposition in regard to this matter. They can tell the public that they are in favour of White leadership, and what, according to them, White control means, but if they neglect to impose residential segregation, which they are also ostensibly in favour of, and make it compulsory, they will never be able to succeed in maintaining White leadership. Let me mention the example of what has happened in Britain. A handful of non-Whites in Britain are infiltrating into traditionally White communities. Originally, one party or some of its supporters objected to this and asked that control be instituted. But the other party said: “Let the non-Whites come in; it will make no difference.” Circumstances have, however, resulted in the fact that the Labour Party which is now in government there, has realized that it will have to apply control measures. What is the background to this matter? The background is the realization that they want to retain White leadership there as well, but they have also discovered that one cannot do this on a voluntary basis; one cannot consult these people and tell them: “You must not live in this particular urban area; you must live in a poorer section on the other side.”

But the police have nothing to do with it.

The question of whether the police have anything to do with it or not is not relevant to my argument in this regard: it is not relevant when I am discussing the question of compulsory segregation. I shall deal just now with the question of the police.

After all, someone has to exercise control.

In other words, the fact remains that one can create order out of the chaos which has developed over 300 years, or, as in the case in England, perhaps over 20 years, but one cannot bring order out of the chaos which has resulted through negligence without making things compulsory. That is the lesson which hon. members of the Opposition will have to learn. Before they tell the public that they are in favour of White leadership they must tell the public and this House how they are going to apply residential segregation in this country without the element of compulsion. How are they going to do it on a voluntary basis? With whom are they going to discuss the matter; are they going to discuss it with Indians who will buy land deliberately in the White urban area of Durban if they can? Are they going to be able to persuade the Indians to give up their plan? If not, who is going to persuade them to do so.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) spoke about the police. The great grievance of hon. members opposite is that the police will now do inspection work under this legislation. Is the position not that the police have been performing this function since 1957? Now that the original work of investigation has to a large extent been completed and now that the time has come when group areas have been proclaimed in practically all parts of the country, we will have to ensure that no offences are committed, that there are no disqualified persons who want to go against the wishes of the Government and also the wishes of the Opposition, so we are told, by entering these proclaimed areas, and so this can no longer remain the function of inspectors of the Department. It must of necessity become the function of the police as we reach this stage of development because if anything of this nature is done, it becomes an offence against the law of the country. Hon. members must not tell us that by using the police for this purpose we are making use of Gestapo methods. The hon. member for Simonstown himself told us yesterday about the effect which uniforms have on the public.

May I ask the hon. member in terms of which sub-section of which section the police have been carrying out these duties since 1957?

The hon. member must not ask me under which sub-section of which section the police have been carrying out these duties. The question is simply whether the police have been carrying out these duties since 1957 or not. This task has been performed by the police since 1957 under the authority of the Department of Community Development. According to the common law of the country, a police official can be sent to investigate a matter in regard to which there is suspicion that an offence has been committed.

Why then should provision be made in that regard in this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to this point. To cast suspicion in advance upon the use of the police for what is a normal police function and to refer to the effect which a police uniform will have on the public amounts to a calculated attempt to stir up feelings against this legislation and its application and I think that this is a great pity, particularly because the hon. member for Simonstown has said that they are also in favour of social segregation and separate residential areas. If they are in favour of these things they must not try to frustrate them; they must not try to frustrate them directly in this House and they must also not try to frustrate them indirectly by casting suspicion upon those people who have to carry out these functions.

Where under the present provisions the proclaiming of every new group areas would have to be submitted to this House, it is now being provided in this Bill that this need no longer be done after 7 June this year, and that the function of proclamation will in the future still rest with the Department concerned and its machinery. I want to say here to-day that we have progressed a long way in regard to the proclaiming of group areas in areas where the need has been the greatest, but we realize that as the country develops and develops swiftly, there will have to be new proclamations, and that is why this function is so well suited to the Department of Planning. But with a view to the development with which we are faced, I want to say that if every future proclaiming of a group area has to be submitted to this House, we will be faced with this problem. It will make the position of members impossible in their own constituencies because people who will be affected will approach those members and other Members of Parliament to support their particular point of view in order to prevent the proclaiming of a certain area. This is a function which under normal circumstances can never either directly or indirectly become that of a member of the House of Assembly and that is why I am grateful that the old provision has been done away with and that we are still leaving the question of the proclaiming of group areas to the Department which is responsible for this function.

In conclusion I just want to say that it has become clear to us in this debate that hon. members of the Opposition are playing the same old game which they have been playing over the past 15 years in regard to this matter. It will help them but little to tell the public that they are in favour of White leadership and White control, and to make all kinds of statements which sound very well. The fact remains that although they have had the opportunity to give practical effect to what they ostensibly profess, they have left the Government of the country in the lurch.

Sir, my appeal to the hon. the Minister with regard to this Bill, although he smiled very nicely yesterday when it was suggested that he may have a kinder heart than some of his predecessors as far as group areas were concerned, is that the Government should realize that this particular Act of Parliament is the one Act which causes tremendous and considerable distress amongst the non-White peoples of this country. That is a fact to which we cannot close our eyes.

We are coming here to-day to amend this Act, and, as the Government says, to close loopholes and to make it easier for the Government to carry out the wishes of the electorate and to make the group areas of this country, like a multi-coloured jacket, an accepted thing or at least an established thing. I think something should be said here about the effect of the Act in relation to the amendments which are proposed here.

In the first instance I had the opportunity recently of visiting a number of towns in the Cape Province where the Group Areas Act had been applied or is in the process of being applied. Sir, I think the Minister is aware of my views because I have been in correspondence with him and with the incumbent of the office prior to the establishment of the Department of Planning. I want to concede that a tremendous amount of work has been done as far as slum clearance is concerned. I have heard remarks by Government speakers to the effect that certain municipalities have done nothing and the charge has more or less been made against this side of the House that those councils were United Party-controlled councils. Let me say right away that I can point to just as many councils which are Nationalist Party-controlled councils which have also done nothing or which can be accused of having done nothing.

Paarl.

A classic example is one quite close to Paarl. I think the township in question is Newtown, between Wellington and Paarl, between the mountain and the railway on the way to Cape Town. Let hon. members go and look for themselves at the galvanized iron shacks and shanties and judge for themselves. Sir. there are many other examples. I would suggest that hon. members opposite have a look at Beaufort West, at Sakkiesbaai, which is a place where Coloured people have been living under bags and bits of iron for a long time. I do not think it can be suggested by the wildest stretch of imagination that the United Party has much influence there. I am glad to see that the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) is in his seat. At Colesberg we know what is happening. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs told me himself across the floor of the House that he was aware of what was happening at Colesberg. Sir, I do not blame the Colesberg Town Council for the position there because I think it is a job which is beyond their capacity. I think the conditions there are the worst in the Cape Province. I do not blame anybody for that, but what I do say is that in selecting a new site a little more kindness might perhaps be shown to the people who are going to be moved.

Did you investigate the position at Colesberg?

Yes, I went there. The mayor was a bit cross with me because I got there on a Saturday afternoon and I did not see him; I wrote to him accordingly. But I did not go there with any intention of blaming people. I exonerate the Council. I say that in this matter the Government should do its work through the local authorities because there are many local authorities who have been doing and who are doing this job satisfactorily. But, let us look at De Aar; let us take a look at the Coloured township in De Aar, which is also in the hon. member’s constituency. Sir, you cannot blame the De Aar Town Council. They are very co-operative people. They have told me that they have their particular problems. I wrote to the Town Clerk about the position there. Let us get away from this attitude of blaming political parties for conditions in this country and for conditions in the Cape Province in particular.

What about Laingsburg?

That is a very nice township. I come to the question of the proclamation of group areas. We say that we will publish the proclamation of group areas at least once in a newspaper circulating in the area. I think the Minister should investigate that aspect because in many of the small towns in the rural areas it is very difficult to know which newspaper circulating in the area will reach the affected persons—in this particular instance Coloured persons. I can quote a case, which is well-known to the hon. the Minister, where the only evidence which was given before the Board was given by a Coloured person who is in the employ of the Municipality. When I asked the town clerk how it came about that only this one person gave evidence, he said, “Well, he was the only man who turned up.” The persons at whose request I went to do the investigation said that they had no knowledge that that investigation was contemplated or that it was taking place.

I also want to refer to the question of the hearings and the decisions of the Board, and I want to say to the Minister that I am bitterly disappointed at the omission to bring about any change in the appeal procedure when affected persons are dissatisfied. The general consensus of opinion amongst the communities who are affected is, that whatever representations they make, no matter how much money they may spend in briefing counsel and attorneys and others to plead their cause, very little notice is taken of those representations. I am quite willing to concede that the hon. the Minister, weighing up all things, makes his decision in terms of the cold letter of the law, but why is it that in all these cases where Coloured persons are vitally affected and make representations, no change ever comes about? Surely there must be some method whereby their point of view can be ventilated. What concerns the Coloured community and me in particular is this: Who initiates the investigation for the particular proclamation, that is to say, who decides that there is going to be an investigation and that the investigation is going to be made at a certain time and place and that representations may be made at that time? Let us get away from the big cities like Johannesburg and go to a small place called Danielskuil, where the Coloured taxpayers’ organization is very dissatisfied. They had a hearing there quite recently. In every case in the small towns it is always the Coloured communities who are moved out. Let us take the case of Graaff Reinet. A Coloured area called Sunnyside was established there and a new area called Kroonvale came into being. The persons living in Sunnyside do not know what to do. There are actually properties there where the foundations have been laid but no further progress has been made. The town council maintains that they first want to develop the second township. I do not blame the council for adopting that attitude. But what I do say is that the Government can be criticized because the people in the Sunnyside township are living in a state of uncertainty. That is the tremendous objection to and criticism we level against the Group Areas Act in general. All the sweet words coming from Government speakers will never alter the fact that the Coloured people believe that this Act is directed at them and nobody else.

Nonsense!

It is no good saying it is nonsense. That is what they believe and that is what they think.

From time immemorial the Africans have always lived on the outer perimeter of towns. It does not happen, except in a few cases along the Reef, where we have an exceptional position, that Bantu are moved at all. But on the platteland practically every town is declared White and the Coloured people in the towns have got to get out. I say to the hon. the Minister that if he has, as I think, a kind heart—he is a Cape man and he does understand the Coloured people and their aspirations; he knows their feelings; he knows their frustrations and despair—he would give the Group Areas Act a holiday for a few years. No, let the holiday be permanent. Pension the Act off. This is the position, and I want to emphasize it because this is the opportunity to do so. This is the Act which is causing 99 per cent of the ill-feeling in this country vis-à-vis the Coloured people and the Whites. The Government is responsible.

Another thing which concerns the Coloured community is this: Who originates the suggestions and ideas that places should be investigated? I want to quote a case in Upington. By a gentlemen’s agreement, which everybody associated with Upington for any length of time says is so, it was agreed that the Coloured community would be put west of Brug Street and that the Whites would be east. East of Brug Street there were one or two plots— water erven—on the river owned by Coloured people. They disposed of them. On the west side there is a Congregational Church, I think, and other Coloured persons. The Group Areas Board broke faith. Representations were made to them, I am assured, by the attorneys who pleaded the case for these people. Those representations were ignored and west of Brug Street is to-day a White area. The Coloureds who have been in occupation there—it is true there are only seven but seven is as good as 700—have been cut off from the river. It is said that they never had access to the river. If you know Upington, Sir, and I am sure you do, you will know that that is about the coolest place in midsummer! These people have no access to the river. There is an area further west which it is said can be turned into a Coloured settlement. It is along the river, but where are the Coloureds being moved to, out of the location? Right away on the top of the ridge. The town council—I give them credit for it—are building houses as fast as they can in terms of the law but the people concerned are most unhappy. When I say “most unhappy” I express myself in the mildest possible form.

I want to refer to the position of leases. I have asked the question before. I should like the Minister to take note of what I am about to say because I should like an answer. In some central business and trading areas in our towns there are Coloureds, Asiatics, Malays, Chinese and other traders. They may occupy premises which belong to Whites; premises which are leased to them. Are these the leases that can be arbitrarily cancelled? When it comes to the question of offering alternative accommodation, as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) said yesterday, it is not a question of alternative accommodation; it is not a house they want; they want a home. As the hon. the Minister knows the non-White person who is in business to-day in a White area operates on a permit. The man is established; he has been there for years; he does not know what is going to happen to him. In many cases—refer to Asiatic traders in this instance—they operate their business on a permit. There is no such thing as an Asiatic area at the moment. Does the Minister think those people are happy and that they are not thoroughly dissatisfied and thoroughly disgruntled. Their businesses have entirely White clientele. I heard a remark by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) about “piesangwinkels”. These people are not old “piesangwinkeliers”. These are people who have invested their money in their businesses; people who were born and bred in South Africa; they are South Africans. They are in business and they are giving a good service, I can quote you instances, Sir;, where Asiatics have had to-move, and others brought in— Whites, White market gardeners and the like.

Where was that?

At Kimberley. The central area of Kimberley was an open area. That town council has provided townships and better housing and planning for a number of years longer than any other town council. There are Asiatic traders in the town and about six months ago a proclamation appeared. The town council has tried strenuously to have the position left alone as it is. One of those Asiatics spoke to me the other day. He’ has to move. Whereto? His business has an exclusively White clientèle. He has to go. What is he going to do with himself? Under the Group Areas Act they want to put the Indians against a sewerage farm. The local authority had tremendous difficulty in getting the Government to see sense and to realize that that was unreasonable. However that is the position. I ask the Minister: Are these the leases that are going to be cancelled forthwith? Is the man going to be given one year’s notice that his business must come to an end? What sort of alternative accommodation is he going to get? I think of a Malay tailor. He is a first-class tailor. His clientèle is exclusively White. He has got to move. These are only a few examples of hundreds of people who are in exactly the same position.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that during all these years, during 15 years, people have been moved around like pawns on a chess board. It is a great pity that after all these years we still have to listen to speeches of the type we had to listen to yesterday. The Coloured ma knows there is not very much he can do. He puts his case; he pleads. He pleads to me and to my friends before me— the representatives of the same group of people.

Are you referring to Bill Holland?

Well, he is also a Coloured Representative in case you do not know. I want to say that the Government should realize—I want them to know—that they ought to make concessions when accredited elected representatives speak to them and say: “This is the position; this is the dissatisfaction”. If the Government does not do that it will make the gulf wider and the frustration more and more evident. That is my plea. The Minister has enormous power. Parliament is going to give him more power. If he wants to be a really powerful man, a man who will carry his portfolio ably, he must pay attention to representations made by accredited representatives and when they say: “Listen, the people think you have broken faith,” he must listen. I want to quote the ease of Kimberley where we had a very bad slum area 25 years ago. We gave an undertaking that we would not use that area for White occupation or for any other purposes except as a park and garden with access to all. And there it is for all to see. To-day our reputation stands high.

The Bastervolk in the Gordonia district are to-day pleading for their own homeland. They want their own territory. They have maintained for years that they should get it. They applied to the Government through the Department for it.

They sold it.

They may have sold it but the point is they want it back. They reckon they should get it back under the new “stelsel”. This is the pattern throughout the length and breadth of the country: The Coloured community are dissatisfied; they are unhappy and they do not like the Group Areas Act. It is no good bluffing ourselves that they do; they do-not. Anybody who has close contact with them or who deals with them will know that that is so.

Reference has been made to the police. I searched the old Act to find where this power came from. The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) has referred to it by way of a question to the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit). The police have been used. There is no denying that. But they have not been used as a general practice. The function of the police is to investigate crime. I say that it is no crime to have somebody under your roof who might be a disqualified person. There are times when I think the police should be left where they belong. Their job is to investigate crime and they are capable and competent to do that. I would like the Minister to tell us exactly what happened at Beaufort West where a portion of the urban area was declared White and the council refused to act. Who came there to carry out the law, although no accommodation was available for these people?

When one refers to the actions and the use of the police in relation to the Coloured community the Coloureds begin to wonder to what depths have we sunk. Surely the offences under this type of legislation are not criminal offences.

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

Afternoon Sitting

In the short time left to me I would like to summarize what I said under the headings of the Bill and that is to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that, when proclamations are published about the intention to declare a group area, a method other than the one of one publication in a newspaper circulating in the area should be found so that affected persons or persons likely to be affected, persons likely to be disqualified, will have adequate opportunity and plenty of time in which to prepare their case. They should have the opportunity to engage suitable assistance in the form of an attorney or counsel to place their case before the board. I want to ask the Minister to give consideration to providing adequate alternative accommodation particularly in regard to business sites and buildings and payment to affected persons who are disqualified and who have to vacate their premises on 12 months’ notice.

My final appeal to the hon. the Minister is, of course, not to use the police but to rely upon his departmental inspectors and staff who, I am quite satisfied, are competent and able and will receive the co-operation of the disqualified people in order to carry out the law.

In conclusion I want to say that the Coloured community realizes—it is on their behalf that I am speaking—that the Group Areas Act as such is the law and that they are the victims of it. I think the Minister, by applying his methods in a friendly and cooperative way, could earn the goodwill of these people to a far greater extent than has been the case up to now. I am convinced that, although time is running short, there is still time and opportunity for the hon. the Minister and his Department to create some goodwill and remove the fears and anxieties of the community at whom this Bill is directed. Let there be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, in the mind of any member on the Government side that this amending Bill and the original Act are causing frustration, despair, hardship and financial loss on the part of and to the Coloured people. They feel that this legislation is directed at them. The Indian feels exactly the same. The third group is the Chinese. There are not many of them. They are all traders; mostly general dealers. They are deeply concerned and await with anxiety the actions of the Government in dealing with them.

So I conclude by making an appeal and saying that the Coloured community realize that it is the law. They resent the suggestion that the police are the people to administer this law. They plead through me and others that the Government should make some concession and make a concerted effort, a positive attempt, to earn their goodwill. As we on this side of the House say the Government should, by co-operation and goodwill, try to achieve that which we all would like to have, namely, a happy and contended community housed in satisfactory houses, a community in which a man’s livelihood is protected and in which he may pursue his lawful pursuits gainfully and to his advantage, and that he will not be badgered and pushed around as has been the case up to now.

I do not really want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden). The main topics he dealt with relate to Coloured affairs of a particular and more local nature, and the hon. the Minister will certainly deal with them.

I listened attentively to the speeches made here yesterday and to-day by the hon. members of the Opposition. It seems to me that when one considers the policy and the actions of the Opposition one is forced to the conclusion that the Opposition is becoming more and more politically hypocritical.

Order! What is the difference between political hypocrisy and ordinary hypocrisy? The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocritical”.

I withdraw it, Sir, and I say that they are becoming more and more politically opportunistic and that this opportunism of theirs is beginning to run riot. The United Party reminds me of a large house-clock with a pendulum that swings to the right the one moment and to the left the next. Sir, I wonder whether one should not call the United Party the pendulum party, because the one moment it swings strongly to the right (as we have gathered in the recent past from the speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, in which he advocated White leadership over the whole of South Africa, and from other speeches) and the next moment the Opposition swing strongly to the left in their speeches, as we have again heard in this debate, particularly after the announcement of the election results in the two Coloured constituencies in which they were beaten by the Progressive Party. In this debate they are trying to rival the Progressive Party and to regain some of the lost ground. This brings me to what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) said yesterday. He blamed the defeats of the United Party at the hands of the Progressive Party on the actions of the National Party and the Government. What a ridiculous statement!

Which clause is that?

If the hon. member had listened carefully he would have heard that allegation from the hon. member for Simonstown. The fact is that the Coloureds see through the opportunism of the official Opposition. It is the sins committed by the Opposition in the past that are now beginning to catch up with them. This is the party which in the past used and exploited the Coloured vote for the sole purpose of strengthening itself but which in actual fact did very little for the Coloureds. This has been proved time and again in speeches from this side of the House.

The hon. member for Germiston District (Mr. Tucker) said yesterday that the United Party believed in social segregation but that it must be brought about by consent. It seems to me, however, that what the United Party believes in is class separation, in the sense that while hon. members of the Opposition are able to buy homes in expensive and select White residential areas, such as Houghton, they do not care about the poor Whites who have to live amongst the non-Whites, poor Whites who have no other choice. Let me mention a few examples. We know what happened in Johannesburg in the past. I do not want to make too much mention of it, but we know what difficulty the Government had to persuade the Johannesburg City Council to remove the Bantu from certain areas in Johannesburg There were areas such as Newlands and Vrededorp and Sophiatown, Newclare and Martindale. We had the same position in Pretoria, Mr. Speaker. There we had Claremont, Riverside, Marakastad, Derdepoort, etc., where the poor needy Whites lived alongside the non-Whites. The United Party was not at all concerned about these conditions or about their continuance.

I have paged through Hansard a little and I have read speeches made by the Opposition in 1950 and 1957 and I must say that those speeches were exactly the same as those we heard here yesterday and to-day. It was predicted at the time that persons to whom the Group Areas Act was applied would suffer hardship; they predicted that there would be disruption and friction and that the economic losses would be very heavy (this aspect was usually exaggerated); that people would have to tear themselves away from their homes and the areas in which they lived; in other words, the sentimental ties between these people and their homes were over-emphasized. I want to predict, and I am not really a very good prophet, that if further amendments perhaps have to be made in future, these same arguments will again be used. It reminds me of the little song often sung by students: “Dat Nuwe Lied, dat Nuwe Lied; terwyl die lied nie verder gaan, begin ons weer van voor af aan”.

When the Group Areas Act, Act No. 41 of 1950, was first introduced, the then Minister of the Interior promised that the Act would be applied in such a way that the least disruption and the least possible friction would be caused and that it would not be applied ruthlessly but in a sympathetic way. And that is the way in which it has been applied. Hon. members have already admitted that the officials have applied it in a very fair and sympathetic way, and it has also been applied with consultation. The object of the legislation was the creation of separate areas for various groups in the Union which subsequently became the Republic; these groups were the Whites, the Colourds, the Asiatics and the Bantu. And the Act of 1950 stemmed from the Report of the Committee on Asiatic Land Tenure Laws Amendments and Land Tenure Acts Amendments. It is perfectly obvious that the problem of dealing with the Indians in Natal and even in the Transvaal really forms the historical background to the Group Areas Act. That is also the reason why this machinery was first created by the then Minister of the Interior, under whom Indian Affairs had always fallen.

Yesterday it was said over and over again that this legislation was being amended very frequently. When this Bill was introduced in 1950, the Minister concerned said that it was a law that covered a new field; that it was a new, unique type of legislation, that it was a law for which there was no precedent, and that amendments would become necessary in due course. In this instance we are also dealing with human material and human relations in a multi-racial country, and it becomes necessary from time to time to amend the Act. But the legislation also has to be amended because there are people who have opposed this legislation in the past, who have stirred up antipathy against it and who have discovered loopholes which now have to be closed. But it has also been, and is still being, opposed by certain people who encourage opposition to it, people such as certain attorneys and advocates who advise people how to evade the Act. We have to deal on the one hand with inciters and on the other with exploiters who exploit the poor people economically by making them pay over and over again for legal advice. That is why it is necessary to have amendments to close the loopholes.

This Act, however, is not the only One that has been amended frequently. There are many other Acts on our Statute Book which have been amended frequently, and I want to refer to one in particular and that is the legislation relating to Indians. I refer to the Acts passed in this connection since 1935; I will not mention the names of all the Acts but will merely indicate their numbers. I refer to Act No. 25 of 1935, which dealt with the position of Asiatics, Act No. 30 of 1936, Act No. 32 of 1937 —you will notice that the legislation concerned was amended in three consecutive years—Act No. 28 of 1939, Act No. 29 of 1941, the Act of 1943. which was amended in 1944 and Act No. 28 of 1946, which was called the “Asiatic Land Tenure and Indian Representation Act”. This means that there were eight amendments from 1935 to 1946. The Act was continually being amended. And who was in power then? Not the National Party, but the United Party. I repeat that the problem of dealing with the Indians, particularly in Natal, forms the historical background to the Group Areas Act. If the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), who himself lives in Natal, will only take some trouble in this matter, he will find that a great many commissions and committees were appointed to examine the Question of legislation in regard to Indians in Natal, and the question of restricting Indians to certain areas. I refer to the Feetham Commission, the Murray Commission, the Broome Commission, which was reappointed for three consecutive years, and the Lawrence Commission of 1940, and also various commissions that were appointed by the City Council of Durban and the Provincial Council of Natal. The Provincial Council of Natal appointed a “Post-War Works and Reconstruction Commission” on 4 March 1943 and the Durban Municipality appointed a “Durban Post-War Development Committee”, which made a very interesting recommendation in September 1943. In this recommendation the composition of the population as a whole was considered for the first time and the principle of “racial zoning” was put forward for the first time. This committee stated that Durban, for example, had a community composed of four separate groups and that the Durban City Council was responsible for. providing housing for these groups. The committee also stated explicitly that housing accommodation for these groups must be provided in separate areas, and Urged that legislation be passed to make possible the speedy implementation of such an arrangement. We therefore see that there was a distinct movement in the country towards the creation of group areas. In the Report of the Post-War Works and Reconstruction Commission, which was appointed by the Natal Provincial Council and to which I have just referred, mention was made of the friction that resulted when different racial groups lived in the same area. They found that if different groups lived together in the same area it led to disharmony, and they expressed the opinion that when towns were planned, separate areas should be set aside for the various groups; they also pointed out that room should be left for expansion so that each group could develop according to its own character. The demarcation of areas therefore followed upon the reports of commissions, and I want to suggest that it was the circumstances that prevailed in Natal that provided the stimulus for the establishment of these group areas.

In this connection I want to refer very briefly to the Urban Areas Consolidation Act of 1944. When we look at this Act we find that the then Minister of Native Affairs, now called the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, possessed the necessary authority to establish Bantu locations or Bantu townships or residential areas. Where local authorities refused to establish such areas, the Minister also had the right to compel them to do so. In other words, it simply amounted to the creation of particular group areas. Here I want to emphasize that the Group Areas Act of 1950 conferred no powers upon the Minister of Bantu Affairs that he did not already possess in terms of the Urban Areas Consolidation Act of 1945. And who was in power in 1945? It is of course a well-known fact that it was the United Party.

One of my hon. friends opposite also spoke about “consultation and agreement” with the groups concerned; the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) also said yesterday that if the people were consulted or had been consulted on the United Party basis, we would have made more progress as far as the determination of group areas was concerned. Sir, it has always been the policy of the National Party to be fair. But I just want to refer to our experience in Pretoria and the question I want to put to the United Party is this: If one meets with resistance, if the people refuse to be moved, what must one then do? If the National Party had given way to resistance, we would still have been in the same position in which we were under United Party rule. My time is very limited and I just want to say this, that under United Party rule a large squatter population was developing around Pretoria. There were large communities of squatters living in hovels and shanties made of sacking and corrugated iron. The position was that in 1948, when the National Party took over, only one quarter, 25 per cent, of the Bantu in Pretoria lived in residential areas specifically reserved for the Bantu, and the rest squatted around Pretoria. Everybody who travelled in the vicinity of Pretoria at that time knows that that was the position. And even the squatters living in those hovels had sentimental attachments to their hovels; it was difficult to remove them, in spite of the fact that they were to be given much better accommodation elsewhere, and some measure of compulsion had to be used to remove them from the squatters’ area. There were certain persons who incited them to remain there, persons who had an interest in the matter, persons who hired farms and then leased stands to these people on which they could erect their shanties, and who also provided services to these people at high prices. Sir, these shanty-town areas, these squatters’ shanties, must have had a great attraction for the United Party because they did nothing to remove them during that period. It was only when the National Party came into power, and only when the present Prime Minister became Minister of Native Affairs, that positive action was taken in the matter. I think I know what I am speaking about because at that time I was Chairman of the Non-European Affairs Committee of the Pretoria City Council. I want to say here that if the United Party had remained in power we would still have had these squatters’ camps, and we would still have been faced with the position we were faced with when the National Party took over in 1948.

Nonsense!

That may be the hon. member’s view, but there is ample proof that the United Party wanted to allow this state of affairs to continue and that they did not initiate a single scheme to remedy the position. Even to-day they still say that they do not want to use compulsion, and we know that some measure of compulsion was definitely necessary.

In conclusion I want to refer very briefly to the position of the Indians. As far as the Indians are concerned we had the same position in Pretoria. The Indians lived mainly in the Asiatic Bazaar area at Pretoria. They were exploited by the rich Indians as far as the letting of shanties was concerned, and it was the rich Indians who always agitated strongly against the removal of Indians. Sir, I want to invite all hon. members on the other side, including the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor), who interrupted me, to come along with me when they visit Pretoria again and to have a look at Laudium, where the Indians are at present accommodated. I am sure the hon. member, too, will then change her views and not interrupt me unnecessarily again.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) adopted the typical approach of that side of the House. He spent part of his speech telling this House that the group areas legislation under the Nationalist Party is no different at all from the legislation which we in the United Party had when we were in power.

The application is the main thing.

I quite agree with the hon. member. But to return to my point, on the one hand the hon. member for Pretoria (East) spent a great deal of his speech telling the House that this group area legislation is no different from the legislation when the United Party was in power, but on the other hand he ended his speech by lifting his hands in horror and saying that he does not know where this country would have landed if the United Party had been in power from 1948 until this day. Where is the logic in these two arguments? The one contradicts the other completely. And that is the basis of the argument that we have had from that side of the House throughout this group areas debate.

This side of the House is opposed to this Bill on a number of grounds, which I propose to deal with in detail.

Progressively.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) seems to be a little anxious to hear what I have to say. I can tell him that I will deal with all the points, one by one. The first ground of opposition, Mr. Speaker, and possibly the main ground, is the fact that this Bill perpetuates, and in some respects even increases, the harshness and the injustices of the group areas legislation, and of course it thereby will increase the ill feeling and the discontent created by this legislation.

Is that now Point Number One?

The hon. members for Simonstown, Germiston (District) and Karoo have all three referred at length to the ways in which this legislation has created hardship, injustice, ill feeling, discontent and so on, and I do not propose to go over the same ground again, but I would simply like to make one point before I leave that aspect of the matter, namely, that there is no doubt whatever that many of the provisions of the Act are harsh and have led to a great deal of injustice. In addition, in many instances the method of operating the Act has been harsh and unjust.

Order! We are not dealing with that now, and the hon. member must come back to the Bill before the House.

May I address you on that point of order, Mr. Speaker? My submission is that this Bill perpetuates the injustices, and hardship, and so forth, and for that reason I submit that I am entitled to refer to those aspects of the matter. However, I do not wish to go into a great deal of detail. I made this point in passing. To round off this aspect of the matter, I make the submission that everybody knows this, including members on that side of the House.

To compare the group areas legislation as it appears on the Statute Book to-day with any similar legislation which existed under the United Party is nonsense, because the difference is twofold. Firstly, the legislation which the United Party had for the purpose of providing for separate residential areas, which was then and is still to-day our policy, did not contain those aspects of the group areas legislation which to-day cause the hardship and injustice and ill feeling and discontent. It is in that respect that the difference lies, and also, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) in an interjection to me, the crux of course lies in the method of operation. And here I am not suggesting that the officials who operate the Act are to blame. Where one has an Act which contains provisions which of necessity can only be operated in a harsh and unjust way, the officials concerned, no matter what goodwill they may have, must operate the Act harshly and unjustly. In saying this I do not intend personal criticism of the officials of the Department. The final point that I wish to make on this aspect of the matter is that the way this Act is applied in practice makes nonsense of the assurance given by the hon. Minister who introduced the Bill in 1950, the original Act, that the changes to be made in terms of the Act, would be made in a fair, equitable and judicial manner. That has just not happened.

The next point I wish to make is that this Bill does not alleviate any single one of the harshnesses, injustices and causes of discontent of this legislation.

What are the harshnesses?

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort continually interjects. I noticed that he was not in the House when the hon. members for Simonstown, Germiston (District) and Karoo made their speeches. Had he been here he would not have to ask me what are the hardships and injustices.

I was here.

What I find amusing in regard to hon. members on the other side is that when any one of their members is speaking and there are one or two interjections from this side of the House they scream to high heaven, but when we are addressing the House …

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

When the hon. member for Stellenbosch spoke, he suggested that this Bill in fact alleviates some of the hardships and injustices of the main Act.

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on an Act of this House?

That is what the hon. member for Stellenbosch stated—that this present Bill does alleviate some of the harsh aspects of the original Act.

You do not know what he said.

I know what he said,, but if the hon. member does not know, he could ask the hon. member for Stellenbosch. [Interjections.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, ever since the hon. member commenced his speech there has been a continual stream of interruptions.

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Sir.

Order! Will the hon. member resume his seat?

Every single one of the harsh effects of the original Act is perpetuated in this Bill, and if hon. members on that side of the House consider that the harshness is alleviated by this Bill, I wish they would tell this House in what way that happens.

Before dealing with our further specified objections to this Bill, I want to deal with three matters, most of which arise from the speeches on the other side of the House. This Bill is, I think, the tenth amendment of the Group Areas Act, since 1950, almost one a year, and I suggest that there could be no clearer proof of the truth of the condemnation of this side of the House through the years, that this has been ill-conceived and ill-planned legislation. Government members themselves appear to lack confidence in this legislation, even as amended by the present Bill, because the hon. member for Somerset (East) (Mr. Vosloo) has already virtually admitted that there might be other amendments brought to the House in future years. I have no doubt whatever that further amendments will be necessary because this is in fact a thoroughly bad piece of legislation.

It has been suggested by some members on that side of the House that the main object of this group areas legislation is to clear away the slums which developed in various parts of the country. The object of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is no such thing, it is not to clear slums, it is to create and to establish group areas. The Government has a Slum Clearance Act in terms of which the Government has all the powers to clear slums. It does not need the Group Areas Act to do that. The object is in fact not that. Some slum areas have in fact been cleared under this Act, but the point is that this Act was not necessary for doing that. What has happened in terms of this Act is that not only slums have been cleared, but large-scale removal of settled communities has taken place, even in cases where the settled communities were living under conditions which could never be described as slum conditions. They have been moved from one area to another, simply so that the Government’s ideological attitude to this could be fulfilled so that the map of South Africa could be made to look better with the Black areas and White areas conveniently placed in a way which the Government believes to be necessary. I point out that those removals happened, in most cases, in respect of communities that were law-abiding and created no racial friction or other friction. And so the Government cannot suggest that those removals were necessary to ease racial tensions and to enable the various communities to live more harmoniously next to each other. I now speak of communities which were entirely of one racial group. I am not talking of any mixed community.

Some hon. members on the Government side have suggested that Whites also suffer under the group areas legislation and that therefore everyone is affected, so if there is hardship there is hardship for everyone. To my mind that is no answer to the charge that this Act does create hardship and injustice. If the hon. members opposite are prepared to see the large-scale removal of the races which goes on under this Act simply because some few Whites are also moved, we on this side are not prepared to condone it. We believe that that should not be done to the Whites, nor should it be done to the non-Whites.

I come now to our further grounds of objection to this Bill. I stated that our first ground was that the Bill did nothing to alleviate the harshness and injustice of the main legislation, but perpetuated it. Our second ground is that this Bill increases the already vast powers given to Ministers, powers which are exercised entirely free of parliamentary control. We on this side have always been entirely against giving Ministers such vast powers, and we are against increasing even further the already vast powers under this Act, as this Bill does. As was said by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), this Bill is yet a further example of the Government’s mania to govern by ministerial edict instead of by legislation passed by Parliament.

Or instead of by Royal edict.

Our third ground of opposition is that in Clause 1 of this Bill the Group Areas Act will now be operated by no fewer than three Ministers, and to this we have two objections, firstly that no single Minister will now be responsible to this House for the implementation of the Government’s group areas policy. We have had experience of this sort of thing before. When one Minister is questioned he passes the buck to another, and vice versa, with the net result that it is impossible to pin responsibility on any one Minister.

Like, for example, what?

We see that every day. Our second objection to the fact that no fewer than three Ministers will now operate this Act is this.

Surely that is not correct.

Government members have suggested that all three Ministers in terms of this Bill will operate in clearly distinct spheres and have distinct functions, but that is not so. There is a good deal of overlapping under this Bill, which is bound to create confusion and to make this Act even more difficult to operate and to understand. Let us face it, this is already an extremely difficult Act for even trained lawyers to understand, let alone the ordinary man who is affected by it. As we go through this Bill in the Committee Stage, those overlapping sections and powers will become quite apparent to the House, but time does not permit them now to deal with that aspect in detail.

Our fourth ground of objection lies in Clause 11 (a), which provides for different dates of operation of proclamations issued under the Act. At present the proclamation takes effect one year from the date of publication of the proclamation. In other words, disqualified persons have at least one year in which to get out if they are of a racial group not allowed to reside or to occupy property in that area. The amendment will now have the effect that they will have a year as from the date specified in the proclamation. Now that date could be a date prior to the date of publication of the proclamation, and in that way a disqualified person could have less than one year’s notice. That applies under both sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1)bis. I am well aware that in the new subsection (c) it is provided that in the case of land or premises occupied in pursuance of any permit issued prior to the date specified in such proclamation, and which expires before the date determined in terms of paragraphs (a) or (b), Section 23 shall apply to such land or premises with effect from the date of expiry of the permit. But that sub-section does not deal fully with the point I have made. It does not cover all the possible cases which could arise whereby a prior date would give less than a year’s notice to disqualified persons; and when we come to the Committee Stage this argument can be elaborated if necessary.

Our fifth ground of opposition has to do with Clause 11 (c), which imposes further restrictions on leases of disqualified persons. In terms of the new sub-section (1)quat, the leases of some disqualified persons will now become automatically terminated in some instances which are set out in the section. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by reading out this section, which is quite long, but I make the point that in these cases the leases will be automatically terminated. This is a provision which did not exist in the law before and is a further hardship on the persons affected, and a further injustice done to those people.

Our sixth ground of opposition lies in Clause 11 (d) and has to do with parliamentary approval. This clause has already been discussed by some members on this side and I do not wish to deal with it in detail. The point is that for a period of 15 years from 7 July 1950, that is until 7 July 1965, the Government was given unfettered power to create group areas without reference back to this House for approval, the idea being that after 7 July 1965 any new group areas created would have to be approved of by this House. This provision is now being removed and the effect will be that even after July 1965, and for all time thereafter, it will be possible for the Government continually to create new group areas wherever it wants in the country (because the whole of South Africa is affected by the Bill) without coming back to the House for parliamentary approval. With an Act of this sort, having the implications that this does, we consider that to be a very bad move on the part of the Government and one which we cannot under any circumstances support. It is significant that the Government does not come with an extension, say, for another five years, but it simply wants to remove altogether any time limit.

My time is getting short, but there is one further ground of objection we have, and that is to what has been called the “police section”, Clause 15 of the Bill. As the Act stands at the moment, the Minister was empowered to appoint inspectors for the purpose of ascertaining such facts as may be required by the Minister, etc. It has been suggested by the Minister himself and by other members on his side that since 1957 the police have always performed the functions of inspectors under this clause and therefore, they say, we should not object if this is now amended. I should like to ask the Minister and the other Government speakers under what power the police have been exercising this function.

They were appointed by the Minister. He told you so.

I was hoping that someone would make such an interjection because in my submission the Minister has no power in terms of this section to appoint policemen to act as inspectors.

He can appoint anybody.

If the House intended that, there would be no need for sub-sec. (6) of. Sec. 39, which says that an inspector entering any premises under sub-sec. (2) may be accompanied by an interpreter or a member of the S.A. Police. If the House, when it passed this section originally, intended that policemen could be appointed as inspectors, there would have been no need for sub-sec. (6). And quite apart from that, we object to this provision because it immediately introduces a criminal atmosphere where such atmosphere should not exist, If the police want to enter premises to investigate a crime under the Group Areas Act, they have the power to do that; they do not need to be given any powers, and this amendment does not give them that power. They have the power in terms of the common law to investigate crime, and I believe that that is all that they have been doing in the past. This clause now introduces a criminal atmosphere and it places the police in a most invidious position. They now become officials of an Act which is hated by the section of the community affected, mainly the non-Whites; and I want to ask the Minister whether he has consulted the Minister of Justice in regard to this provision, and if so, is the Minister of Justice satisfied to place his police in that invidious position; and secondly, did the Minister of Justice agree to place all this extra work on the shoulders of an already overburdened force? Sir, for all these reasons we are opposed to this Bill.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) concluded his speech by saying that the police should only be called in where crime is involved, and that since this Bill creates no presumption that a crime has been committed, the services of the police should not be used. I want to object most strongly to this view of the work of the police. It is indeed the duty of the police to investigate and to combat crime, but that is certainly not their only duty. To mention only one example, one can go along to a police sergeant nowadays to record one’s vote. Does that make one a criminal? The police are certainly not concerned with crime alone. As far as the activities of the police under this particular Act are concerned, I want to point out that since 1957 this work has no longer been done by inspectors; it has been done by the police. Have they done it simply because they have suspected that a crime has been committed? Certainly not, because the administration of an Act is not concerned with crime.

Another reason advanced by the hon. member for Musgrave for his opposition to this Bill is that the original Act and its amendments now have to be administered by three Ministers and that therefore people will not know precisely who is responsible. May I point out to the hon. member that in the last resort it is always the Government that bears the responsibility and not some Minister or other. The hon. member need not be afraid that as a result of “overlapping” he will not be able to attack the Government. Just as he is able to find sticks to-day, with which to beat the Government, so he will be able to do so in future; he need have no fears in that regard. If one wants to beat a dog one can always find a stick to do so.

The hon. member also advanced other reasons for objecting to this measure, one being that the 15-year clause now falls away and that after July this year it will no longer be necessary for new group area proclamations to be submitted to Parliament. But it seems to me that, even without this right, the implementation of this Act over the past 15 years, and particularly over the past eight or nine years, has taken an exceptionally smooth course. The original intention, of course, was that the large majority of proclamations would be disposed of within 15 years from July 1950 and that thereafter only a few new cases which cropped up would be brought to Parliament. But is the delay that has occurred not in fact the direct result of the actions of that side of the House and of their supporters? Is it not the result of the actions of local authorities that were not favourably disposed towards the Government and that raised obstacles in order to prevent proclamations from being disposed of quickly? Surely it is perfectly clear that the intention of the Act was that local authorities should assist the Group Areas Board to make a fair division of any particular area between the various groups. I see the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) shakes his head; he does not agree.

His marbles are rattling.

I want to repeat that the intention was that local authorities should assist the Board to make a fair division of any particular area between the various racial groups, and it is because these local authorities have not co-operated to achieve this end that there has been delay.

I want to come back to the Opposition’s main speaker on this matter, the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), who accused me of suggesting that in essence the United Party was opposed to group areas and who therefore declared with very great emphasis that the United Party was not opposed to group areas; that it was not opposed to having separate residential areas for the various racial groups in the country. I accept the word of the hon. member for Simonstown, because he is an honest man, and I accept that he really meant what he said. I accept that he really believes that the policy of the United Party is to have separate residential areas for the various racial groups.

But apparently it upset you.

His words were that the United Party stood for a policy of territorial separation and social separation based on consultation and agreement. I believe that the hon. member was sincere in saying that, but on the basis of what was said by the other speakers who spoke after him. I can come to no other conclusion than that this is a fig-leaf behind which the Opposition are deliberately hiding, because they do advocate separation by consultation and agreement: but what happens when this agreement cannot be obtained? If there is consultation and no agreement is reached, does the status quo remain, or how is one going to bring about residential separation? If one cannot reach agreement after consultation, is one simply going to allow this mixed state of affairs to continue? Because they say very clearly that they are opposed to any legal compulsion; they want it to be done by means of voluntary consultation and agreement. But if agreement is not reached, the position will probably remain as it is.

Sir, is this not a deliberate excuse to cause group areas to come to naught? They know in their hearts that they, will not obtain this agreement, and then the position will simply remain unchanged, it will remain a mixed affair. I want to accuse the Opposition of deliberately hiding behind a fig-leaf because they do not want group areas. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) let the cat out of the bag when he said: “Give the Group Areas Act a holiday for a few years.” They do not want this Act; no further group areas must be proclaimed. By saying that he Obviously let the cat out of the bag and showed that the United Party was essentially opposed to group areas. To say that it is their policy to establish group areas, separate residential areas for the races, by consultation and agreement, is nothing but a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the public. I sometimes wonder whether this opposition to separate residential areas for the various races, this attempt to thwart the implementation of the Act, does not spring from a deeply concealed unwillingness to concede their rightful development and economic progress to the other racial groups.

I wonder whether that is not the underlying reason for their opposition to this Act, because look what is happening to-day in the areas that have already been proclaimed and occupied. In these areas to-day there are shopkeepers, café owners, bioscope owners and hotel owners, people who are making very good progress on the road to economic independence, people who are rising above their group, people who never before had this opportunity when they still had to compete against the Whites but who are progressing in life to-day.

I cannot help feeling sometimes that this attempt to thwart the Group Areas Act derives from a deeply concealed desire not to grant these people their rights. I want to refer to a group area that I know very well, the one at Paarl, where to-day there are many Coloured shopkeepers who make a very good living, and also café owners, etc., who have climbed to a higher position on the economic ladder as a result of this legislation. And think what this Government does to help these people! Think what the Coloured Development Corporation does! Just think of the wonderful pioneer work that they have done in the past few years to help the Coloureds? Does the United Party begrudge the non-White this economic progress? Why do they refuse to give him a place in the sun as well? That is the reason why the Coloureds are today rejecting the United Party.

The hon. member for Karoo says that there are many Coloured artisans, tailors, shoemakers, shopkeepers, etc., who only have White persons as their clients; that they are now being deprived of this clientele by a stroke of the pen, and what must these poor people do now? But have the Coloureds themselves no buying power? Are there no clients to be had amongst their own people? Why do they have to seek clients amongst the members of another racial group? Do they fail to recognize the value of their own race and its economic life? Consider the fuss about the Luxurama. It is said that Coloureds cannot fill the Luxurama and that for that reason both Whites and Coloureds should be allowed to go to this theatre. Are there not sufficient numbers of educated Coloureds, teachers, professional men and businessmen, in the Peninsula to support this theatre? Do these people who always have a great deal to say about the value of the Coloureds fail to recognize the progress of the Coloureds and their value to such establishments? No, this Bill before the House is not a drastic measure simply aimed at conferring new powers upon the Minister. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. member for Durban-Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) suggested a moment ago, I say this is not a measure simply aimed at conferring more powers upon the Minister. We are concerned here with a few minor administrative amendments, a few small matters which are being rectified in the light of experience gained over the last few years. But it is not to these few minor amendments that the Opposition object; what they object to is the entire concept of separate residential areas, that is why this Bill is being opposed in this way, but this side of the House will deliberately seek to promote and to develop this concept.

Both the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) appear to be very worried over the fact that the United Party, according to them, is sheltering behind a fig-leaf. Sir, man never got into trouble by sheltering behind a fig-leaf, but these hon. members who accuse us of sheltering behind a fig-leaf never even had a fig-leaf because their intention has been clear right from the beginning of the history of this legislation. So do not let us talk too much about fig-leaves, because hon. members opposite will get no benefit out of it if they compare their history with ours. I want to tell you right away, Sir, that whereas I read a great deal in and around the precincts of this House, not all of it is rewarding, but reading the 1950 debate in connection with the forerunner of this amending Bill I was struck by two prophecies which I am sure, Sir, you will agree are of very great interest. The House at that time had a speech by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and he prophesied what the consequences would be of the passing of the Bill as it was then being discussed on 30 May 1950. He said in Col. 7647 of Hansard to this side of the House (the Opposition), who apparently in his view did not know what apartheid meant—

I do not know, Sir, whether you personally were a party to the dream—

What is wrong with that?

Sir, imagine perfection with the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) around—

Sir, there are pages and pages more of it with which I will not bore you. That was one prophecy. But then we had another speech in which a prophecy of the late General Hertzog is recorded. He was quoted as having said the following in 1939—

Sir, much more of that appears in Hansard too. These prophecies have in some senses come true. My point is that after 15 years the prophecy of General Hertzog is absolutely true whereas the prophecy of the hon. member for Krugersdorp proves beyond all doubt that that is the kind of prophet who should not be with honour even in his own country, because after 15 years of tinkering with this very legislation which was being discussed in 1950 we now come along in 1965 to this House to be told that the Minister is going to take certain power which he will divide with other Ministers and in terms of which he will not report to this House what is happening and what is being done, and we may find that in 1975 or 1995 we are still possessed of this demon of group areas and its legislation. That is the position, and if history proves anything then I am not even making a prophecy; this is the pattern, this is the trend; it is there for all to see.

Are you in favour of group areas?

Yesterday I thought that Mr. Speaker dealt harshly with me because I had reacted to an interjection; I will try to avoid doing so to-day.

When the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) was speaking a little earlier on and he pointed to the fact that in terms of the amending Bill before us to-day there would be three Ministers involved in the implementation of group areas legislation, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) interjected, “That is not correct, you know it is not true.” I am sorry the hon. member is not here, but I happened to take a note of some of the statements which the hon. the Minister made in his second-reading speech yesterday, and one of them was that the establishment of the Department of Planning made it necessary to have a new deal, and he went on to say, “Now there will be three Ministers who can direct their activities.” The hon. the Minister nods his head in assent; of course he said that.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) did not say what you attributed to him.

The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) said precisely what I have just said and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) said, “That is not correct, you know that is not true”.

He said he was quoting other bodies.

Sir, it is very gallant of the hon. the Minister of Planning to try to extricate his political colleague from a dilemma, but I am sure his feeling at the time when this interjection was made was, “With friends like that, who needs enemies!” However, we know as a fact that this legislation does involve the activities of at least three Ministers, if not four, and at least three Departments, if not more. We know that the Department of Justice is very much in the picture now in terms of the Statute and I hope to deal with that a little more fully later on. But it is perfectly clear that there is now a trinity of Ministers involved in this. You will remember, Sir, that some years ago after the unfortunate death of the late Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Dag Hammerskoeld, the Russians proposed that three people take over the secretaryship or the secretariat of that body; it was called a “troika”, which is a Russian word for a triumvirate of three. That proposal was rejected by the United Nations, but here we come to the situation where we will now have a “troika” to adapt themselves to the business of the implementation of group areas in South Africa. I say that in the first place this is purely a departure from normal legislative and administrative procedure; that surely one Minister and one Minister alone should be responsible to Parliament for the implementation of the Act and that we should not be confronted with a situation in which after 15 years of continuing legislation of this subject we will have to find out from at least three if not more Ministers, from at least four if not more departments, just what is happening about group areas. I take it that although the legislation now provides that the Minister does not have to report to Parliament as of this date, we will still be permitted the privilege of enquiring as to what is happening with group areas, since we are told that the Department of Planning has been established in order to undertake the physical planning of the whole Republic (die fisiese be planning); that is the new deal. I know, Sir, that some of us need physical planning; there is one hon. member over there who could be made into something much better, but I doubt whether South Africa needs it. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Cradock must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed with his speech.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) too has addressed this House on the subject of this Bill by way of interjection and interjection only; he has not made a speech yet, but yesterday, while the hon. member for Germiston (District) was speaking and was referring to the United Party policy of social and residential separation, the hon. member for Randfontein interjected and said, “Does that work in America?” Sir, I would like to tell him; I know this from my own personal observations.

We know you have been to America.

In a city like Washington, which to-day is predominantly Negro, where 87½ per cent of the children at school are Negroes, there is no group areas legislation. They have problems there. Even in a newer city like New York you have a suburb or a section called Haarlem where there are tremendous problems. They have tremendous problems and they have no group areas legislation, but, Sir, in other countries, particularly in America, they do not regard those problems as arising from the social contact of a person of one race group or colour with a person of another race group or colour. They regard those problems, I think quite rightly, as arising from such factors as lack of education, lack of opportunities, lack of decent housing, lack of all those things which make a man a better man and a man worth having as a neighbour. I can only tell the hon. member for Randfontein, who I sincerely hope will one day see this for himself, that the United States of America, I believe, has a better chance of solving that very problem without group areas legislation than we have, in the light of our experience from 1950 to 1965, with group areas legislation, and that is an even money bet. Sir. although I know that we do everything better than anybody else. The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) says that the United Party does not seem to realize that the Government, where it has removed people, has provided better housing for them. Sir, surely the issue is very simple. You do not need group areas legislation to provide housing, better or worse. That is the function of a totally different department, the Department of Housing, and any Government which has, first of all, the indent and. secondly, the means to do so, can and does provide housing of a good and better type without this kind of legislation. so let us not shelter behind this, the biggest fig leaf of all and a very transparent fie leaf that would have embarrassed even Adam: do not let the Nationalist Party shelter behind this fig leaf that group areas and the consequences of group areas are all geared to the purpose of providing better housing, because even the hon. the Minister of Planning would not pretend that his functions are to provide housing of any sort. I content myself, in disposing of this argument, with a very brief reference to the position that has arisen in a place called Guguletu. [Interjections.] Sir, I have the permission of the hon. member over there to go on! Sir, Guguletu is a place to which people were removed from another place. This, briefly, is the physical implementation of group areas. Housing was provided there about which there has been tremendous criticism. I know that I am not going to be invited by the hon. the Minister of Community Development to go on a tour—it would be below his dignity—but I can still find out for myself what goes on, here and there and here is one criticism of the type of housing that is provided even after people have been removed ostensibly because the conditions in which they live are so bad that it is the human, decent thing to do to remove them to another group area and there to provide them with housing. Sir, here is one criticism—

I merely point to this, Sir, in order to assure these hon. gentlemen, for whom I have the most reverential respect, because they are my neighbours here, that it is not a sound or even a reasonable argument to say that we need this legislation because we are going to provide decent housing. I assure them that whenever this Government or any other government in South Africa wants to provide decent housing for people who have not got it it will always find the support of any self respecting political party, and I hope that that will be the case even when the United Party sits over there and needs the support of the Nationalist Party!

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) was heard to say this morning that he did not think very much of the United Party’s policy, which he said was White leadership or political control. He said he did not think that we would be able to implement the policy of White leadership without group areas. This was the thesis of a portion of his speech. He referred to the example of Britain where he says we have a fairly large number of non-White persons to-day and where certain problems have arisen.

And they have all the problems.

Sir, I accept that correction from the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker); at least it proves that he is awake. Does the hon. member for Stellenbosch think or does he not think that problems that arose and are still arising in the United Kingdom, in places in London like Nottinghill Gate, which is always one of the favourite jumping-off points or launching pads for the Nationalist Party in this House, are entirely due to the fact of colour, the fact that some of the people living there are non-White? Sir, I maintain that anybody who went to Nottinghill Gate before a single Jamaican moved in there will tell you that it was a slum area to begin with.

Go and ask Butler.

Sir, I am not asking anybody. I am telling the hon. member for Fort Beaufort. That place was a slum to begin with. The conditions were bad to begin with. White people were living there, and the fact that non-Whites are now living there is because the Whites, having moved up in the social scale— there have been changes in Britain since the war in their economic position—the non-Whites, who happen to be Jamaicans and West Indian immigrants, come into the worst parts. This is a perfectly normal pattern for immigration, for large-scale immigration anywhere in the world. I am trying, as briefly as possible, to point out to these hon. gentlemen that they must not so lightly assume that group areas solve these problems. The problems that we have in regard to those groups in South Africa, who have not got the advantages, broadly speaking, of the White group—I refer, of course, to the Bantu, the Coloured and the Indian—are basically socio-economic problems; they are due to such things as are found in other countries, whether it be the United States or Britain, the lack of means, the lack of education and the lack of other advantages, not merely the colour issue. We all concede that there are perfectly respectable people in other race groups who are only too delighted to live in good areas, under good conditions, if they have the means to do so. I do not think anybody will deny that, Sir. We on this side of the House feel that the powers which are now conferred on certain Departments and certain Ministers in this amending legislation are in many ways objectionable, but against the background of legislation which is in itself objectionable. It is therefore merely an extension of the offence. I want to deal briefly with one or two of these powers, possibly three. In terms of Clause 10 (b) the Minister can now delegate the exercise of any of his powers to any person. This means that the particular Minister concerned—and bear in mind, Sir, that there are three concerned to begin with—can delegate his power to any official of his Department. Sir, can you imagine the kind of administrative pattern that this is likely to set up? I do not take exception to it, Obviously, on moral grounds, but I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies he will explain to us how he thinks this can improve the operation of this legislation, this super-imposition of one Minister on top of the other— I do not mean in the physical sense, but in the legislative sense—and then this pyramid of officials from one Department to the other, all vested with discretion. I hope that the hon. the Minister will explain that to us. Then there is another small point, perhaps, but it may be apposite to refer to it. Clause 11 (b) provides that a notice may be served—

1. (a) by delivery of the notice to the occupier personally or to an adult inmate of the premises.

The Afrikaans text refers to “bewoner”. Sir, the word inmate” as we use it normally, refers to a person, who is in occupation in a place such as an institution. I would hesitate to call any hon. member of this House an “inmate” unless, it is suggested here that the group areas legislation, and particularly this amemdment, will now turn South Africa, as some people believe it will, into one vast political asylum, one vast, lunatic. asylum, then the world “inmate” is completely out of keeping ‘ and an incorrect translation of the word ‘‘beowner” I leave it at that.

I think that is a matter that can be, dealt with in the Committe Stage.

With, respect, I leave it there for the, hon. the Minister to consider.

Coming to another Clause in this Bill which deals with police powers, I have at last discovered at least one reason why there is such difficulty in getting proficient patrol policemen in some of the largest cities of South Africa. We have been told that since 1957, although they were not statutorily charged with the duty, policemen have in fact, as emphasized by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) been used for the duties now placed upon them in Clause 15. Sir, this is a very serious thing at a time when quite recently in this House, in reply to a question, the hon. the Minister of Justice told the House, in regard to the number of police recruits now being trained, that there was a shortage of over 2,000 policemen in a force, the establishment of which is 16,128. In other words, there is a dearth of some 12½ per cent in the establishment, and since we know that our cities are growing and that the population is growing, we must assume that we need more policemen, but we have fewer, and possibly one reason is that they have been running themselves ragged all over South Africa since 1957 inspecting group areas. I resent that personally, not only as a citizen, because every now and then I put a question to the hon. the Minister; I refer to the conditions in my city, Johannesburg, in my constituency of Hospital, in an area around Joubert Park, the Noord Street area, where this kind of headline is almost a daily occurrence in our Press: “Robbers still lord it over Noord Street,” Sir, I do not want to read the gruesome details, but here is one lady who, when interviewed, said this about herself and her husband—

So, Sir, for want of a better remedy I put questions to the hon. the Minister and he concedes that his attention has been drawn to reports of frequent assaults, robberies and other crimes committed in the Noord Street Wanderers Street area …

Order! The hon. member is wandering far away from the Bill.

Sir, I will not do so, but here is a statutory obligation placed on the police force at a time when I, representing only one constituency and one city, am told by the Minister that he cannot do any better because there are not sufficient police. Surely I am entitled to point to the fact that the placing of this statutory obligation upon policemen, who are obliged to inspect premises at any time, according to sub-clause (a), during the day or night without previous notice, and without a warrant, is not going to ease this position. Surely this is a matter for some concern. Once we have three Ministers charged with the administration of group areas, then surely the Minister of Justice comes into the picture in Clause 15. We want the hon. the Minister to tell us that he has in fact introduced this new aspect in consultation with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, so that we will be satisfied that the hon. the Minister knows what is ahead of him, at a time when his police force is under strength and he cannot get more despite all the inducements which, as he said to the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) were being offered. In spite of all this, we are going to have the spectacle of the police taking over group areas inspection as a statutory obligation.

Sir, I would like to say very briefly that there is a certain aspect of this matter of which I think the House should be aware. We must be aware, that in its original context it was argued for group areas, by those who support it, that this was one of the corner-stones of the policy of apartheid. We have seen what has happened to the edifice of apartheid. It is a house built of cards, and, Sir, you can see what kind of corner-stone this was. It can never stand up for a minute without being propped up by legislation all the time. But what is it achieving, Sir? Where is the apartheid of which the hon. member for Krugersdorp told the House in 1950? The fact remains that we have more and more of the different race groups, for whose benefit, the Government says, this legislation has been produced, coming into the cities; there are more and more contacts between the White, the Brown and the Black people in South Africa. We have reached the stage where the only explanation that can be given of the policy of apartheid, apparently, by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for example, is the explanation which he gave last year when he said, “We are now in a transition from a horizontal to a vertical parallelism.” Sir, this is where we are heading for, and in this vertical parallelism, if the phrase has any meaning at all, the Whites and non-Whites are always coming closer together because we need them in our cities and in our towns, in our homes and in our industries. As a result of this legislation all we have succeeded in doing is to place a tremendous administrative burden on the Government and its Departments and the officials of the hon. the Ministers concerned with it, to give South Africa the kind of reputation none of us would have wanted to earn for it, and to create the kind of atmosphere in which we know as a fact to-day that from time to time we will have to come back to discuss this kind of legislation, because it can never be disposed of for the reason that to begin with it was a house that was built on sand.

While listening to the flood of words we have just had from the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) I thought of something the wise John X Merriman once said of a member after having listened to him as I have just listened to the hon. member for Hospital: “He was so impressed by his own eloquence that he did not even realize that half the House was asleep”.

Half the House is not present in any case.

I think the hon. member is so impressed by his own eloquence and his ability to be jocular that he no longer realizes that the House is completely empty when he gets up and I wonder whether one of his older colleagues on his side will not draw his attention to it. It may perhaps be to his own benefit in future as a member of this House.

During the course of my speech I hope to return to certain statements made by the hon. member; I shall not deal specifically with them at the moment. I think we know a few things at this stage of the debate which we did not know before. It has taken time but we have nevertheless made progress. We know in any case that the amendment contained in this Bill flows mainly from the fact that a new Department of Planning has been created, as the hon. the Minister has stated clearly. The hon. the Minister went so far as to refer to specific clauses which flow exclusively from the fact that a new Department has been created. It is very clear to me that various hon. members opposite—I wish to mention the name of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) particularly in this connection—has little idea of what is actually involved in these amendments. It is clear to me that they are more concerned about stirring up feelings against the principle contained in the main Act than against the provisions before us. In the words of the proverb: Nobody is so blind as he who does not want to see. I think that is the reason why hon. members opposite did not want to see the point and did not want to concede that it was because a new Department had been created that we had the majority of the amending provisions before us. We also know that we have the remaining amending clauses before us because of experience gained hitherto with this legislation. Where there has been objection to the repeated amendments effected to the Act I am not at all surprised that it was necessary to effect the majority of those amendments because of the opposition the Opposition had engendered amongst many people who were affected by this legislation.

It is a fact that many of the loopholes discovered in this legislation in the course of time were practically drawn attention to by the Opposition because of the negative and critical analysis we had from them from time to time. As far as this is concerned they have prompted the people who are affected by this legislation. That has made it necessary to change the legislation.

There was another aspect of this debate which surprised me. During the course of this Session we have had a vehement attack on the Government because of its lack of planning and because of the incompetent way in which it has administered the affairs of the country! Had the Opposition been responsible one would have expected them, where they had this opportunity of assisting in making the administration effective, to have availed themselves of the opportunity but what did they do? The Opposition have avoided the provisions of the Bill and have discussed principles which, strictly speaking, are not relevant here.

We are also convinced that the hon. the Opposition are not against the contents of the Bill before us but against the principle of group areas. This point has been repeatedly emphasized and explained. In passing I wish to say that the Opposition’s approach to this matter is a negative one. The alleged evils and difficult circumstances which are supposed to flow from it have been over-emphasized and raised in a one-sided manner. During this debate we have heard nothing about the benefits these people have derived from the Group Areas Act, from the amendments which have been effected from time to time and the benefits they will derive from those about to be effected. We have not heard that it is to the advantage of these people to live with their own people in their own areas, areas in which they can develop progressively into socioeconomic units in the various spheres of life. We have not heard a word about the possibilities that are being created for them in the economic field. All we have had from the Opposition has been a negative and critical approach. We have not heard a word about the many people affected by this who have really been helped out of their misery.

The hon. member for Hospital, who has in the meantime left the Chamber, has made certain statements which we cannot simply allow to pass unnoticed. He said it was possible to provide better housing without group areas. If that statement of his is correct then I want to ask him as a former mayor of Johannesburg and his colleagues who served with him on the City Council of Johannesburg, and who served on it for years, why they did absolutely nothing for the Coloureds of Johannesburg? Why did they not do anything over a period of many years in regard to housing for the Indians?

May I ask a question?

No, the hon. member might just as well sit down; he does not know what we are talking about. I want to ask the hon. member for Hospital whether the City Council of Johannesburg of which he was mayor did not advance as their excuse that they could not provide the Indians with housing accommodation because a group area had not yet been declared for them? That was the fig leaf behind which they shielded. To-day he manifests quasi-wisdom and tries to make us believe that it is possible to provide housing on a large scale without having group areas. Mr. Speaker, I should like to give you some data. In 1960, due to the fact that the National Party Government had stepped in, there was one house for every seven Bantu. We have indeed reached the stage where even hon. members of the Opposition who go overseas boast about the fact that the housing problem has been solved in Johannesburg as far as the Bantu were concerned. But what was the position in 1946 just before the National Party came into power and when it was the responsibility of the Johannesburg City Council to provide housing? At that time there was one house for every 28 Bantu. I want to know from the hon. member for Hospital why they did not provide the necessary housing?

I want to deal with the position of the Coloureds. Do you know, Sir, that in Johannesburg the Coloureds increase by 1,700 per annum. On the basis of one house for every five Coloureds we require 350 houses per annum for Coloureds. Do you know what the City Council of that hon. member has achieved thus far under this guidance? A mere total of 900 houses.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Hospital has now returned. The hon. member quoted something about Guguletu; about the type of housing this Government had provided at Guguletu. Why did he cite Guguletu as an example? Why did he not cite, as an example, White City in Johannesburg where his City Council under his guidance provided that deplorably bad housing. If the Bantu had to choose between White City and Guguletu I have no doubt as to which one they would choose. I ask myself this question: How long can anybody continue to adopt an attitude as the one the Opposition has adopted in this debate? How long can a person continue to adopt such a negative approach without ruining the very object he is striving for or without making himself ridiculous in the eyes of his own people as well as in the eyes of his opponents? Where will you get with people who continually see obstacles in the way whereas the challenge is to look far ahead?

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) assured us yesterday—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition also did so last night—that it was indeed the policy of the United Party to have social separation, provided there was no compulsion. His exact words were “Separation by consent”. He said further that there had to be “consultation with the groups concerned”. He went further —this was a wild claim—and even said we would have made much greater progress had that been the basis on which the National Party had set about, it instead of on the basis of compulsory group areas. He boasted about the fact that he an4 his party had all along adhered to the principle his party had advocated in the past. He waxed eloquent about the fact that his party still subscribed to the principle to which it had subscribed all these years. I am pleased to note that the hon. member for Germiston (District) has also now entered the Chamber because I am dealing with what he said. I want to tell the hon. member that the deeds of the United Party have shown that this professed sanctity of their policy is nothing but a sham. I want to prove what I have said. Mr. Speaker, May I remind you that the United Party City Council of Johannesburg decided as long ago as 1937 that Sophiatown should be cleared up and the people should be moved elsewhere. I ask you, Sir, would that have happened on a voluntary basis? Did the City Council of Johannesburg assume in 1937 that the Bantu, the Indian, the Coloureds and everybody else who were living there cheek by jowl in the most appalling conditions would move on a voluntary basis? No, Sir, they were fully aware of the fact that the necessary force would have to be exercised. I want to know from the hon. member whether there was any consultation with those people; did those people who lived in those appalling conditions agree? No, Mr. Speaker, just as little as there was determination and drive on the part of the United Party members of those days to carry the scheme through.

There were no United Party members in 1937.

The hon. member now tries to shield behind a technical point just as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) yesterday tried to shield behind the fact that the majority of the members of the Divisional Council of the Cape were not United Party supporters. The City Council of Johannesburg is elected on a party basis.

Not in 1937.

Very well, thereafter. The people who were in power in 1937 were the same United Party supporters who were subsequently elected on a party basis. It is no good the hon. member trying to avoid these stinging lashes. The point I really want to make in this connection is that the United Party who are supposed to subscribe to this wonderful principle about which the hon. member for Germiston (District) became practically lyrical do not hesitate to throw that principle overboard when it suits them and then look for something which is possible, easy and useful to serve their purpose.

I want to give a second example. The United Party City Council of Johannesburg—I am now referring to the later United Party City Council; after 1937—was never opposed to group areas for Indians as such. They were opposed to Lenasia because of its situation. I challenge the hon. member for Hospital who was mayor of Johannesburg at the time to deny it. His City Council passed a resolution which was submitted to the Group Areas Board that they regarded Lenz as a suitable area as a group area for Indians. I challenge him to deny it. They went further and on numerous occasions tried to acquire other group areas for Indians within the municipal area of Johannesburg. I need only mention Pageview and Vrededorp. Once they had a scheme to consolidate those two. They suggested that Langlaagte be declared a group area for Indians. They had a scheme under which the farm Liefde-en-Vrede had to be purchased and developed as a group area for Indians. Then they are the people who tell us that a principle is sacred to them; yet they discard that principle completely; they do not want anything to do with it. That is the dual role the United Party is playing.

I want to give another example. I want to return to the hon. member for Hospital because he was not here a moment ago when I was speaking. He said it was possible to provide better housing without group areas. He admits that he said it.

Yes.

I want to say this to him: In Pageview 2,496 of the 4,119 Indians who live there live in the most appalling slum conditions which probably exist in the Republic of South Africa. Those conditions have not been obtaining since yesterday; they have been obtaining for years. They obtained all the years when that hon. member served on the City Council of Johannesburg. Why did he not see to it that better housing was provided to those people who lived under those conditions in Pageview? I want to take this point further in respect of the City Council of Johannesburg who co-operated in finding group areas for the Indians and the various racial groups and couple it to this idea that those people who have to deal with the practical problems which crop up daily have a better idea of the realities of life than those hon. members who theorize on a subject which they understand very little.

Here I have a Press statement which was issued last year by the Secretary of the Department of Community Development. In this Press statement he pays tribute to the way in which the City Council of Johannesburg has co-operated with the Government—there was no co-operation in the past. He points out that there are many schemes which are being planned in terms of existing legislation and in respect of which great progress has been made. What does he say about Pageview? He says-—

The point I want to make is this that the peoples who have to cope with the practical problems, like the City Council of Johannesburg, are prepared to accept the facts of the situation and to co-operate with the Government and to carry through with the replanning, the redevelopment, and if necessary, the clearing up of an area and the resettling of those people in another area. They know as well as I do that that cannot be done if you rely on the people concerned agreeing to it. They know that a measure of compulsion will be necessary.

Judging from the attitude the United Party have adopted in this matter I think we can compare them with the man who was so lazy that he prayed every morning for work and thanked the Almighty every evening for not having found it. The Opposition have adopted the following attitude in this debate: They attack the Group Areas Act every day and everything which has anything to do with group areas but every evening they thank the Almighty that the National Party is willing to go on with this legislation and to bring about the miracles which have already been brought about. That is why I say again that if the Opposition wishes to cause obstruction let them do so but do not try to make us believe that they are doing so on a basis of a principle. I want to ask them not to make matters difficult for their colleagues on the City Council of Johannesburg, for example, and elsewhere by adopting this attitude.

I wish to refer to the great objection raised by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), namely, the alleged loss of parliamentary control. He called it “by-passing parliamentary control”. I want to tell the hon. member that so far the Group Areas Board has performed extremely difficult work in difficult circumstances in an excellent manner. They deserve our praise and appreciation. So far approximately 700 group areas have already been declared in this country. As far as this matter is concerned practically the whole of the Republic has been disposed of with the exception of a few big cities like East London and a few smaller sections of certain cities like District Six and central Cape Town, for example. There are very good reasons for that,; those reasons being that the possibilities and the direction in which those areas must be developed have still to be investigated and that it is impossible to decide on these matters immediately. What parliamentary control have the hon. member for Simonstown and his colleagues had so far over these matters?

Have you read the Bill?

The hon. member has had the right for 15 years to criticize everything the Minister has done in this House. He has the opportunity in the no-confidence debate, under the Vote of the Prime Minister and under the Vote of the Minister of Community Development. The hon. member has been doing that; for 15 years to his complete satisfaction. He now regards it as “by-passing parliamentary procedure” if the provision in Clause 11 is accepted.

It is quite clear that you have not read the various Acts.

That is usually the position. When you feel guilty you want to pass the blame on to somebody else I maintain that if this clause is accepted the Opposition would not be deprived of any right to criticize the Government in this connection. I also maintain that if it is not accepted it would cause more than a year’s delay in connection with the proclamation that still has to be done and that it would not make the law function more effectively. I therefore regard it as a privilege to be able to support these amendments.

I want to deal with a few points made by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy). First of all I want to deal with the manner in which he explained the Bill. He divided it into two parts. He dismissed the one part as being necessary because of the establishment of the Department and the other part because of some mysterious thing the Opposition had done or because of our mysterious approach. That, according to him, accounted for the necessity of the whole of this Bill. He dealt with one or two other things most of which related to Johannesburg. Unfortunately I am not as familiar with Johannesburg as he is but one or two points, I think, demand a reply. He asked what Johannesburg had in fact done for the Coloureds. Not knowing Johannesburg very well I cannot say too much on that but I do know that the City Council of Johannesburg established for the Coloured people a place called Coronationville. I have heard that place lauded by members on this side of the House, by the Government as a whole and by people from all over the country, as being an example of the fine accommodation that can be and has been provided for the Coloured people.

Why did they stop?

We know that the Government uses the Bantu housing in Johannesburg as an example, not only to the people of South Africa but to visitors from overseas. I think the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will agree with me. It is one of the showpieces of his Department. There is Obviously nothing wrong with that.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has dealt with the particular issues which led up to the establishment of that housing yesterday in another debate so I will not go further into it. Then the hon. member for Westdene dealt with the question of the Indians and he mentioned Glenasia and so on. The hon. member ought well to remember that it was because of the attitude of this side of the House that these people are still able to earn a living. If he would cast his mind back or read the debates he would find that the attitude of his side of the House was to throw these people out of the areas lock stock and barrel so that they would have had to rely on their own people, who were poor, to earn their own living. We were right, Sir, and his Government was wrong. As a result of the arguments advanced by this side of the House the Government eventually agreed that the Indian trader could in fact remain and trade where he was whether it was in Pretoria, Johannesburg or Durban otherwise the Indian people of South Africa would not have been able to eat. We have had the same problem in Durban. The problem is not peculiar to Johannesburg —this problem of the economics clashing with the ideologies of this Government. Frankly, Sir, in every instance—and this hon. member should know it—the economics of the situation must win because the people have to live. Those are simple facts. He himself mentioned the traders. In regard to the traders in that area they are going to be allowed to move just a few hundred yards so that they can retain the previous trade they had and thus earn a living.

Why do you not support the new trend then?

What the hon. member should say is that he is grateful to the Opposition for having pointed this out to his Government and having induced them to accept a measure which enabled these people to continue to earn a living. That is the way the hon. member should look at it.

I want to go on and deal with other matters. The first one is that during the course of this debate this side of the House have made our attitude towards this Bill and to separate social and residential areas quite clear. Speaker after speaker has made the point until I think it is quite unnecessary for me to go over all that again. We have had many many instances of speakers on the other side trying to justify this Bill or to re-justify it. Frankly, Sir, they have failed miserably in my opinion. I think one could perhaps summarize their approach by words uttered by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). He justified the Bill by saying that it was the policy of the Nationalist Party but when it came to the question of any hardship arising from it—a point which was often raised in this debate— he brushed that aside as something which was quite unnecessary to consider. Of course, this side of the House does not agree, because we pay attention to the hardship which is inflicted in implementing this policy, and we pay regard to things like that.

Mr. Speaker, I can see no justification for the introduction of this Bill. I think it was the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) who said that we must not worry about this, because all it was doing was to divide up the departments concerned, and the hon. the Minister himself has confirmed that. The hon. member said that the only duty of this hon. Minister would be to advise the Minister of Community Development, to give objective advice where Group Areas should be, and then his job would be finished. Now, I should like to ask the Minister this question: Does he really and sincerely think that he is going to plan Group Areas, because, in terms of this Bill, he goes through the motions of doing so? I contend that he, in fact, will not plan Group Areas just because we have this amending Bill before us. Let me tell him what I think will happen. As the position is at the moment, the Minister of Community Development is deciding where Group Areas will be and which areas will in fact be Group Areas. He has covered the three groups, namely the White, the Indian and the Coloured groups. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has decided where Bantu Group Areas will in fact be, and of course he will continue to do that. As a matter of fact, the necessity for him to do it is even greater now than it was before, because we have numerous reports of the terrific influx of Bantu people into the industrial areas, which are the towns, and areas have to be provided in which they can live. So Obviously the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is—as he has done in the past— going to decide where those Bantu areas, those Bantu townships can best be established. In the case of Kwa Mashu, Durban, in the case of Umlazi, and in the case of all the big Bantu townships in South Africa the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has been the Minister who decided where they will be established. And it is my contention that he will continue to decide where they will be created. I just cannot see him relinquishing that role.

In the case of the Coloured, Indian and White groups, the hon. the Minister of Community Development has just piloted a series of Bills through this House—one is not quite completed yet—which give him a tie-up to control the housing and the location of the three groups in South Africa other than the Bantu. We have the Housing Bill, the Slums Amendment Bill, the Community Development Amendment Bill—the last-mentioned has just gone through this House—all of which constitute a pattern of legislation designed to set up the Minister of Community Development as the Minister who, in fact, will determine where the various groups will live and develop those areas for the various groups to live in. I do not believe for one moment that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is now going to sit back and wait for the Minister of Planning to tell him which areas he can develop. I am sorry, but I just cannot believe it. Mr. Speaker, what in fact is the Minister of Planning then going to do? I believe he is going to receive instructions—or advices, call it what you like, because I do not mind—he is going to receive directions from the other two Ministers concerned and he will then investigate an area in which they have shown an interest for the development for either the Bantu, Coloured, Indian or White people. This is the process that has taken place in the past, and I believe it will continue to happen. If that does in fact happen—and I believe it will—I should like to ask the Minister a question. I am afraid I am a little bit disappointed at the way in which the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill. We had hopes that this might be a change of direction in the implementation of group areas, a change which we wanted, hoped and looked for, but what do we get? First of all, we received something called an explanatory memorandum, and I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is not good enough, because it is neither an explanatory memorandum, nor is it a White Paper. It is merely an extract of the consolidation of the various measures and amendments that have gone through this House, and it does not even deal with the whole Bill but only a part of it. I really think that this is a very bad effort; it is quite a waste of time, because those of us who are interested in this legislation buy from the Government Printer the consolidated Act, of which this is a part reprint. Therefore it is quite unnecessary to furnish us with a reprint of this nature. But if the Minister is going to put out what he calls an “explanatory memorandum” then I think it should in fact be what it purports to be; otherwise let him issue a White Paper on a Bill of this nature. That was the first point I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention.

There are many aspects that he has not dealt with. I cannot cover them all this afternoon, but I do want to cover one or two of the important ones only. I should firstly like to ask the Minister whether he is going to carry on with these mock hearings. Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain what I mean by asking him that. Up to now we have had hearings, and the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) spoke of hearings which had taken place in his area. When he spoke thereof, I listened to him, and he was apparently very sceptical about the outcome of those when one relates what he believes the outcome will be to the evidence which was presented. But I shall refer to a case which was completed. An area called Isipingo Beach was investigated by the Group Areas Board— which this Minister now takes over. That investigation was a very good one; it was very fairly conducted. The Chairman of that hearing was a former member of this House, namely Mr. De Ridder. He took the evidence, of which I have a certified copy here, and the Minister is welcome to see it if he so wishes. I want to challenge the Minister to find one request anywhere in the evidence that Isipingo Beach should be other than White. He can have the evidence and go through it and see if he can find such a request. There is not one request for the area to be other than White. After the hearing was completed the Chairman himself gave the assurance to myself and other people—this is first-hand information, not second-hand—that there was no chance whatsoever of Isipingo Beach being other than White. He did not give that assurance to me only but he gave it to many people, and I can bring them …

But what is your proposal, where should it be?

Where it is now. It was White, and no evidence was produced, no request was made whatsoever, to recommend that it should be other than White.

Where does the hon. member suggest must the Indian beach be?

I will show the hon. the Minister on a map if he wants to know, the place that everybody suggested and where the Chairman accepted was the best place for it. I will show him on the map with pleasure. I have the map up in my office. But what happened, Mr. Speaker? Isipingo Beach was declared for Indian ownership and occupation.

Against the weight of evidence.

The Indians did not even ask for it; nobody asked for it to be there. In other words, Sir, the decision had been made before the hearing even took place. The point I wish to make is the fact that there was leakage of information before the proclamation and the fact that certain people obtained options there. It is a point I will not deal with here, but I hope it is something the hon. the Minister will take note of, and see that there are no leaks from his Department in this connection, as there were in the case of Isipingo Beach.

This, Mr. Speaker, is one of the questions we would like some information on, namely, is the Minister going to carry on with these mock hearings? Is he going to have any regard to the evidence produced at these hearings, or what is going to be his attitude and approach to this particular aspect of group areas?

The next point I should like to ask him—and I think it is a most important point—is what his attitude is going to be in the implementation of his duties in regard to regional planning. I want to tell him why I ask him that question. It will be remembered, M. Speaker, that during a previous discussion of this very subject of group areas in this House, the hon. member for Natal South Coast and myself extracted a promise from the Minister of Community Development that he would not proceed with the indiscriminate proclamation of group areas on the South Coast of Natal. He gave us that undertaking. Sir, and said he would submit to the findings of a regional plan, the implementation of a regional plan. In other words, he agreed with us—and it is recorded here in Hansard—that a regional plan was necessary to decide the requirements of each of the racial groups, how and where they should be housed. He accepted that. But there as a question raised by the mayor of Amanzimtoti, and he made a peculiar statement the other day. He said that he had taken steps, and had also consulted the Minister, which would enable Amanzimtoti to be zoned for White occupation only. Now, Sir, this was said whilst Amanzimtoti was being planned under the regional plan, a plan to which Amanzimtoti, the Minister, ourselves, and the whole of the South Coast area of Natal agreed to. What was the statement he made? He said that he had taken steps in consultation with the Minister to make sure that Amanzimtoti would be zoned for Whites. Now are these the steps, is this part of the steps? Having offloaded the responsibility for the proclamation of group areas, does the hon. Minister of, Community Development now believe; that he can shed all the undertakings that he, gave to people and communities, that he can shed the assurance that he gave, namely, that he accepts regional planning and that he accepts group areas as an adjunct to regional planning? This is a question which I would like an answer to. Sir. I also want to know whether this Minister is going to honour the promises uttered by his colleagues. I do not know whether he is going to or not. but I think it is something we must know. Because if he is hot. There regional planning can be written of. because we have evidence regarding the South Coast of Natal —and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development knows it—that he is going to establish large Bantu townships there. He has td. because that area is becoming industrialized. But I sincerely hope he will do so in conjunction with the regional plan that is being drawn up for the South Coast of Natal, and I think the Minister will, because he has already indicated where two towns will be established. I sincerely hope that he will take the regional plan, which is being drawn up at the moment and which covers the whole complex of Pietermaritzburg, Durban and part of the south coast of Natal and part of the north coast, into consideration. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development as well as the Department which this hon. Minister is taking over are represented on this regional planning committee.

Mr. Speaker, these are two very important issues, and I was hoping that the Minister would give us some indication regarding his attitude towards these problems at the time he introduced this Bill. Because it is a far-reaching Bill, and we accept that he agrees that what is to happen now is that he is supposed to do the planning for group areas—we accept he will not be doing the implementation—but, if he is going to be responsible for the planning, he must accept the responsibilities that go with it. He should, I submit, have told us what his attitude was towards issues of such great importance to the whole of the Republic as these issues are.

I should now like to touch on another aspect, on reports which have been appearing in our newspapers recently. Before I go further, Mr. Speaker, I must confess to being quite an avid soccer fan. Well, something that worries me at the moment is the attitude adopted by three Ministers—though they seem to be four in this particular instance—towards the people who support soccer.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain: These Ministers are acting under the provisions of the Group Areas Act, the very Act which is being dealt with now, and that is what implicates this hon. the Minister. Because, in terms of this amendment, the occupation of the ground under the Group Areas Act enables these Ministers to say that one may go and watch soccer. This is the point, Sir. The Minister of Community Development gave an explanation the other day of why he banned a crowd from the Wanderers ground, namely, because it was in an European area and did not have the necessary facilities. But the latest ban is a complete ban in relation to the Caledonian grounds in Pretoria. Now, this ground has accommodated mixed race groups for many, many years. They have always gone there and there has never been any trouble. All the facilities are there, including. I understand. a 12 foot fence to separate Whites from non-Whites. They have all the other facilities that are necessary, yet now a complete ban has been placed upon mixed crowds going to the Caledonian ground to watch soccer. Well. I have tried to think out the reason for this, Sir. and I cannot see any possible reason why they want to ban people from watching a soccer match when separate facilities are available. I think it is the most stupid thing that could possibly be done. In looking for a reason I can only come to one conclusion—and I should like the hon. the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—namely that this is a planned attack to put soccer off the map because perhaps …

Order!

… it is not one of our national games or something like that.

Order! I cannot allow even a soccer fan to go as far as that!

I have just scored a goal, Sir, that is all!

The point I want to refer the Minister to is the use of the Police for inspection purposes, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister one or two questions in this regard. I know that all the Ministers—including the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development— have had great difficulties in trying to find out where all the Bantu who work in the cities actually live. I do not think the hon. the Minister knows yet. Some of them perhaps live in my Bantu premises—I do not know. But I know they have great difficulty in the past in trying to find out all these things. As I read this clause, it means that with regard to the introduction of the Police for inspection work, does not necessarily mean that one policeman will go about and perform the duties of an inspector. But I believe that raids can take place, because the hon. member for Pretoria (Central (Mr. Van den Heever) said that all this Bill did was to give the Police freedom to go into these areas. These are his actual words—

He used the word “misdade”. Well, in other words, Sir, the Police can now conduct raids.

I do not want to argue the merits of whether they should or whether they should not. but. I do want the hon. the Minister to bear one thing in mind, and that is that, while he cannot house all the people who serve our industry, I believe that it is a very bad step indeed to start a procedure such as this. I might be wrong in my interpretation, but following on the remarks of the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), that is the only conclusion to which I can come, namely, that now you are going to have group areas done not necessarily by means of inspection but possibly by means of raids as well, and I think that will be a sorry day for, South Africa if that should happen.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister of the following. This act has brought us into disrepute with our own friends. A heading in a newspaper this morning said: “Apartheid is on trial to-day at the Hague.” Not South Africa is on trial, but Apartheid. I want the hon. the Minister, now that the administration of this Act is coming under his control, to bear in mind that it is not social and racial segregation that has brought South Africa into disrepute, but the manner in which it has been applied. This is what has brought South Africa into disrepute. Nobody ever objected to the Indians living in a place of their own in South Africa; It was only after this Government promulgated and started to implement this legislation that we started having Apartheid problems. That is when they started. I think it is a sorry day for South Africa to have to read in the headlines of newspapers to-day that Apartheid is on trial in the Hague at the present time.

I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with the specific points I have raised and also bear in mind the particular points that we on this side have mentioned and the appeals we have made to him. Because, Sir, we do not want to see South Africa getting into more trouble. On the contrary, we want to live in peace with the Western world, because we are going to need them in the near future. Now, if the hon. the Minister bears these considerations in mind and adopts a more moderate and better approach to the application of this legislation, he will ‘be doing this country a very good turn indeed …

Mr. Speaker, this legislation, has been introduced in order to give effect to certain administrative measures which were taken in August of last year and to give; the force of law to those measures. The few new principles contained in this legislation have already been mentioned. In their assault on this Bill the attitude adopted by the Opposition was, firstly, to attack the entire Group Areas Act with all its implications and to indicate that they were not in agreement with it. Right from the start they tried to create as much confusion as possible by this means. This was started by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) because apparently either he had not read the Bill or because he had not read the legislation against the background of the existing position or because he did not understand the Bill. He started by contending that the purpose of this Bill was to divide up the administration of the Group Areas Act. Up to the present, the administration of the existing legislation has been divided between the Minister of Community Development on the one hand and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on the other hand. This is the present position.; All that this Bill envisages is to enable the Minister of Planning to enquire into and proclaim group areas. Otherwise the existing; position remains unchanged throughout. The hon. member contended that the staff of the Group Areas Board would henceforward have to serve both Ministers. That is not true. It is stated clearly in this Bill that this Board will henceforward fall only under the Minister of Planning. We will therefore not have a position where the officials will have to serve both Departments. The Group Areas Board advises the Minister of Planning only and no other Minister. When the Department of Planning was brought into being in August, these functions were transferred to the new Department in terms of the relevant proclamation and the Interpretation Act, and this Department then took over the function of planning and proclaiming group areas. In terms of the Interpretation Act, this was already the position. The purpose of this Bill is to amend that legislation accordingly so that when a person looks at the legislation he will be able to realize what the true position is. The Department of Planning will therefore undertake the future proclaiming of group areas after the necessary investigation has been made by the Group Areas Board which falls completely under its jurisdiction.

The hon. member for Durban-Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) said that the Board should not simply be regarded as a rubber stamp. Allow me to say that I have found that when this Board has received an instruction to make an enquiry, or to reinvestigate a particular matter, it has done everything in its power to correlate all the facts having a bearing on the situation, to consider those facts and to report accordingly. Indeed, the hon. member for Simonstown himself admitted that the Group Areas Board had acted very courteously. As I have said, the Board does everything in its power to obtain and submit all the facts available. These facts are then considered and a decision is arrived at in the light of the broader planning of group areas. Later in my speech I shall explain what is meant by the term “broarder planning”. So I do not believe it is necessary to make these efforts to create confusion. The position is clear. My Department has only to deal with the planning of a group area up to the stage of the proclaiming thereof. Thereafter, the administration of the legislation is undertaken by the other two Ministers concerned.

I should like at this stage to deal with a few fundamental aspects of the matter. I do not want to go into detail because that can be done during the Committee Stage. This Bill provides largely for the ratification of existing powers. Certain opinions have also been expressed in this regard but I do not want to deal with these opinions at this stage. Reference was made to the fact that Parliamentary authority was being undermined. I think that the original provision was that the Act should be administered for five years and that a report should then be submitted to a Joint Sitting of both Houses of Parliament. This period was later extended to 15 years, a period which expires at the end of June of this year.

The reason why these things have taken time is that the machinery had first to be put into operation to implement this legislation and then a Group Areas Development Board had to be established in order to assist the people affected by the implementation of the Act. The proclaiming of Group Areas is therefore now done in consultation with the Department of Community Development with the specific idea of ensuring that when a group area is proclaimed and disqualified persons have then to leave that area within one year in terms of the Act, alternative accommodation is found for them. I want to point out that a very great deal has been done in this connection over the past few years. It has been alleged here that housing is a solution. We inherited a position which was a hodge-podge as a result of the policy of the United Party of “voluntary segregation”. Then we started providing housing on the basis of separate residential areas. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, 44,000 houses have been built over the past 16 years at a cost of R43,000,000; 14,000 houses have been built for the Indians at a cost of R20,000,000 and as far as the Bantu are concerned, 245,000 houses have been built at a cost of more than R131,000,000, a total of more than 300,000 houses at a cost of nearly R200,000,000. This aspect of housing is necessary but it must be fitted in with the system of group areas. That is why there will always be the closest co-operation between the Department of Planning and the Department of Community Development as far as this position is concerned in order to ensure that when an area is proclaimed and people have to be removed to another area, the necessary accommodation will be provided for them.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) told us that this problem was being solved in the United States by means of housing; in other words, by the removal of the so called “blighted areas” and the tackling of “rehousing schemes”. He also referred to Nottinghill. a slum area in London. But I want to tell the hon. member that notwithstanding all kinds of_ schemes which are being resorted to there, those schemes have not yet been able to solve the problems of the U.S.A. or Britain in this respect. On the contrary. The hon. member pointed out the great difference in regard to education and background. I agree that the Negro people of America are the most highly developed Black people in the world, but in spite of this fact and in spite of their housing and the fact that they constitute only one-tenth of the population of the United Sates of America, it is clear that race friction—this is apparent from American periodicals—has not been reduced as a result but has actually increased. That is why I believe that housing alone offers no solution; it must be accompanied by the separate sitting of the population groups. I believe that there are bodies in Britain and the U.S.A. to-day which admit that the greatest problems which they have to deal with to-day are those in connection with the peaceful co-existence of different race groups. As far as the direction in which we are moving is concerned I believe that our direction is the right one in spite of all the problems which we have to face.

It has been said here that we must not do away with the provision that a report in regard to the administration of the Act should be submitted to a Joint Sitting of both Houses. Do hon. members realize what will happen if we have to comply with this provision at this stage? We have also been asked to proceed slowly. To have this removal of population take place with as little friction as possible is a very great task indeed. Up to the present, 721 group areas have already been proclaimed. We have therefore progressed a long way, but we are not yet finished. Most of the areas which have had to be proclaimed group areas have already been disposed of. Those that remain are some of the more difficult ones. If in terms of the existing provision we have to submit every further proclamation of a group area to a Joint Sitting after June of this year, do hon. members realize what will happen, particularly as that side of the House is opposed in principle to separate residential areas?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Tucker) says: “Not at all.” Let me quote from the Hansard of yesterday when the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) was speaking. He said that the United Party was opposed to the principle of group areas. To this the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) added: “And separate residential areas,” to which the hon. member for Germiston (District) replied: “The principle of separate residential areas.”

That is quite wrong. [Interjections.]

I want to say again that there are still a considerable number of areas which have to be proclaimed and that it will be an impossible task to submit every proclamation proclaiming a group area from now on to a Joint Sitting of both Houses in order to solve the problem. Nor will there be any hope of a solution if the attitude of the Opposition in regard to separate group areas is as has been revealed here to-day in this House. Hon. members opposite have had the opportunity over the past 15 years to refer to problems and to ask questions but very little has been done in this connection. I feel therefore that to retain the position as it is now will be to place an administrative stumbling block in the path of our search for a final solution to this problem.

There was considerable reference to the powers to be given to the police in terms of the Bill and we were asked under which authority this function had already been delegated to the police. The present Section 39 gives the Minister the power to delegate this work of inspection to any person who shall be called an inspector. It is quite correct to say that it is provided in sub-section (6) that an interpreter and a member of the Police Force may accompany such inspector but nowhere is it provided that an inspector should not be a member of the Police Force. This section does not prohibit that happening. This function was delegated to the police in 1957 and since that time the police have been making these inspections. This is therefore not a new task which they are being given to perform. The hon. member for Simonstown has said: “The police to-day are already hopelessly overloaded with police duties and cannot accept the massive volume of work which would be entailed in carrying out these provisions; the police have been a uniformed force carrying an atmosphere with them in which the civilian force of inspectors doing the same work does not carry.” He said that this was not their function, that there was a stigma attached to it, and so forth. As I have said, the principal Act gives legal authority to the police to act in this way and this is the position which already exists in practice with this difference: That where in the past the police also did certain inspection work for the Department, this work will now be done by officials of the Department. Indeed, they will therefore have less work to do in the future than they had in the past. It has also been said that no crime is being committed and so it is not the function of the police. I do not know what the difference is between a crime and an offence but whether it is a crime or an offence the fact remains that these are both the concern of the police. There are numbers of examples in our laws of offences which one may not be able to call crimes but which nevertheless remain the concern of the police. So I cannot accept that objection. In this case, where we have to deal with an offence against a regulation or against a law, I should say that there is no difference between such offence and any other offence which is investigated by the police.

As far as details are concerned, the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) said: “I abhor and loathe and despise and detest all legislation dealing with apartheid.” I can very well understand that the hon. member for Boland should now adopt such a strong attitude. He is a member of the United Party.

Read my earlier Hansard.

The hon. member did not say it to-day; he said it a few days ago.

I shall repeat it to-morrow and the next day.

I say that the hon. member is still a member of the United Party and so I can well understand that he is feeling rather worried about the latest election results; he has to appeal to the same voters and he has to prove to them how strongly he feels in this regard. We know that he has not been a member of the United Party caucus since 1958. Already at that stage he realized the direction in which matters were heading and so he left the caucus. Since that time he has stood as an Independent, but to what extent this action of his is going to save him is something which the future will have to show.

The hon. member wants to know whether it is not possible to include an additional provision in the advertisement to the effect that there will be certain parts which cannot be proclaimed. It is not necessary to insert a provision of this nature in the advertisement. The people are asked to object to the proclaiming of certain areas and the normal position is that people do object. This does happen in practice. Experience has taught us that it is not necessary to insert a provision of this nature in the advertisement as this is what happens in practice.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr., Eden) referred to certain aspects of this legislation. He created the impression that the law was unfair in respect of the Coloureds only. Let me say that I know of areas which were overwhelmingly, White areas and which were proclaimed Coloured areas. It is not only Coloured areas which are proclaimed as White areas. It is a pity that that impression should have been created. The hon. member informed me of the problems experienced at three different places, and I had each individual matter carefully investigated. Other hon. members also made representations in connection with one of those cases. I can only say that when I receive representations of this nature I examine them very carefully, and the board also examines them very carefully. I am sorry that that impression should have been created. I can even say that, as far as Upington is concerned—and the hon. member knows what my answer to him was—after a long inquiry we went even further and we made certain representations to the Upington Town Council to make provision at the river for the Coloureds there. This was actually beyond our province, but we felt that if we could be of assistance in that regard, it would be a very good thing, although it was a problem which arose not because of the proclaiming of the area, but because people sold their properties, and because there was not the same amount of access which there was previously. We went out of our way to try to help those people.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of advertising. I agree that it is difficult to bring proposed proclamations to the attention of the Coloureds. That is why, for this purpose, we make use, not only of the ordinary newspapers circulating in that district, but we also make use of a newspaper which has a wide circulation amongst the Coloureds, namely The Banner. But if the hon. member has any suggestions in regard to the method of drawing the attention of the Coloureds to proposed proclamations, I should like him to tell us about them. If they are practicable, we shall use them.

The hon. member has said that the proposed proclaiming creates uncertainties. I agree, and that is why we are trying as far as possible to complete the proclaiming of areas. He also asked whether the effect of paragraph 11 will be that the leases of disqualified persons within a group area can be terminated. This is nothing new; this power already exists. It is a repetition of. the existing position. There is no change in this respect at all, but it comes into operation 12 months after proclamation. It is a proclaimed area and it is controlled by the Minister of Community Development. I have been informed that there are no known cases of businessmen who have had to leave. There was one at Kimberley, but he had to leave because a road was being built there. The Minister of Community Development has repeatedly given the assurance that traders will not be deprived of their livelihood and be forced to leave in terms of this law unless alternative provision can be made for them. But I want to refer to another aspect of the matter, an aspect which was mentioned particularly by the hon. member for Simonstown.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to Kalk Bay and Simonstown, where investigations are being made, and he asked Who had asked for group areas to be proclaimed in Simonstown, or in Kalk Bay, because, he said, everyone was opposed to this being done. This is in regard to residential areas. I can very well understand why that attitude is adopted by the people of Simonstown. I should just like to ask the hon. member, by way Of information, whether it is not true that there is a servitude on the property which he owns to the effect that only Whites can purchase that property?

That is only so in the case of certain private owners.

The deed of transfer of the hon. member reads as follows—

Two of the conditions read as follows—

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that the deed from which he is now quoting has nothing to do with my property whatsoever, but refers to another property above me?

In reply to that remark, I can only say that I obtained this information from the hon. member’s deed of transfer this morning. [Interjections.]

Order!

What I want to mention is that here we have a position in which certain areas are covered by servitudes which protect the owners of properties in those areas. I do not blame them for having purchased those properties. There are many similar areas. It proves that people have always felt so strongly in this regard that, long before the policy of group areas was thought of, people considered it advisable to insert this sort of condition in their deeds, because they felt that it protected them and avoided other problems which might arise in the social sphere. These people are protected, but why then not other people who are not so fortunate to have this protection included in their deeds? That is why this provision is being extended. If circumstances justify its being done, we want to give this protection to other people for the same reason—that these servitudes make certain properties attractive.

It is now being said that the United Party are opposed to separate residential areas, and that this is something which should not be placed on the Statute Book. I have dealt with the question of separate residential areas, but when we have infiltration of another nature, when problems of infiltration by non-Whites occur on the beaches in and around Muizenberg, the Government is approached for assistance. I want to refer here again to a letter which I received from the hon. member for Simonstown on 12 January this year—

In a letter to the Minister of Planning they say: “This year, even more so than in the past, these beaches have attracted vast numbers of people of all races. Unfortunately, however, there appears to be no uniform pattern or policy applied to the use of the Southern Peninsula beaches either at governmental, provincial or local authority level. In some areas beaches have been reserved for use by the different races, but in other areas members of some races have in recent years encroached on beaches traditionally used by members of another race. This has undoubtedly caused friction and ill-feeling, and, in our opinion, greatly aggravates the position.”

Read the whole thing.

When they swim together it causes friction, as the hon. member has expressed it here in his letter —“it greatly aggravates the position”—but when Whites and non-Whites live among one another, he does not want any action to be taken.

Read the rest of the letter. I do not withdraw a word of that letter.

The letter goes on to say that discussions should be held. I do not expect the hon. member to withdraw a word of the letter. The only thing that seems strange to my mind is that, although certain circumstances and problems are created when non-White and Whites swim together, according to the hon. member, when they live among one another this fact does not create problems.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) told us that we could solve this problem of poor residential areas. He said that they would be able to solve it under the Slums Act.

To some extent. [Laughter.]

The hon. member for Simonstown said that he felt very dissatisfied at the fact that an investigation was being made into the removal of the non-Whites from Kalk Bay because, he said, they had been living there for so many years now. I just want to mention that as early as 1938 the Cape Town City Engineer submitted a report to the effect that the whole area occupied by Coloureds there was virtually nothing more than a slum area and that those Coloureds should be removed. This was in 1938. In spite of the existence of the Slums Act and the powers held by local authorities, nothing at all has as yet been done in this connection. Hon. members know very well that it is absolutely impossible to solve this problem by means of the Slums Act.

Why do you not give the facts instead of distorting the position.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to use the word “distort”?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I am asking why the hon. Minister has not given us all the facts.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark without qualification.

I withdraw it.

This Bill is being opposed because hon. members are opposed to the principle contained in the principal Act. They are opposed to the imposition of area separation by means of legislation. That is the attitude which they have repeatedly adopted. They want area segregation but it must be on a voluntary basis, after consultation. I want to ask, what can they achieve thereby? If this was their policy, even before 1948, then they achieved absolutely nothing thereby. It was simply a case of confusion becoming worse confounded. There have been interesting incidents in this regard. Over the past while, the left wing of the United Party has been quiet. They were absolutely quiet during the debate on the no-confidence motion. Hardly any of the hon. members who have spoken to-day, spoke then, because then, just before the election, another impression had to be created. But now the hon. members who spoke during the no-confidence debate are not here; they are electioneering on the platteland, and, with a few exceptions, it has been the left wing which has participated in this debate. That is why we have once again experienced the same opposition which we have experienced against this legislation over the years. The left wing has now had another opportunity to have its say, now that the right wing is electioneering on the platteland. When the cat is away, the mice will play.

The hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) referred to certain negotiations which were entered into in regard to the proclaiming of group areas in Natal. He also mentioned certain agreements which were concluded. There were certain discussions between the hon. member, the hon. member for South-Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the present Minister of Community Development. When agreement was reached at a certain stage the Minister said that he would delay the proclaiming of group areas in order to give those people the opportunity to plan on a regional basis. Let me say that Natal has done a great deal as far as regional planning is concerned. I admit that they have made a good contribution towards regional planning in general and we also have their cooperation through the medium of the N.R.D.C. I note that the following report appeared in the Rand Daily Mail of 6 November 1963, when Isipingo was proclaimed—

One accordingly gains the impression that negotiations were broken off. But that meeting was held on 8 November. The hon. member (for Durban (Umlazi)) was present together with about 110 representatives of local authorities and other interests, but Mr. Mitchell was not present.

He was ill.

Probably from standing on his head again.

The following resolution was adopted at that meeting—

Let me quote further—

But on 2 December, when nothing had as yet been heard and it appeared that there had been a delay of more than a year, my Department was instructed to proceed with the planning of group areas in Natal and to make contact with this regional committee in Natal and ask representatives of the committee to serve on the planning committee of the Department. We feel that this is and remains the responsibility of the Department. The regional planning committee of Natal was not blamed for the year’s delay that there was and the fact that nothing further was done. It was the Government that was blamed by the people of Natal because they said it had failed to apply the provisions of the Group Areas Act there. Pressure was brought to bear that group areas should be proclaimed there. That was why this instruction was given. I can also tell the hon. member that this committee will cooperate with the regional planning committee as far as possible. There are also other liaisons with that committee. It is the specific function of this Department to see group areas as far as possible not only as the demarcation of residential areas but to see them in their full role. It was for this reason when the Department of Planning was established and when these functions were transferred to the Department that the hon. the Prime Minister made the following statement (translation)—

In the light of this instruction, I can give hon. members the assurance that, as far as the planning of Natal is concerned—which has to some extent been held back to enable progress to be made in regard to regional planning—this work will, in terms of the instruction to the Department, be undertaken in the closest co-operation with the local authorities, with the Provincial Administration and also with this Planning authority of Natal.

I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister’s representative is still serving on that regional planning committee?

The representative on the regional planning committee whom they asked for is Mr. Barker, a member of the Group Areas Board which falls under this Department. Representatives of the N.R.D.C., a body which also falls under this Department, also serve on that regional committee. It was for this reason that I said that there were other liaisons as well, apart from this one, with the regional development committee of Natal.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie, and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.