As I pointed out on Friday in my second-reading speech on the Group Areas Amendment Bill, we find in Simonstown that there are premises which are subject to the servitude that they may be occupied only by Whites. I said, amongst other things, that the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) was the owner of such land. It now appears that there is a certain Mr. L. Gay who is the owner of a plot which is subject to such a servitude but that it is not the hon. member for Simonstown. I should like to make this correction and I am sorry if I did the hon. member an injustice.

When are you going to stop your snooping?

I move— That the Bill be now read a third time.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we intend supporting the third reading of the Bill. We have supported the Bill through its various stages through the House. We believe that this Bill will bring about, to a certain degree, an improvement in the position as far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. There are certain comments we would like to make now that the Bill has reached the third reading. We believe that perhaps an opportunity was lost when this amending Bill was introduced, and we regret that the Minister did not see fit to make further amendments to the Act which have brought about an alleviation for those persons who were adversely affected by the amendments made in 1962. We believe that the main principles involved in this Bill are to give the Board the right to extend benefits in terms of Section 39 (3) of the Act, and that this is an improvement which will expedite the handling of applications for benefits. The other important aspect is the question of the financial effect on the Unemployment Insurance Fund as the result of the raising of the ceiling to R2,860 up to which persons will be required to become contributors to the fund. The financial effects on the fund as the result of this amendment are perhaps a very important factor, particularly concerning the interests of the 1,000,000 contributors to the fund. If we study the position, we find that in 1963 the expenditure decreased by nearly R5,000,000. In 1962 the expenditure was R17,127,000, and in 1963 it had decreased to R11,992,000. The Minister indicated in his reply to the second reading that in 1964 the estimated expenditure would be R10,656,000 and that the difference between income and expenditure would show an excess of some R2,785,000, and it is expected that the accumulated funds will be standing at almost R123,000,000. Now, as the result of the amending legislation before the House the Minister indicated that the increase in income to the fund would be approximately R400,000 from the contributors and R 100,000 from the State, making an increase in income of R500,000, which means that the estimated increase in the income of the fund as the result of this legislation will be in the region of R500,000 a year. I mention these facts because the financial effect on the fund will be considerable and we will be faced with a steadily accumulating fund. The position is that with this increase in the accumulated fund the question is whether the Minister should give his attention to ways and means whereby he can further improve the position. Particularly in view of the fact that it is claimed that full employment exists in the country, it would appear that this fund will continue to gain and that the accumulated funds will continue to increase during the ensuing year, and they will increase further due to the fact that we are raising the ceiling for the contributors in terms of this Bill. The important point is to consider what the effects will be and whether it will not be possible for the Minister to review the position at a later stage, perhaps towards the end of the year, to see what the effect is on the fund. It was hoped that the Minister would see fit to allow the Unemployment Insurance Board to grant extended benefits at its discretion without including a clause which restricts them to paragraph (m) of Section 40 of the principal Act, which means that the person must be a contributor or in employment for 13 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding a period of unemployment. The effect of this Bill will be that the Board is restricted to a maximum period of 52 weeks, and the contributor will receive his normal 26 weeks’ benefits and thereafter it is possible for him to be granted an additional 26 weeks’ extended benefits by the board. I believe that the Minister could very well consider whether additional concessions may be made to those contributors who deserve additional assistance; in other words, to allow the board the right to grant those extended benefits without that restrictive clause which limits it to 26 weeks. I would like to quote to the Minister a case which is significant in terms of this Bill where a contributor, in this case a person of 55 years of age, had been paying into the fund for a period of nearly 19 years, and from 1946 to 1962, a period of 16 years, the basis being four weeks’ contributions to qualify for one week’s benefits. Over that period of 16 years he will have accumulated benefits to the extent of 208 weeks’ benefits. From 1962 to 1964 his credits were six weeks’ contributions for one week’s benefits, so he would have accumulated 16 weeks’ benefits. This shows that this contributor will have standing to his credit benefits to the extent of 225 weeks. But in terms of this Bill, on becoming unemployed, he can claim 26 weeks’ benefits and thereafter if he makes application and his case is favourably considered by the board in terms of the provisions of this Bill, it could be extended for another 26 weeks, which means that he could receive a maximum of 52 weeks’ benefits, but in the normal course of events, by claiming merely the 26 weeks’ benefits to which he is entitled, in actual practice he is precluded from drawing another almost 200 weeks’ benefits standing to his credit in the fund. Many of these older workers such as this 55-year-old contributor are those persons who are finding it extremely difficult to find employment suitable to them at their age. Similarly, persons who have become ill find it difficult to get employment for which they have been trained and are qualified. The Minister has mentioned that the purpose of this fund is not to carry some of these persons, who should fall under the aegis of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and who should receive some benefit in the form of a social pension. But the point I am making is that by including the restrictive period as provided for in this Bill the board would be unable in genuine cases to extend these benefits beyond a period of 52 weeks, whereas many of these people still consider themselves available to the labour market. They still believe that many can be productive in the labour field, and we know of the shortage of manpower that exists, and some of these people can receive additional training and then come back on the labour market, and they look to this fund as some means of security to tide them over a difficult period while they find employment. I think that the effect this amending Bill will have warrants further consideration by the Minister together with the board to see whether it is not possible to allow the board at its discretion to grant further benefits to deserving cases.

The other aspect which also affects the financial position of the fund is whether the time has not arrived for the Minister and the Board, in consultation with the actuaries, to see whether the scale of benefits cannot be improved. One of the reasons given for the raising of the ceiling to R2,860 was due to the decrease in the purchasing power and the rise in the wage structure. I believe that in view of that fact and the effect this will have on the fund, the Minister and the Board and the actuaries should consider the possibility of revising the rates of benefits payable under the Act.

The final point which I believe is a very important one is the attitude of the Trade Union Council in regard to the present position of the fund. The Minister did indicate that certain decisions were made unanimously by the Unemployment Insurance Board, but I think that something which is of paramount importance is that the Minister should give some indication of his attitude in regard to further steps to eliminate many of the disabilities that have resulted in the amending legislation of the Act. I know that on 16 January 1964 the Trade Union Council made very strong recommendations to the Minister. They stated that they wished the Minister immediately to review the Act as a whole, with a view to eliminating the many disabilities resulting from the 1962 amendment and they strongly submitted that the Act as it stands is not in fact fulfilling the purposes envisaged by the Legislature when it was first introduced. They then go on to state the position in regard to the alleged abuses in 1962, and they say that those allegations were unproved. The Trade Union Council further stressed the difficulties being experienced by many contributors. I feel that the position as it stands to-day warrants the Minister reviewing the position, particularly as far as the financial effects are concerned to the fund in terms of this Bill. The Minister has stated that the ordinary contributor who pays into the fund over a short period of time will receive a far greater monetary benefit than he has paid into the fund. Well, if one is to adopt the principle of insurance, we must also bear in mind that there are a large number of persons who pay into this fund and who have never received a single cent and who have no claim on the fund. I cannot see how we could possibly gauge the effects of this legislation if we take into account, as the Minister did, the minimum figures. He quoted various figures showing that once the contributor had paid in for a period of up to three years in terms of the new legislation, after a period of three years he would have paid in just over R18, and then if he claimed 26 weeks’ benefits at R14 a week he would have got R364 in benefits from the fund. That is a case taken at its absolute minimum, but we must bear in mind the many thousands of people who have paid contributions to the fund over a large number of years, like the case I mentioned of the person who paid into the fund for 18 years and who builds up that large number of credits and receives his initial benefits and is unable to find suitable or further employment and remains unemployed, and if he should be lucky enough to be granted extended benefits by the Board that Board itself will be restricted to the 13 weeks of contributions or employment during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the period of unemployment. Consequently the Board, if it wishes out of sympathy and on the merits of the case, to grant extended benefits in this particular case I have mentioned, which is not an isolated case, it is unable to do so due to the restrictions contained in Clause 10.

In conclusion, I would like to say that we agree in principle that this Bill is an improvement and we hope that the Minister will give due consideration to the points that have been raised in the debate to see whether it is not possible really to fulfill the aims and purposes of this Act as originally envisaged.

I want to make a final appeal to the hon. the Minister on behalf of a group of people for whom I have now been fighting since I have had the honour to become a member of this House, and that is those people employed in the food and canning industry. The hon. the Minister has brought into this amending legislation the seasonal workers, in terms of Clause 4. The Minister knows my case, but I want to say this, that it is most unfortunate that thousands of Coloured people who are required to keep the wheels of an industry turning, an industry upon which South Africa depends, the canning industry—that because of the hazardous nature of their employment, because they are not able to be employed continuously for eight months as the legislation requires, but in fact work for eight months in broken periods, not because they want that break but because of the exigencies of the industry, they are to be prejudiced, but a man who is fortunate enough to be a seasonal worker for eight consecutive months can benefit. I personally cannot see any reason why this eight months should not be a total for the year and why these people should not receive some consideration. I have made it perfectly clear and I want to reiterate it and emphasize that these people do not want benefits beyond the period for which they have made contributions. If at the end of six months they have to be laid off for two months and they have contributed for that six months, and the contributions they have made entitled them only to one week’s benefits under the Act, that is all they ask for. They do not want to be paid for the two months they lay off, but surely if we have unemployment insurance we should try to include all workers who are out of employment due to no fault of their own. There are some people who get the sack and they are out of employment but they benefit. These people are out of employment because they have to be. They can work for only a certain period of the year. I hope the Minister will, between this stage and the time the Bill goes to the Other Place, find some means of assisting these people, and there are thousands of them, people who are doing good work and who are rendering good services to South Africa. Surely they should not be excluded. I make this last appeal, this Session anyway, but I shall continue my fight until I am able to persuade the Minister and the Board that these people are entitled to consideration and that they have a good case. I sincerely trust that my appeal will not fall on deaf ears and that I will be able to move the Minister to some action to help these people who deserve consideration. They are not loafers; they are not people who do not want to work. They are people who are permitted to work in this industry only if and when they are required to do so. Therefore I ask that they also receive consideration.

I want to reply shortly to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). I do not propose to traverse all the arguments that have been used in the various stages of this Bill or those used in 1962, because I think that would simply be tedious repetition. The hon. member knows, and I think the House knows, that I have tried to emphasize again and again that this Unemployment Insurance Fund is not a savings fund or a provident fund from which workers can draw money when they are retired or when they are chronically ill or when they are no longer in the labour market. I think that is basic. The cases that have been submitted to me and my Department from time to time, the cases of credits being built up over a long period of time and which have never been used, are really irrelevant to the issue because, as I have said so often, the Unemployment Insurance Fund is not an ordinary insurance policy on which you pay a premium so that you eventually get certain benefits. It is simply a fund which ensures that when a person is out of work through illness or other reasons he will draw certain benefits during the time he is unemployed.

The second point the hon. member made was that during this period of full employment we are now experiencing the benefits should be extended. Well, my reply is that it is really during a period of full employment that we are enabled to build up surpluses in order to meet what may be a depression later on, when there is unemployment. So we take this opportunity and it is justifiable when there is full employment to build up surpluses.

But you decrease the purchasing power of the amount of benefits paid.

Of course, the benefits vary from time to time. The fund is investigated actuarially from time to time, and the benefits may be increased or decreased. Regard is had to the amount of the fund from time to time in calculating what benefits should be paid or what contributions should be made.

The third point raised by the hon. member was that we should remove the limit which is placed on the discretion of the Board; in other words, that the Board should have a full discretion as to what they should grant and how far they should go in granting benefits. Sir, if that argument were to be carried to its logical conclusion, then the fund would simply be left to the Board and Parliament would have no say in any limits to be imposed on the Board. We would simply appoint the Board and say: You have full discretion to grant or refuse benefits and to fix the amounts.

I think that would be going too far. I believe that when Parliament creates a statutory body such as this Board, Parliament must say what its powers shall be and to what limits the Board can go. That is all we are trying to do here. Parliament places certain limits on the powers of the Board, but within those limits it gives a discretion, in the same way as in the Income Tax Act certain discretions are given to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue. But that discretion is not unlimited and it is still subject to what Parliament has laid down in imposing taxation, although within certain limits the Commissioner can exercise a certain discretion.

Then the hon. member referred to representations which were made by the Trade Union Council in 1964, to me. The hon. member probably knows that those representations were referred by me to the Unemployment Insurance Board, and they went into them very thoroughly. After about three or four months during which the representations were investigated I replied to the T.U.C. and told them that their representation had been fully considered but that I regretted the Board was not able to meet any of those suggestions mainly because they were directly in conflict with the amendments adopted by this House in 1962.

In reply to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have already said half a dozen times, namely that the Unemployment Insurance Board has made every effort to meet the case of seasonal workers. They have found it is quite impracticable to do so for many reasons which have been conveyed to the hon. member from time to time. I regret that I cannot go any further than I have done in the present Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Effect is being given in this Bill, in the first place, to a request made three years ago by the Committee of University Heads. Section 10 of the Universities Act, 1955, provides that when a person who enrolled as a matriculated student at a university, desires after the expiry of a year to continue his studies for a further year he has to pay the fees prescribed from time to time by Statute. An amendment of the Universities Statute is required in order to be able to bring about a change in the prescribed amount. Such an amendment is subject to my approval and thereafter has to appear in the Government Gazette and laid on the Table. The Committee was of the opinion that such a lengthy and involved procedure was not justified and that the council of the university should be able from time to time to prescribe the renewal fees—in the University’s year book, for example. I agreed with this view at the time, and I am now moving the necessary amendment in Clause 1 of the Bill in view of the fact that the principal Act has to be amended in other respects at this stage in any event.

Secondly, advantage is being taken of this opportunity not only to incorporate the provisions of the Queen Victoria Scholarships Act, 1902, in Section 12 (a) of the principal Act, as hon. members will be able to infer from Clauses 2 and 10, read together with the Schedule, but also to repeal another pre-Union Act, that is to say, the Huguenot College Act, 1907, together with the amending Act of 1920. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, it has become necessary to amend the principal Act and to amend it in such a way that Section 15 (3) (b) makes provision for representatives of the Department of Coloured Affairs to serve on the Joint Matriculation Board. That is being done in Clause 3, in terms of which “Bantu Education” is being substituted in Section 15 (3) (b) for the out-of-date term “Native Affairs”, and “Republic” is being substituted in Section 15 (3) (c) for “Union”. In addition to that the wording of Section 15 (3) (b) relating to the appointment of a representative of private schools on the Matriculation Board is being improved in accordance with a suggestion made by the University of Natal, a suggestion for which I am grateful to that University.

The amendment in Clause 4 which substitutes “Republic” for “Union” in Section 16bis is Obviously necessary, and the same applies to the amendments in Clauses 8 and 9 of Sections 24 and 28bis respectively, which substitute the corresponding provision in the Constitution Act of 1961 for a provision in the South Africa Act, 1909, as well as “R 1,000” for “£500”.

Finally, improvements are being brought about in Sections 21 (1), 22 (1) and 23 (1) in Clauses 5, 6, and 7, improvements which have become necessary as a result of the insertion of Section 20 (2) in 1959. The principal Act of 1955 authorized the Minister in Section 20 to grant leans to the council of a university out of moneys voted by Parliament, that is to say, public or State loans. Subsequently provision was made in the three sections now under discussion for “applications for loans”, “conditions governing loans”, and “repayment of loans”. These loans are all public loans. The Universities then requested, when an amending Bill came before this House in 1959, that the Government should also amend the principal Act as to empower a university “to borrow money from any source”, in other words, to enter into a private loan. It had then already been decided by the authorities that every university, as an autonomous body, should solve its own problem in connection with private loans, a problem which, it is true, gave rise to many difficulties and to legal issues. At a very late stage the universities again put forward a serious plea for this and this plea was given effect to by re-numbering Section 20 as Section 20 (1) and by adding sub-section (2) which deals with private loans. The three subsequent sections, however, only relate to State loans and have nothing to do with private loans. That in fact is how the Act is being applied, but strictly speaking the three sections in question are also capable of a different interpretation, and in order to put the intention of the law-giver beyond any doubt the reference in the three sections in question is limited to State loans referred to in Section 20 (1).

Those, Mr. Speaker, are the aims of the Universities Amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have no objection to this legislation. In fact, we consider that it is an improvement on the old legislation, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated. I should like to pause for a moment to deal with Clause 3 and ask why the Government did not delay this legislation for a few days. Outmoded designations are being replaced here, such as e.g. Native Affairs by the Department of Bantu Education; the Department of Coloured Affairs is also being inserted. But in the files before us there is legislation which will bring about changes in regard to Indian education, and within the near future provision will have to be made in this Act for the Indian Education Department. In other words, if the Indian education legislation is passed, an amendment will have to be made shortly to Clause 3, and the question which arises is: Why not wait for a few days before introducing this amending Bill? For the rest, except for the few remarks I have made, I have no objection. I am also particularly glad that the Minister has explained Section 20 of the 1959 Act, with the result that the amendment contained in Clause 5 (1) is now clear.

Then I just want to ask a final question. How does the Huguenot College enter into the matter? Is it because that College has now disappeared and has been absorbed by the University of Stellenbosch?

That is correct.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, representation is being given to Coloured Education on the Matriculation Board, firstly, to give effect to a promise which the Government made at the time when Coloured Education was taken over. The promise was then made by the Government that the standard of Coloured education would be the same as that of White education, and that the necessary steps would be taken to ensure this. Since then the Depar ment of Coloured affairs have requested that they should be given representation on the Matriculation Board, and the Matriculation Board itself put forward a similar request to us. This measure now gives effect to it.

As far as the request in connection with Indians is concerned, this measure, of course, still has to be passed by this House, and Indian Education will only be able to claim representation on this body in 1966. I take it that we shall then be able to follow the same procedure in their case, but it would be unfair to delay the granting of representation to Coloured Education until Indian Education qualifies for representation that is why representation is being given to Coloured Education at this s age.

And the Queen Victoria scholarships?

They are simply being incorporated in this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This clause divides the spoils of the Group Areas legislation amongst three Ministers. The first Minister who appears in sub-section (c) is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is given the power to deal with all the machinery of the Group Areas Act so far as they concern Bantu, but what I find so interesting about this and what I hope the hon. the Minister will explain, is that in the law as it is at the moment, the Minister does not come into the picture at all; he is here introduced, and although certain areas can be proclaimed under the law as it is for Bantu, there is a provision in the law which, I may say, is not affected in this clause, that no proclamation shall be issued under this section, Section 20, by which there would be included in any group area “the whole or any part of any land situated in a scheduled Native area in terms of the Native Trust and Land Act” and various other Acts referring to the same sort of property. But it is obvious that this is not intended to deal with those Native Trust Areas; it is Obviously intended to deal with land which is not at the moment land belonging to Bantu. In fact, one of the powers that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is given in terms of this is that through the Governor-General he may declare that as from a date specified in the proclamation, the area defined in the proclamation shall be an area for occupation by members of the Native group, and also to declare that as from a specified date the area defined in the proclamation shall be an area for ownership by members of the group so specified. Sir, what does the hon. the Minister have in mind?

Is that not the position at present?

I thought the Government’s policy at present was that the Bantu were to be given land in their own areas, in their homelands, but now it would seem that the Bantu are to be given land in an area which is not a Native Trust area, and that group areas are to be provided for their ownership and their occupation.

To which sub-section are you referring?

I am referring to sub-section (3), line 22, where the words occur “for the purposes of the application of Section 10”. Section 20 is the section which provides that land may be proclaimed for the ownership and occupation of members of a certain race group. But later on in Section 20 of the Act it provided that no proclamation can be issued under that section by which there would be included in any group area the whole or any part of any land situated in what is in effect Native Trust land; so what does the hon. the Minister have in mind? Is this a part of the recent pronouncement of the hon. the Prime Minister that what matters is not territorial separation but political and social separation? Is this what is intended here? Because the various clauses under which the Minister of Bantu Administration may act in terms of this Bill do not just relate to Native Trust lands; there is the question of holding an inquiry, and, Sir, you do not hold an inquiry into the application of the group areas legislation unless the area is at present being occupied by some other group, unless there is going to be a change of user in that area. Obviously you do not need an inquiry if it is a purely Native area at the moment and you propose to proclaim it as a Native area. There is no problem there. The hon. the Minister must therefore have in mind some other area, a White area, an Indian area or a Coloured area which is going to be proclaimed for the ownership and occupation of members of the Bantu race. You see, Sir various other things are brought in here. The Minister of Bantu Administration in those areas is apparently also going to have the power that the Minister of Community Development has, that is, to set up consultative and management committees for the areas in which the Bantu live. But if it is going to be proclaimed as an area for their ownership— not just for their occupation but also for their ownership—then one is entitled to assume that if these powers are taken to deal with such a situation, what the Government envisages is the prospect of Bantu living permanently in these areas …

More black spots.

That is the only conclusion that one can arrive at, that the Government intends to take land not belonging to the Bantu but belonging to the Indians or the Whites or the Coloureds at the moment and allow the Bantu permanent occupation because they are going to allow them by proclamation under Section 20 not just occupation but ownership of those areas. And then, Sir, he is going to go further just to set the seal of permanency on their presence; he is now going to provide for consultative and management committees. Sir, you will remember that when the Minister of Community Development introduced the Bill in 1962 to provide for Coloured and Indian local authorities, he declared that they were going to be developed into full, autonomous local authorities. But, Sir, I want to remind the Committee that in fact these powers and these areas in which he is going to establish consultative and management committees, with presumably the same intention as the Minister of Community Development, and of Coloured Affairs and Indian Affairs, that is to say, to let them flower into full autonomous local government bodies, refer to the setting up of such bodies within the area of a present local authority. That is the power contained in Sections 40 and 25, namely the power to set up these consultative and management committees in areas at present under the jurisdiction of the local authorities; so it would seem that the land which might be proclaimed for their ownership is going to be within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority, and we are entitled to know whether that is going to be part of a homeland, not joined perhaps, but whether it is going to be governed by one of these homelands, or whether it is going to be governed by the people in the immediate area. Sir, it seems to me that there has been a complete reversal of attitude towards this problem to which the Government has no answer in any event, and that is the problem of the Bantu living in the urban areas. Is this an admission that they are in fact a permanent part of those urban areas? I hope the hon. the Minister will explain, because this goes much further than merely to open group areas. What I notice particularly is that he gives the power to do this to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Sir, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here, but his Deputy is here, and he is the man charged with the administration of the urban Bantu. I hope that we are going to get some explanation either from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, or from the Minister of Planning as to what is envisaged here. Sir, they cannot have their cake and eat it. Either the Bantu are permanently here, in which case I understand what this means, or they are not—they are part of a homeland —in which case I do not understand what this means.

I want to ask the hon. member who has just sat down whether he has not become rather confused now. Is the position not that the present Act provides that Section 20 has to be adminisered by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development?

The Minister has gone to make inquiries.

The explanatory memorandum that was given to us together with this measure sets out the present legal position; reference is then made to a number of provisions in Clause 1 and it is explained that these provisions are still in force. It is then stated that “a reference to the Minister in Sections 5, 16, 18 or 19, paragraph (b) of sub-section (c) of Section 20, Section 25, sub-section (1) of Section 26 …” shall be construed as a reference to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. It seems to me therefore that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is just hedging here. The hon. member knows that we still have to buy a few million morgen of land to be added to the Bantu reserves …

In the urban areas?

The Group Areas Act does not deal with urban areas only: it deals with all sorts of areas throughout the Republic, and in due course, when additional land is purchased to form part of the Bantu areas, it may become necessary to take certain steps; that is precisely why reference is made here to future areas”. Sir, I do not want to make a great issue of this and quarrel with the hon. member; I just want him to go into this point carefully to see whether he is not raising a hullabaloo here about something for which provision is already made in the Act. The hon. member apparently thinks that a new power is being granted here to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. But the entire development of the Group Areas Act has always been that certain functions are first carried out by the Minister of the Interior and thereafter by the Minister of Community Development and now by the Minister of Planning, while the other functions are performed by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. That has been the position from the beginning. Generally speaking the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Planning have nothing to do with Bantu areas; these are all matters which rest with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and that is why a distinction is drawn here between the functions of these two Ministers. The one function falls under the Minister of Planning and the other falls under the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I think the hon. member should examine this point a little more closely and then give us his considered opinion as an advocate. I have a suspicion that he has not done his homework.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) happens to be a frontbencher and one would have thought that since he started the debate in the Committee Stage he would have been in a position to answer the very pertinent questions put to that side of the House by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). But, what did we have from him? We had nothing more than a smokescreen and nothing more than abuse and insults and a suggestion that the hon. member for Durban (North) has not done his homework adequately. Sir, we are not going to be put off by that sort of attitude on that side of the House. We are going to keep plugging away until we get answers to these questions from the hon. the Minister of Planning or from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who appears, if I may say so, to be very perturbed about the situation. Firstly, he goes along and consults very worriedly with the Minister of Planning and now he is consulting in the same fashion with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). Perhaps between the three of them one of them will tell us, when I sit down, what the answers are to these questions.

Tell us what the clause means.

We are asking hon. members opposite to tell us what the clause means; after all, it is their Bill.

I am asking for your interpretation of the clause.

Does the hon. member not know what this means?

I know what it means.

Sir, there are two interesting aspects of this clause. One is the actual creation of a group area for the Bantu within the jurisdiction of local authority areas, and the second aspect of it is that powers are given to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to develop in those areas consultative and management committees which, as the hon. member for Durban (North) has said, are intended to be, as it were, local government bodies for these various races. That is what we have been told is intended in respect of the Indians, and in respect of the Coloureds, and we would like to know from hon. members on that side of the House whether that is the Government’s intention also in the urban group areas.

Where do you get urban group areas for the Bantu?

Is that not exactly what is going to happen under this Bill?

No, of course not—not group areas for the Bantu.

This is an extraordinary statement from the hon. member for Pretoria (Central). I am beginning to realize now that he does not understand this sector at all. Sir, this is precisely what this section does; it gives the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development …

Under the Group Areas Act they must have ownership rights and they have not got it here.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) did not listen to the arguments of the hon. member for Durban (North), otherwise he would not make such a stupid statement here.

You are making a stupid speech.

The hon. member for Durban (North) pointed out that in terms of the new Clause 1 (c) (a), the word “Minister” in the sections referred to means the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. One of those sections is Section 20, and Section 20 is perfectly clear. It says—

1. (i) that as from a date specified in the proclamation, the area defined in the proclamation shall be an area for occupation by members of the group so specified; and
2. (b) declare that as from a date specified in the proclamation, the area defined in the proclamation shall be an area for ownership by members of the group so specified.

Sir, it is perfectly clear from these two sections read together, that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development can declare an area to be a group area not only for occupation but also for ownership by Bantu.

But he will not do so.

Why take this power then?

Sir, Obviously that relates to urban areas or at any rate areas outside the so-called Bantu homelands. Sir, having made our point twice we may now perhaps get an answer from either the Minister of Planning or the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration or perhaps the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), but I do not think he will be in a position to give us that answer.

To sum up, the two answers that we would like from the Government are, firstly what is their intention in regard to group areas for the Bantu; secondly, what is their intention with regard to consultative and management committees in areas declared for occupation by an ownership of the Bantu; what does the Government intend to do? We have, of course, a general objection to this clause.

Are you objecting to ownership?

Sir, if the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) would allow me to speak I might be able to deal with this clause.

May I put a question to the hon. member?

The hon. member for Somerset East can get up and speak for ten minutes if he wishes to do so. I would also say this to the hon. member for Somerset East: When we on this side of the House get answers to the various questions that we put to that side of the House—after all this is their Bill not ours—then we will answer some of their questions.

Speak about something that you understand.

As I was saying, we want answers to these questions. We object to this whole clause because it introduces three Ministers into the group areas legislation; it now places certain aspects of this legislation under the control of no less than three Ministers. and we believe, as we stated in the second-reading debate, that there should be one Minister who will bear over-all responsibility on behalf of the Government for what is done under this legislation which, as everybody knows, is hated amongst those people who are affected by it; those people have to move out of homes in which they and their forebears have lived for generations. We submit that under those circumstances there should be one Minister directly responsible to this House. Under this clause as it now reads that will not happen.

Order! That principle has already been accepted at the second reading.

Well. I will not press this in view of your ruling; I merely wish to state that that is the attitude of this side of the House. Sir, I propose now to sit down with a view to giving hon. members opposite an opportunity to answer the questions put to them.

Sir, you will have noticed that the hon. members for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) and Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) have no objection to the wording of this clause; they are discussing a question of principle here, and that is whether or not it is the object of the Government to establish Bantu group areas inside White areas. Mr. Chairman, the hon. members should have asked this question as long ago as 1957.

They should have asked it as long ago as 1950, when the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book.

That is perfectly true, but in 1957, when this very point was before the House, they again had an opportunity to ask this question; because Section 20 of Act 77 of 1957 provides that no group area shall be declared inside, say, a White area unless the matter has been submitted to both Houses of Parliament. Why did they not ask at that time whether it was the object of the Government to declare a Bantu area inside a White area? They are only doing so to-day because they have suddenly got a bright idea and now want to force the hon. the Minister of Planning to make a statement in regard to his plans.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) is very touchy when one interrupts him. He begrudges other members the privilege of interrupting him, but for himself he claims the privilege of interrupting other members to his heart’s content. I hope he will do unto me as he wants me to do unto him. Sir, fact is that this provision already appears in Act 77 of 1957.

Where?

It appears in Section 20 on page 1,324 in Part II of the Statutes of 1957. That section provides that no group area shall be declared in such an area unless both Houses of Parliament have been consulted, except that it may be done during the first 15 years without the matter having to be referred to both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I know our Government and I know the policy for which our party stands; I want to tell the hon. member now that we are not going to declare any Bantu group areas inside White areas. The fact of the matter is that we want to interfere as little as possible with the Act of 1957, and all we are doing here is to provide that any reference in Section 20 of Act 77 of 1957 to the Minister of Community Development shall be construed as being a reference to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Surely the hon. member for Durban (North) has no objection to that? We are only specifying the one Minister who will now do this work. But, Sir, you will see what the hon. members for Durban (Musgrave) and Durban (North) really want to know now; they want to know from the Minister of Planning where the Government is going to declare a Bantu area inside a White area. They are not interested in the wording of the section; they are not interested in the efficient administration of the Department; they are not interested in clarifying the provisions of the clause; they want to know when we are going to apply the clause. I want to suggest to them that they wait. Whenever something like this happens they can come along here and criticize the Government, but why do they now want to hear to-morrow’s news to-day? I think it is just nonsense. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Thompson) will get an opportunity to speak on this. I simply do not see how the question as to what the Government is going to do in terms of a power conferred upon it as long ago as 1957 can be discussed in consequence of an amendment to Section 20 of Act 77 of 1957 which in no way alters the merits of the case but merely specifies a different Minister. That is the issue to be dealt with, and not the declaration of a group area outside or inside a White area; the latter is already dealt with in the Act, but there is this difference now, that after 15 years we cannot declare such an area without Parliament being consulted, but that we can do so before that time …

Except in a White area.

That will never be changed.

But the section serves a further purpose in that it enables us to declare areas inside a Bantu area for sub-groups of the Bantu. This, however, is linked up with another clause which we have not yet reached. The whole of this Clause 1 deals with proclaimed and controlled areas for Bantu only. The entire basis of our approach is that Bantu belong in the Bantu homelands and in the Bantu areas. That is the approach. If hon. members are happy with that I want to make them a present of it. We on this side of the House all know this. It would seem that hon. members on the opposite side have only now discovered this fact whereas they should have known it nearly seven years ago already. But, Sir, I simply cannot understand how hon. members can discuss one thing while the clause deals with something quite different. Mr. Chairman, I think that the discussion on that point is completely out of order.

It is quite clear that the two hon. members who have spoken on the Government side have put up a smoke-screen and that we have still not had a reply from the Minister handling the Bill on important questions raised with him. In view of the fact that there is a limitation on the number of speakers who can speak on each clause, I think the time has arrived for the Minister to enter the debate and give us the required explanation.

The question has been asked why there is this change of policy. When the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) pointed out that this has been the position since 1957, hon. members opposite created the impression that this was news to them. The present Clause 1 is explained in the explanatory memorandum. There it is made clear that this very clause to which the Opposition objects already exists. The powers prescribed here and granted to the Minister of Bantu Administration are powers he has had ever since 1957 when certain functions were distributed between the Departments of Bantu Administration and Community Development. The powers being granted here to the Minister of Bantu Administration are being repeated just as they appear in the 1957 Act.

Hon. members opposite referred to the powers granted in terms of Section 20. That is correct; theoretically that can happen but in regard to Section 20 I refer to (3) (a) (i) which provides that no proclamation shall be issued under this section except with the prior approval, in each case by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, provided that any such a proclamation may be issued without such approval if it is issued before the expiration of a period of 15 years as from 7 July 1950 in respect of a group area for a group other than the Native group. This provision that it need not be approved by a Joint Sitting has already existed since 1950 and did not even apply to the Native group. When dealing with the proclamation of a Native group area outside a Bantu area, as is stated here, then one in any case, even to-day still—that was the position during the past 15 years—had to submit it to a Joint Sitting of both Houses. That was the position, and this Bill does not change it at all. No new principle is being introduced here. As far as the principle is concerned, it remains precisely the same as it has been since 1957.

I hope the hon. the Minister will forgive me if I correct one word he used. He used the word “toeligtende memorandum”. Well, this is neither explanatory nor is it a memorandum. In fact, it is a disgrace to produce something like this in the case of a Bill like this.

Read it.

I have read it. All it does is to recite the law as it is. Any fool can go to a Statute Book and have a look at a particular law. It explains nothing in this Bill at all.

The hon. Minister must explain what he has in mind when he says in this clause “for the purpose of the application of …” certain sections, two of which are Sections 25 and 26 “… to an area proclaimed for the ownership or occupation of Bantu …”, it shall be the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Section 25 of the Act which is going to be applied by the Minister of Bantu Administration, says—

And these are the important words—

How is the Minister going to apply the provisions of that section to a Native area within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority if it is not going to be in a White area? Can the hon. the Minister point to any local authority which is not within a White area? Having set up these management and consultative committees, the Minister of Bantu Administration is going to take the same powers in respect of those consultative committees because it says here “the application …” to these areas “… of Section 40 (3)bis” of the Act which is being amended here. It says the Minister may (this means the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development) make regulations in relation to consultative and management committees as to the manner in which they are to be constituted, as to the tenure of office of the members, as to the qualifications for voting and so on. If no change is being envisaged why cannot exactly the same things as set out here be done in terms of the Urban Bantu Councils’ Act? Surely that Act gives the Minister the power to deal with those areas which have already been set up. Surely the urban Bantu councils deal with the sort of place the hon. the Minister says he has in mind. Why do we need to give the Minister power under this Bill to deal with them? The powers that he has apply only to those areas in a White local authority area and if there are no such areas why does he take the power? I am sorry the hon. the Minister has not yet explained this clause to us.

He took those powers in 1950 in the original Act.

No, Sir, he did not take these powers in 1950 at all. Let me tell the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) that the power to set up consultative and management committees was only given to the Minister in 1962.

I am talking about the group areas powers.

The Minister did not have these powers because they were not there in 1950. They were only thought up in 1962.

Those powers are all in the Group Areas Act.

Of course they are in the Group Areas Act because they were put there in 1962. The 1962 amendment to the Group Areas Act provided for 43bis. The hon. member must study his Statutes and he will see that it was then that they were put in. The hon. the Minister must explain this. If the Minister says in fact he is only going to deal with areas outside and if the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) is right that they are not going to declare Bantu group areas within the existing White areas, he must explain whether he is going to create them in Coloured or Indian areas. What does the hon. the Minister have in mind? He is taking power to apply laws to Bantu in White areas. That is the point. What are those powers? They are the powers to declare an area for Bantu ownership and occupation and then to apply a system of local government to them— “people within the area of jurisdiction of a local authority”. I ask the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration: Why does he need these powers? He is the person who deals with the urban Bantu. Why does he need these powers when he has them in terms of the Urban Bantu Councils Act? There is no answer. I suggest he has another consultation with the Minister of Planning because this is a question to which we are entitled to an answer. We thought the Government had settled the question of the Bantu where they were going to be in the so-called White areas. The Government said the Bantu would all be in their homelands. We had the Bantu Laws Amendment Act of last year which provided that they should not remain in the White areas unless they had work there; they were only temporary sojourners there. And now we have a Bill which provides, not just for their presence there, but for a form of self-government for them in the White area. The Government cannot say there has been no change of attitude. Inasmuch as they live in locations and areas which are part of State land or Native Trust land, as at Umlazi in Durban, one would have thought the Urban Bantu Councils Act could be applied to them there.

Not in Umlazi; you are totally wrong.

Perhaps not in the case of Umlazi but in the case of the locations at Durban. Umlazi is now supposed to be part of their homeland. But Qua Mashu is not yet a homeland. So the Urban Bantu Councils legislation can be applied there. If that is so, in what areas will these powers in respect of consultative and management committees apply? He does not need them in the case of Umlazi. The Urban Bantu Councils Act can be applied in the case of Qua Mashu but not to Umlazi. Will these powers be exercised in Umlazi or Qua Mashu or in some third and different place? What is the reply to that? No reply.

I shall reply.

Then I shall yield to the hon. the Deputy Minister if he is going to answer because I think we should like to hear his reply.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is just being difficult, because the clause in this new Bill which refers to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has been taken over word-for-word from the definition in Act 77 of 1957. I want to point out to the hon. member that—

There it means the Minister of Native Affairs. What stands here is exactly the same.

I want to point out again that the Opposition are not interested in the wording of the clause; they are interested in what the Minister is going to do in regard to a certain matter. We discussed that subject at great length in 1957 already, and what is more, the hon. member is putting his question to the wrong Minister, because it is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who must reply to this question. [Interjections.] That is what is stated there—“Section 20, Section 25, sub-section (1) of Section 26 …” I will come to Section 26 in a moment. This is word-forword the same as what was provided as long ago as 1957. In addition the hon. member had the temerity to say that in this clause the “spoils”—which to my mind is a despicable word—were being divided among three Ministers. If there are any “spoils” they are being divided between two Ministers. It is not “spoils”, Mr. Chairman; it is efficient administration. It is to bring about efficient administration that it is being done in this way. In this instance it was laid down as long ago as 1957 that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, then still called the Minister of Native Affairs, would do the work. That is all.

Then, Sir, the hon. member wants to extract another piece of information from the hon. Minister, and that is whether he is going to establish a local authority—as though that is something new. I think the hon. member should have raised this point at the second reading, but even then it would have been out of place, because if we look at the Group Areas Amendment Act of 1957 we find that what he is complaining about is dealt with in Section 25. Section 25 provides—

Sub-section (2) is word-for-word the same as the wording he read out.

Read sub-section (1).

It provides: “The Minister may by notice in the Gazette establish for any group area a governing body to be constituted in accordance with regulation.”

Is that Section 25?

It is Section 25 of the Group Areas Amendment Act.

Of 1957?

Yes, of 1957.

Read the 1962 amendments. The Act was amended in that year.

That is not the point. What I am saying is that this matter has already been dealt with, I do not know how long ago. Now they want to extract a certain reply from the Minister in consequence of the division of powers among three Ministers. That is all they want. Whether or not there have been amendments makes no difference. The point is that we have already debated this matter at great length.

What you read out here was repealed in 1962. You are misleading the House.

I know it has been amended. My point is that this matter has been under discussion since 1957, but these questions were not asked in that year nor were they asked subsequently; these questions are being asked now for the first time in connection with a matter which is not related to that issue at all. We are now dealing with a division of powers, not with the exercise of powers. If the hon. member can get that into his cranium we will all feel much happier, and so will he. It is the division of powers that is being dealt with here, and not the exercise of powers. The latter is not under discussion, but he wants to know from the hon. the Minister how he is going to exercise these powers, and he cannot ask the Minister of Planning to tell him that because it is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development who is concerned in this matter.

I do not really know why I should take part in this debate, except to contribute a little to the amusement of the Opposition. Let me put it this way, Sir. The position was very clearly stated by former speakers, and has again been stated by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). Functions in regard to group areas work were entrusted to the Minister of Community Development in the old days and are now entrusted to the Minister of Planning, but there are various racial groups. In so far as the Bantu racial group is concerned, those functions are performed by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The function to which reference has been made and which applies in respect of other racial groups, viz. to establish a group area for a racial group, is therefore also transferred to the Minister of Bantu Administration but, as the hon. member has correctly said, we do not exercise that power. There is no such thing as a group area for Bantu in South Africa. The residential areas of the Bantu—and I am now referring to areas outside homelands—in White South Africa were all established under the Urban Areas Act and not under the Group Areas Act. No group area has been proclaimed at Nyanga or Kwa Mashu; those are urban residential areas for the Bantu under the Urban Areas Act. We prefer to use the Urban Areas Act for the proclamation of a residential area for Bantu workers who are present in the homeland of the Whites. The Group Areas Act is not used for that purpose. Therefore that function which mutatis mutandis applies to other races and which are performed by other Ministers are not being performed by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, as the hon. member for Standerton has correctly said.

In connection with the power to establish local forms of government, that power is not being exercised either. In the case of Nyanga and Kwa Mashu and numbers of others in South Africa the local government functions are exercised either in terms of the Urban Areas Act, in terms of which advisory committees are still serving (that is the old system) or under the Urban Bantu Councils Act in terms of which an urban Bantu council is established, as has already been done at Welkom and Benoni. That is clear now; I do not know what more I can say.

I must say I find the explanation given by the hon. the Minister of Planning, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) misleading, to be quite frank. I find it misleading for this reason: These hon. members have suggested to the House that the powers which the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had under the law as it stands today are precisely the same, in respect of Section 20, as they are under the proposed amendment. But that is not so.

How can you say that.

The hon. member for Standerton asks how I can say that and yet he himself read out the section from which it is quite clear that it is different. The previous definition of “Minister” said that it meant “the Minister of Community Development, provided that in relation to …” and then certain things relating to Bantu are set out “… any reference to the Minister in Sections 5, 16, 18 or 19 …” here comes the significant part “… paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 20 shall be construed as a reference to the Minister of Bantu Administration”. Sir, it is perfectly clear that under the Act, as it stands at present, the reference to the Minister of Bantu Administration, in respect of Section 20, applies only to paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section 20; not to the whole of Section 20 which is the position under the proposed amending clause. And that makes all the difference in the world because it is under sub-section (1) of Section 20 that the power is given to proclaim areas and declare them for either occupation or both occupation and ownership by members of a particular race group. It is this power which is now being given to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, a power which he did not have under the Act as it stands to-day.

He cannot declare it unless it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament by way of resolution.

That I accept; that is the position.

This House declares it; not the Minister.

It is in fact the State President who, by proclamation in the Gazette, declares it. Sub-section (3) says no proclamation shall be issued except with the prior approval, in each case, by resolution of both Houses of Parliament, etc.

What we want to know from the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development particularly, because he is the person who will be operating the power, is why is the power now being given to the Minister of Bantu Administration to cause the State President to declare an area for both occupation and ownership by Bantu?

He deals with Bantu solely; that is why.

I hope we will have an answer to this, because as this stands at the moment there can be only one explanation and that is that it is the intention to declare group areas for both ownership and occupation by Bantu.

No, there is no such intention.

Why the difference in wording then? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister concede that there is a difference in the definition? He appears neither to concede it nor to deny it. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister can deny it, Sir. Obviously there is a difference. As it stands at present it is only the power referred to in paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 20 which was given to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and as it is to be amended all the power provided for in Section 20 is being given to him, and that includes the power to declare areas for ownership and occupation by a particular racial group. We would like to know once again: Is it the Government’s intention to declare Bantu group areas?

Once again: It is not. How often must I say that?

If it is not, perhaps the Deputy Minister will explain why these powers are being given to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development under Clause 1?

It is an extraordinary situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration says “We are not going to declare group areas for the Bantu” but on the other hand the section is specifically amended to provide for such declarations. Surely the House must assume that the amendment is a deliberate one; that it is not an amendment that was made without thought. In those circumstances I suggest that the Government must either explain what the intention is if they intend persisting with the amendment as it appears in Clause 1 or, alternatively, if they do not intend to declare group areas for Bantu then surely Clause 1 ought to be amended to exclude that situation. If it is not amended to exclude that situation then we are entitled to suggest to the electorate that that is the Government’s intention.

I am sorry the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has not replied. He says there is no intention of creating any group areas for the Bantu. They are going to have their homelands and so far as they are in the “tuislande” of the Whites they will be dealt with in terms of the Urban Areas Amendment Act. Let me ask him why it is that he takes the power here to apply to Bantu areas proclaimed under the Group Areas Act the provisions of Section 24? Section 24 provides—

Reference is made to a “disqualified person”. If the hon. the Minister is going to apply this to Bantu only in Bantu areas how do you get a disqualified person? What is a disqualified person, Sir? It is a person of a different race from the one for whom that area is proclaimed. He now takes the power to apply the provisions of the Act relating to disqualified persons to certain areas. In other words the Minister has in mind that the persons already occupying are going to be different from the ones for whom he proclaims the area. And he is only concerned with Bantu. Mr. Chairman, the conclusion is irresistible that the Minister has in mind dealing with areas not Bantu areas at the moment. That may be his intention but he takes the power to deal with something else. Likewise, Sir, will the hon. the Minister explain why it is that he takes the power in terms of this clause to apply the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. Section 16 provides for buildings erected or completed after a specified date and buildings, land and premises unoccupied after that date. It says—

Permits are only required where you have disqualified people. So the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is going to administer some section dealing with buildings and permits. There is no reason for this Minister to issue a permit for occupation in any Bantu area, if the people who are going to occupy that area are going to be Bantu. Perhaps the hon. Minister will explain that. Why is it, if there is a Bantu area already and he is going to declare an area for Bantu that he is now going to take the power to issue permits? Who is he going to issue permits to? Or is he going to distinguish between various ethnic groups and say that where there were Zulus and now you have Xhosas, if the Xhosas go into a Zulu-proclaimed area, they are going to have permits? Is that what they have in mind? Quite frankly that is the only other explanation that one can give of this, and I do not believe for one moment that that would be the explanation. It deals with an area in which there are already existing buildings. Where are those areas? Where are there areas where the Bantu are going to go where they are not now, where there are already existing buildings? Where are those areas? And what buildings does the hon. Minister have in mind? You see, Sir, it just does not make sense. The hon. Minister’s explanation is not an explanation when you look at these provisions. As the hon. member for Musgrave says, either he is going to apply them … He said “ons sai dit nie uitoefen nie”. If it is not going to be applied, if it is not going to be put into practice, why does he take the powers here? He must not blame us for being suspicious. Here it is in the Act and neither of these two Ministers can give an explanation.

I have explained that and I am definitely not going to repeat myself.

The hon. Minister says that he has explained it. He has explained it in the usual way by saying that there are going to be “tuislande” for the Black people and “tuislande” for the White people.

I cannot help it if you cannot understand it.

Perhaps the hon. Minister will explain to me why he is going to take these powers to deal with disqualified persons in certain areas. Who are the disqualified persons? That is a fair question. Who are the disqualified persons he is going to deal with in terms of Section 16 of the Act?

I have dealt with this You do not want to understand or you cannot understand.

Let me tell the hon. Deputy Minister that on the explanation he gave, there are no disqualified persons, because the Bantu Group Areas are going to be in Bantu areas. Is that not what the hon. Minister said?

No, you do not want to understand.

The Minister said that the Bantu group areas will be in Bantu areas. If that is so, will there be any disqualified persons?

I did not say that the Bantu group areas would be in the Bantu areas. That is a nonsensical deduction.

The only places for ownership and occupation of the Bantu, except as places where they are working in the White areas, will be the Bantu areas?

You are talking a lot of rot now. I did not say that.

Let the hon. Minister explain: What is a disqualified person? How he is going to apply Section 16 and in relation to whom is he going to apply that section? He is going to apply it in respect of Bantu people only. But he is going to give permits to them to occupy. He is going to give permits to other race groups to occupy. In an area which is a Bantu area. He is taking that power. Why? Perhaps the hon. Minister will explain that.

I have explained that and I am not going to repeat it for your benefit. You do not want to understand.

No, the hon. Deputy Minister has not explained the permit system. He only explained the testamentary disposition powers that he is going to have. He has not explained one of these things. In view of the hon. Deputy Minister’s petulant attitude, perhaps the hon. Minister of Planning, who is in charge of this Bill, knows what the answer is. As one lawyer to another, let me tell the hon. the Minister that what I have just said makes sense, and he knows it, and I hope he will give me an explanation instead of my getting the petulance we have had from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Perhaps the hon. Minister will just explain Sections 24 and 16 in respect of the application by this Minister, that is the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

The hon. member has referred to Section 16 and says that he cannot understand why these powers are being granted now. But these powers are granted in the old Section 57 also. The existing section, which is now being replaced, already contained these powers. The old Section 57 already contained these powers of Section 16: “Any reference to the Minister in Section 16 shall be construed as a reference to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development”. We are dealing with the same powers. Why all these arguments? I think the one aspect the hon. member does not realize is this: “for the purpose of the application of Section 16 … in relation to … ” and then there are restrictive conditions. It says: “The Minister means the Minister of Community Development, provided in relation to …” So there were restrictive conditions. Therefore when Section 16 refers to the Minister of Bantu Administration it is subject to the restrictive conditions Nos. 1 to 8 as set out herein.

Does the Minister have in mind two or more different racial groups?

It has in mind three racial groups in so far as the powers are concerned, because here one has a separation of the various powers granted in the Act, and the sections referred to here, viz. 16, 18, etc., all contain the same powers, but because there is a separation and one Minister deals with it when it is a controlled area, another when it is a proclaimed area and a third when it concerns Bantu, this distinction is drawn and it is applied throughout. But as regards the application, it is a matter of policy which is being followed. But the power which existed in Section 16 embraces nothing new; it is a repetition of the position as it was before.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Would the hon. Minister explain the significance of the difference in respect of Section 20 between the Act as it stands at present and the proposed amendment? The only portion of Section 20 which is given over, as it were, to the Minister of Bantu Administration, is paragraph (b) of sub-section (3), whereas under the proposed amendment the whole of Section 20 applies.

It is correct that in the old section there is reference to Section 20 (b) and now there is reference to Section 20, but only in so far as it relates to it (it is only in so far as it is within the power of the Minister concerned to apply). Nothing new is provided by it.

I now wish to deal with another aspect and a section which has not up to now been dealt with by this Committee at all and that is Clause 1 (b) (a) (iii), which says—

1. (iii) any area referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 21 which is declared to be an area for future occupation or future ownership by members of the Bantu group or of any group defined under sub-section (2) of Section 10 consisting of members of the Bantu group.

Section 21 is the section which deals with future group areas and it says that the State President may, whenever it is deemed expedient by proclamation in the Gazette, define an area and declare that such area shall be an area for future occupation or future ownership by members of the Bantu group. Well, the significant aspect of this is that Section 21, which is now being handed over to the Minister of Bantu Administration for the purposes set out here, is not included amongst the sections which were handed over to the Minister of Bantu Administration before: Section 21 and then Section 25, yes; but not Section 21. In view of the Deputy Minister’s statement that the Government does not intend to declare new group areas for the Bantu, what is the meaning of this here, this clause 1 (b) (a) (iii)?

Exactly the same as the other.

The hon. Deputy Minister cannot just escape this by saying that it is exactly the same. It states specifically “any area referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 21 which is declared to be an area for future occupation or future ownership by members of the Bantu group …” This specifically envisages areas to be declared for Bantu occupation and ownership, and that provision is a new one and did not exist in the previous Act; in any event it states clearly that it envisages areas for Bantu ownership and occupation. That being so it seems to make nonsense of the statement of the Deputy Minister that that is not the Government’s intention. So I go back to what we on this side of the House have said: Everything to do with Clause 1 seems to make it clear that the Government does intend to declare Bantu group areas.

Do not talk such nonsense!

If hon. members on that side of the House regard that as talking nonsense perhaps they will explain these provisions particularly this provision that I have just referred to. How can that possibly be included, that is to say this amendment, if it is not the intention to declare Bantu group areas? Perhaps the hon. member for Randfontein, who suggested that I was talking nonsense will get up and explain what is the purpose of this clause. If the hon. member will not explain it, perhaps another hon. member or perhaps one of the Ministers will get up and tell us what the purpose of this clause is, if it is not the Government’s intention to declare Bantu group areas in the urban areas. It does appear that the Government members, including the hon. Ministers, are having difficulty in explaining to us the significance of this clause.

You do not want to understand.

The hon. Deputy Minister keeps on saying that we do not understand. Here the language is very clear, but they gave us no explanation. As the hon. Deputy Minister persists in his statement, perhaps he will get up and explain to us the significance of the reference to Section 21.

The hon. member is now referring to Section 1 (c) (a) (iii). That refers to the functions, in so far as that section is concerned, which are entrusted to the Minister of Bantu Administration. Refer now to this relevant section and I will now read precisely the same section in the principal Act. the wording is precisely the same, viz. the old Section 1 (b) (c)—

There is not a single new word in this clause.

Then what is the meaning if you do not intend having Bantu group areas?

Hon. members opposite are continually saying that a new power is being created here. That is the argument they use. There are certain ulterior motives because a new power is being created here. I have now read out to show that the old wording was precisely the same in the 1957 Act. No new powers whatever are being created.

Then what is the meaning?

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 2,

As we made clear during the second-reading debate, one of the reasons why we are opposed to this Bill is that it provides for a division of functions amongst three Ministers, and in this Clause 2 certain functions are now being taken over by the Minister of Planning and his staff. For that reason we are opposed to this clause and I wish merely to state this. The principle has been accepted and we will Obviously not be allowed to discuss the principle in detail, but I wish to make clear the attitude of this side in regard to Clause 2 and why we will vote against the clause.

I want to ask the hon. Minister—I do not want to move an amendment now—whether he will consider giving the board the power to hear representations from people who may have in a bona fide way missed the Gazette or the newspaper, so that they can still make representations in terms of this clause. I think the hon. Minister should consider giving the discretion to the board to hear certain evidence if they have not applied in time. I do not want to move an amendment, but would like the hon. Minister to consider this.

There is an old legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That also applies here. If the advertisement has appeared and representations are made and the board has given a decision, the hon. member must appreciate that it would then be very difficult to grant such permission.

But at the hearing, when the board hears applications … Some may have missed the time for the hearing, but I think the board should have the right to hear their evidence.

They will be allowed to make representations.

Clause put and agreed to. (Official Opposition dissenting.)

On Clause 3,

This clause belongs to the Minister of Community Development, who is not here, but the hon. Minister of Planning could perhaps give the explanation I require. The provision here is for inquiries by officers of the Department. Now the inquiries held under the Group Areas Act were normally inquiries conducted by the Group Areas Board, a board which in terms of the previous clause, that is Clause 2, will now fall under the Department of Planning. Now the Group Areas Board for the determination of group areas is now a board advising the hon. Minister of Planning. The hon. Minister of Community Development, in order to fulfill his functions, is obliged also to cause inquiries to be made. Those inquiries are not to be held as they are required to be held for the Minister of Planning by a board. They are to be held by a single official of the Minister of Community Development’s Department in relation to matters which formerly required an inquiry by the board. Now, it will be done by a single officer. I appreciate that the board could delegate its powers to a single member, but that was a board which delegated its powers. Here there is no board at all. Here the person concerned is an officer of the Department. Now in the first place I do not think this is usual in such cases. The board was set up for a purpose. The reason why a group areas board was set up was so that you would have in fact a body divorced from the Department, divorced from the Minister and his particular departmental head and they then held their inquiry independently and submitted their report. Now there are several matters which the hon. Minister of Community Development will have to deal with and they relate to the same sort of thing, particularly permits—whether there should be permits for occupation and so on—which are very important. To give this to one single officer of the Department, does not appear to be in keeping with the history of this kind of inquiry under this Act. The board was an independent board. I also want to say that it is hardly fair to an officer of the Department to get him to conduct an inquiry of this nature. He is there to carry out the policy, to carry out the administration of the Department as determined by the Cabinet. His function is to carry out the decisions of the executive, of the Cabinet. To put him in a position that he not only has to do that, but has also to appear to act as an independent investigator, prepared to hear all sides and come to a completely independent decision and to make a completely independent recommendation, is hardly fair to that particular officer of that Department. But whether he is able to do so or not, you know that there is an adage that justice must not only be done, but it must seem to be done. And this official is going to be put in an invidious position. This is not a board independent of the Minister. He is a man, an officer, in his Department, whose job it is to carry out the policy determined by the Minister. In those circumstances, perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain why it is that the same procedure as applies now to this hon. Minister, namely that a board shall make these inquiries and report to him, was not followed. It seems to me that it could quite easily have been followed here. It would only mean the appointment of a few more people. Perhaps the Minister could explain.

The board only acts to advise the Minister of Planning. I think that is clear from the section we have just passed. But if the hon. member refers to Clause 2 or the old Section 5, he will notice that we have just deleted subsections (b) and (c) of the old Section 5. In terms of the old Section 5 (b) and (c) and the proviso added to it, “provided that in respect of the matters referred to in paragraphs (b) or (c) an inquiry may be held and a report may be furnished to the Minister by an officer designated thereto by the Minister, and in such event no notice under sub-section (2) shall in the matter in question be investigated”. So in terms of the old Section 5, which has now been amended* the Minister could refer the matters mentioned in (b) and (c) to officers. That is being repeated now in the new Clause 5bis with which we are dealing now. You will see that the powers in (a) and (b) are exactly the same as in (b) and (c) of the old section. That means that as far as ah three of these ministers are concerned not only the Minister of Community Development, but also as far as the Minister of Planning is concerned, certain matters can be dealt with by officials and they have the same powers they had in the previous section.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

The second part of this clause, sub-clause (b), provides for the delegation of powers. Whereas before the Minister could delegate certain powers to various people, it is here provided that not just the provisions of Section 5, which deals with the question of inquiries, and Section 38, which deals with the question of the Minister having to consider reports, and Section 37, which deals with the question of notice when disposing of illegal property, matters which could easily be delegated by the Minister—but it is provided now that any provision of this Act relating to the exercise of any powers or the performance of any functions by the Minister shall mutatis mutandis apply with reference to the exercise of any such powers or the performance of any such functions by any person by virtue of a delegation by the Minister under this section. Now, in order to implement and administer an Act such as the Group Areas Act in all its ramifications, it is necessary for the Minister to have a discretion. In fact, the history of the Group Areas Act has been one of breaking it down, from the time it was first introduced, from an Act which was declared to be straightforward and to be concerned with the division of South Africa into various areas for various race groups, which the Government confidently expected in 1950 would be completed in July of this year—it has been broken down to the position where hard and fast rules could not be drawn, and so discretions have been introduced. In fact, everyone in every area in South Africa to-day lives by virtue of permission; he lives there by virtue of a permit, and in the granting or withholding of permits for occupation or use for certain purposes, the life of every South African is affected, and it is no mean thing to grant or refuse a permit under the Group Areas Act. It could mean the difference between having a business to-day and not having it to-morrow. It could mean the difference between having a home to-day and not having a home to-morrow. It could mean the difference, in the end, between abandoning one’s former way of life and one’s friends and having to move to a new and unknown area and starting one’s life socially all over again. What determines whether or not what one can continue to occupy is a discretion which rests with the Minister. Ultimately that discretion is with the highest authority in that particular field, in that State Department, and it is the Minister who is responsible to this House and to the public. The Minister is now allowed to give any discretion he has under this Act to an official. He is allowed to delegate the discretions he has. I want to say that I do not regard it as being proper for such delegations to be made to officers in the Public Service. Delegations of this nature are very often of a political nature, or let me put it this way, they are very often constructed as being of a political nature. It is not fair to the members of the Public Service to load on to them decisions such as this. Ultimately it is a matter of policy whether in this instance or that instance a person is going to be allowed to continue to occupy a certain house, whether members of a certain group will be allowed to live there at all after a certain date. There are many areas—almost every area—where after a date has been fixed by which all the members of a certain race group have to go, the period can be extended. In fixing matters of this sort, surely the hon. the Minister does not intend also to give away his discretion, because if he intends doing that then he is abandoning his responsibility in terms of this legislation, and he should not do so. Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether he will abandon the exercise of his discretion, and if he is, he should indicate whether he might accept an amendment to exclude from the delegation that he will make to officers of the Public Service the power of discretion, any power which is to be exercised entirely at the whim of the Minister, in other words, the rights of the public in terms of this legislation are put very often at the whim of the Minister, and my point is that they should not be put at the whim of an officer of the Public Service, not only because it is not fair to that officer but also because it is the responsibility of a person of the standing of the Minister who can more easily be held responsible and be brought to book, if necessary, before this House. Because it is not only officers of the Public Service but it refers to the performance of any such function by any person by virtue of the delegation. So it is not only public servants but anyone else to whom the Act allows the Minister to delegate his powers.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has no real objection to this provision as it stands. What he does object to is that the Minister will delegate his discretion, and by implication he is already beginning to express the criticism that the persons to whom this discretion is delegated will exercise it badly.

I never said that.

*Dr. COERTZE: I say “by implication”. If that is not the case then I beg his pardon. Sir, I should like to discuss the merits of such a provision, but before doing so I just want to say that I am deeply disappointed at the remark he made that important issues are involved in this particular instance. I agree that important issues are involved here, but I am disappointed that he tried to create the impression that a man who has a house to-day may not have it to-morrow. Surely he knows that is an absolutely ridiculous statement, besides being a dishonest one, because when a group area is declared or some person is affected the matter is investigated; the whole world knows about it and all the newspapers write about it. It is just not true that we can affect these people by a mere flick of the wrist. That is not what the hon. member said in this connection, but it is the impression he is trying to create and the suspicion he is trying to stir up against the good faith of the people who are administering this Act. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself.

But let us examine this delegation. The rule is that an agent cannot appoint another agent without the consent of the principal. When Parliament grants certain powers to the Minister he has to exercise such powers as the agent of Parliament. He himself cannot appoint another agent. But here Parliament now provides that the Minister may appoint a further agent; this constitutes an amendment to our common law on this point, but what is the true position in such a case? Which the rule is that the person to whom power is delegated may not further, delegate we still have all the other rules governing agency as well, namely, that when the principal appoints an agent and he grants the agent the power to appoint a sub-agent, the responsibility still rests with the original principal; in other words, the Minister is primarily responsible to Parliament for doing this work. He has appointed some other person, but he remains responsible for the way in which the discretion is exercised by the person to whom it has been delegated. The hon. member for Durban (North) may not agree, but these are the facts. It is true that when a discretion is delegated it does not mean to say that the Minister, as the principal, will not exercise supervision, if he is asked to do so, over the way in which the discretion is exercised on his behalf. In the same way as hon. members come along in Parliament and, as principals, ask the Minister how he has exercised his powers, the Minister in turn may also ask how the powers delegated by him have been exercised; and if the Minister can ask this question the hon. member for Durban (North) can also ask the Minister this question. The opportunity to criticize is therefore not being lessened, and that is the essence of democracy, that one has the right to criticize with impunity the people who have been instructed to do certain things. The fact that the Minister has the power to appoint a sub-delegate does not lessen this responsibility. If the hon. member thinks that the Minister, by so doing, is trying to create an opportunity for himself to avoid his responsibilities, then he is mistaken not only as far as the characters of the Ministers of this Government are concerned, but also as far as the true legal position is concerned.

There is another matter that deserves our attention, and that is that it is absolutely essential that this work should be done quickly and efficiently, and if the Minister is saddled with all these matters it will eventually become impossible for him to attend to any other matters. It is absolutely essential for the Minister to have the power to appoint other people so that the work can continue and so that we can have efficient administration. Does the hon. member want to suggest that the administration must not be efficient? What is more, anyone who is well-informed in matters of public administration knows that whatever the law may provide, when the Minister has a discretion he allows himself to be guided by the people doing the work. It is ture that he attends to all matters submitted to him, and that he has the power to accept or reject anything that is submitted to him; it is also true that the law places an obligation upon him to consider the matter. [Interjections.] Of course. Is the hon. member for Musgrave not aware of the famous court case where a certain Minister of Lands under the United Party Government was ordered “to apply his mind to the matter”? Sir, the point is that we cannot promote efficiency of administration if we canalize all the decisions that are taken to one person, even if he is a superman, which the Minister is not. I think the hon. member for Durban (North) thinks he has a sound point, but his objection does not relate to the merits of the clause; his objection is that the discretion will be exercised badly. I want to repeat that I have the unpleasant feeling that he is really objecting to the way in which the discretion will be exercised.

I want to support the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and I am afraid I have not been impressed by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze). He has attempted to justify the delegation of power by the Minister, but he has not been very convincing. I want to use one example. The hon. the Minister in terms of this clause has the power to delegate his authority to any person.

That is not anything new.

No, it is not, and one accepts that in many cases where the work is so heavy one cannot function without some delegation of authority. I am not quibbling about that, but what I am quibbling about is that there is acceptable delegation in certain cases and delegation in other cases which we are not prepared to accept. There is delegation where the whole future of people’s lives depends on the decision, where the Minister’s overriding authority, after recommendations are made to him, is so vast and great that in our opinion he is the only individual qualified to form a judgment, and not on second-hand or third-hand opinion.

But he is still responsible.

In a recent case the chairman of one of these inquiries held within the last few months, in response to a question put to him at a public gathering where the whole matter was being discussed, made it quite clear that although he as the Chairman of the Investigating Committee had to submit a report, he would submit his report to the Central Committee of the Republic, but that there was no obligation on that central body in any way to accept anything he had submitted in his recommendations, although he had the benefit of first-hand information through consultation with the people concerned. But he went further than that. He want on to make it clear to his audience of about 600 people that not only had the Central Board no need to accept his recommendations, but they in turn reported to the Minister and the Minister, in terms of the legislation, is not forced to accept any of the recommendations put before him, but could come to an entirely different decision. That being so, particularly in a matter such as this—and here I differ from the hon. member for Standerton—the hon. member for Durban (North) has rightly said that a man can one day have a house or a business and next day he has nothing. That was not meant to mean that his house would be knocked down overnight, but in principle it means much the same thing. But it goes further than that because under these provisions the Minister really has the power to completely change the whole aspect of the life of a particular area. He can change the economic structure of a particular area. He can almost overnight change the whole type of living in that area. Those are powers which are far too sweeping and vast to be allowed to be delegated to any other person. It is a power which Parliament has conferred on the Minister, and is that type of power which should rest with the Minister. It rests with the Minister by virtue of the fact that eventually, despite all the investigations on the spot by others, the final decision rests with the Minister himself. But he could come to a far sounder decision if he had conducted the investigation or had not delegated his power to conduct that investigation. As we have said repeatedly, in these particular matters we are not dealing just with bricks and mortar but with human beings and their lives and hopes and aspirations. That needs a far more intelligent application of one’s mind to the problem, and it also needs a far more humane application of one’s mind.

Do you suggest that the officials are not humane?

I am not suggesting that at all, but they are not competent to judge. The Minister is the man whom Parliament said was competent to judge.

Do you suggest that they are incompetent?

I am not suggesting that they are incompetent for the work for which they were appointed, but I am stating that they are not the people to whom Parliament delegated this authority. I will say this, that some of the officials we have met were as humane as possible, and some of them went out of their way to try to help, but they were bound in official fetters from which they could not escape. They were limited in what they could do. Their decisions were practically made for them in many ways, long before they started, because, as they told me, finally it rested not with what they recommended but with what was decided irrespective of those recommendations. We say that the individual who is responsible for making these decisions is the man who should be responsible for the investigation.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) fails to appreciate one important point, and that is that it remains the responsibility of the Minister. Under our system of government the Minister remains responsible for everything that happens in his Department. What objection can he have to that? Or does he want to suggest that once we have passed this Act the Minister will no longer have any responsibility? Is that what he wants to say? I should very much like a reply from the hon. member. If that is what he wants to say, then the hon. member for Simonstown does not have the faintest idea of the way in which the State is governed. Even though the Minister has delegated the discretion, it still remains his responsibility, irrespective of who exercises the discretion. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) says that is not the position. The fact of the matter is that Parliament carries the responsibility in the first instance. Parliament imposes a duty upon and grants a power and a discretion to the Minister, and Parliament is entitled to ask the Minister how he has exercised his discretion and to criticize him if it thinks that he has done so in an unfair way. The Minister delegates these things, and all of them apply mutatis mutandis to the person to whom they have been delegated. Therefore the hon. member for Simonstown still has the right to criticize the Minister if his officials act in an inhuman way; in any case, he believes that the officials are much more humane than the Minister. He said so a moment ago. And if they are more humane than the Minister they will perform these functions much better than the Minister would, so what is he complaining about? He ought to be very glad; he ought to object to the words “mutatis mutandis,’’ because then he will relieve them of the obligation resting upon the Minister. We are not relieving the Minister of his obligations, nor is the Minister trying to evade them. The hon. member for Simonstown must just keep this point in mind, that the key-note of the whole of this legislation still is that the Minister is responsible for what happens in his Department, and this clause does not alter that in any way.

To reply to the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) very briefly, how many times have we in Parliament had a decision conveyed to us by a Minister and when we criticize it we are told that the Minister has acted on the recommendation of this or that committee or individual and the Minister says that that individual having carried out the investigation and having made a recommendation, the Minister has no other ootion but to accept the report put before him. That being so, what right has Parliament, and what chance has it, of taking that individual to task? We say the Minister is the man to whom Parliament has delegated the authority, and Parliament has the necessary machinery whereby we can convey our disapproval to the Minister if we disapprove of his action. We cannot do that with an official of the State. Parliament does not interfere with officials. They should be kent out of the political arena altogether, and as has already been said, many of these decisions have a political basis. That is one of our main objections, that we are removing from Parliament the right to criticize or to deal with a Minister with whose conduct we are not satisfied. I would like the hon. member for Standerton to understand that.

Before calling upon the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) to speak, I just want to say that hon. members may not discuss the principle of delegation any further. It is something that does not properly belong here, and I think what has been said by the hon. member for Standerton and the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) is well known to all.

Sir, if I should offend against your ruling you must please warn me, because I am not quite sure whether what I am going to say now will be in accordance with your ruling. I should just like to bring this point to the notice of the hon. Member for Simonstown, and that is that in this House no Minister has ever taken refuge behind a decision taken by a board when he has possessed discretionary power. If there has been a single instance where a Minister has advanced a decision taken in his Department as some sort of alibi or excuse, then it is because Parliament granted discretionary power to that person or board and not to the Minister. All we can say in such a case is that Parliament in its wisdom or its unwisdom granted the discretionary power to the wrong person. In this particular case, however. I just want to say that the responsibility of the Minister …

Order! The hon. member has already said that.

Then I will content myself with my explanation to the hon. member for Simonstown. I must say that I am sorry that I have to prepare some of my hon. friends for the argument before we can advance it.

As far as the principle of delegation of authority is concerned, I think the position could be made a lot clearer if I put a point of view to the Minister which I think could be followed with advantage in the administration of this particular Act. Sir, I am not referring now to the principle of delegation. Where authority is delegated, it is done in order to carry out the policy or the decisions of a person or body in a superior position, that is to say, Parliament and then the Minister. Where decisions are made which are adverse to the applicant, the machinery and the rigmarole of getting them straightened out are irksome and offensive. I think that that is why you will find that hon. members on this side are so critical when the Government decides to delegate powers to officials. Officials with the best will in the world cannot be expected to know what the Minister thinks, although many of them do. There are aspects which come into the picture which are not satisfactory from the point of view of the applicant. That is why, at the second reading, I appealed to the Minister for some form of appeal which, I think, is the correct thing in all these matters of delegated powers. It is the practice in all bodies to delegate powers, but those powers should only be to carry out a policy which has already been decided upon. When an applicant comes before such an official and makes application for a certain course of action and his application is refused, that is the time when delegated powers fall into disrepute. I do make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that there should be some easier means of review than the long rigmarole which is provided for in sub-section 4. It provides that the matter may go back to the Minister.

I think this argument covers a much wider field than the power given to the Minister to delegate his powers. Let us see what Section 10 says. This section empowers the Minister to delegate his power to three officials, namely, the secretary, or the deputy-secretary or the under-secretary of his Department. The power is only delegated to these senior officials in the Department; it is not a general power; it is limited. Power is given under (a) to delegate the power to give notice. That only refers to the Minister of Community Development. Moreover, as far as Section 24 is concerned, when one deals with testamentary dispositions, it often happens that it is not possible to dispose of a group area proclamation or to act in terms thereof, and an extension then has to be granted. That power is delegated. Section 27 deals with the survey of areas about to be proclaimed in terms of the Act. It is, therefore, not a wide power which is being given here; it is an essential step which has to be taken before an area is proclaimed. The final power granted is that contained in Section 37, namely, to sell property when it is illegally occupied. Only these four powers are being conferred on these three persons. But let us also look at Section 19, which also gives the right to delegate power; it empowers the Minister to delegate his power to a member of the board or to an official in the Public Service. The Minister may, subject to such provisions as he may lay down, delegate such of his powers in terms of Section 16 or 18 as he deems fit to the secretary of the board. Section 16 deals with the allocation of plots. To give a practical example, when a new building is erected in a defined area for Whites, a building not formerly occupied, the Minister has the right to lay down that that building shall only be occupied by Whites. For the rest it deals with the issue of permits. Those are the powers delegated in (b). They are limited powers therefore. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) spoke about the right to appeal. In this connection I want to refer him to sub-section (4) of Section 19, which reads as follows—

In all these cases, therefore, there is a right of appeal. It is a limited power. As far as the more important powers are concerned, those can only be delegated to the most senior officials. Then there are certain minor powers which are delegated to officials, but in all these cases there is a right to appeal.

The hon. the Minister is quite right in saying that the delegation of these powers applies only to those persons whose offices are listed in subsection (a), but that is not the point. The point is that the hon. the Minister could formerly delegate certain powers in this respect under Section 5, relating to enquiries, under Section 28, relating to the consideration of reports and under Section 37 relating to notices when disposing of illegal property. Those are matters in respect of which one can understand that the hon. the Minister would want to delegate his powers but provision is now made for any provision in this Act relating to the exercise of any powers or the performance of any function by the Minister to apply mutatis mutandis with reference to the exercise of any such powers or the performance of such functions by any person by virtue of a delegation. Certainly it is only the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, or the Undersecretary of the Department, but, Sir, what is the Minister’s main function in administering the Group Areas Act? The main function in administering this Act is the granting of permits to occupy, permits to be present at or in or upon any premises; permits to attend a concert, permits to hold a concert, permits such as we have at Maynardville now to the Red Cross to hold a pageant, permits authorizing people to attend that pageant; in fact, permits for everyone who wants to do anything or go anywhere which is not in the immediate environments of the area zoned for his group’s occupation to be present there. That is the function of the Group Areas Act to-day; that is what it means to-day. You cannot find out to-day what your rights are by looking at the Group Areas Act or the Community Development Act, or any other Act in this regard. You do not know from day to day what your rights are; it depends on whether a Minister will be good enough to give permission to be present at a certain place or to do or to say what you want. That, Sir, is what the Group Areas Act is to-day and that is what is involved in this Clause. What is involved in this Clause is the Minister’s power—and only he has the power—to determine whether you can go to the Luxurama, whether you can go to the Red Cross Carnival at Maynardville, whether you can go to a concert in the City Hall, whether you can go and watch a football match. That is the Group Areas Act to-day;

Order! That has always been the case.

With respect, Sir, that has always been the case but this is the first time that the power to give a permit is to be delegated by a Minister to an official of the Department.

No, definitely not. Read (b).

The words taken out are “the provisions of Sections 5, 28 and 37,” relating to the exercise …

Those powers can be delegated.

Yes.

Only those powers and those in Section 19(b) of the old Act.

Sir, that is not what this sub-clause says, It says, “any provision of this Act relating to the exercise of any powers or the performance of any functions by the Minister shall mutatis mutandis apply with reference to the exercise of such powers or the performance of any such function by any person by virtue of a delegation by the Minister.”

Only to these persons to whom the authority is delegated.

Yes, only to those persons but that does not make it any better to me. It does not improve the position as far as I am concerned that high officials or the secretary of the Department and the Deputy-Secretary and the Under-Secretary are to exercise these powers. I think it is a most invidious position in which to place the Secretary of a Department to decide whether permits should be granted to certain people to attend a certain football game. It is not his job to determine in each specific instance whether the State Policy should or should not be applied. His job is to carry out the functions of his Department and it is for the Minister to make a decision. I think it puts the Secretary of the Department in a most invidious position. Surely the Minister does not have the power to delegate to a member of his Department his powers to grant a permit …

What does Section 19 (l)(b) mean if he does not have that power?

It says—

That is the part that we are amending here—

He could always delegate that power.

So all the Ministers now are to delegate all their powers?

No.

Clause (a) says it is not just the Minister of Community Development that can now do it; it is the Minister of Community Development, the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He also has the power to make determinations in respect of permits. Sir, who is going to determine in each particular instance who gets what permit for which occasion? I take it that if I wish to hold a function in a controlled area or if, for example, the Red Cross wishes to hold a pageant in Maynardville, and Maynardville is in a controlled area, then this hon. Minister or one of his officials will make the decision, but if it is in a group area proclaimed for White ownership— I do not know whether Maynardville is in such an area or not—then it is the hon. the Minister of Community Development who does this. Sir, what is the policy in this regard? It is not the function of the persons to whom these powers are to be delegated to determine the policy. Sir. my point is that the Minister did not have the power to delegate functions; he had the power to delegate functions, but when he delegates his functions then “the provisions of the Act relating to the exercise of the powers by the Minister shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to the powers of the delegatee,” and that means, as far as I am aware, that for the first time where a discretion is given by Parliament to a Minister to determine policy in each and every instance—and that is what is involved—that complete discretion is now given to an official. It is a most invidious position in which to place officials. Surely it is the concern of the Minister or that of his colleagues, the Minister of Community Development or the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

They may have different policies.

Quite, they may well have three different policies. In fact, it seems that they have different policies within the Department. It seems that they say one thing and something else happens. Sir, there was a football match the other day which was off and then it was on and then it was off again. Why? Because the Minister did not know what he was saying or what he was doing or perhaps the Minister was not consulted, or perhaps one Minister or one Department decided to ban something or not to ban something or not to allow a certain group to go to the football game, whereas in fact they discovered that the place where the football match was to be held was not in a proclaimed area but in some other area. Sir, what sort of policy is going to be applied in this regard? If it is going to be left to individual officers of the service what is going to happen? I know that members of the service have no politics, but they have a different approach perhaps in these matters. The Minister, however, has only one approach and that is the Government’s policy. Sir, what sort of nonsense is this going to produce? It has produced enough nonsense in the hands of the Ministers with the decisions that they make, and if these powers are going to be exercised by groups of officials, unconnected with each other, officials whose minds do not meet on policy—because that is not their function—then the whole question of group areas is going to become complete nonsense. [Time limit.]

I want to start off by referring to the statement just made by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) about the group areas being complete nonsense. I think he is being very fair in using that very moderate term. I would like to refer to Section 19 (4) to which the hon. the Minister has drawn attention and which reads—

At this stage I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that means that automatically all decisions by the gentlemen who are now being given delegated power will not become effective …

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the existing law.

Sir, I am asking a question.

The hon. member must confine himself to this clause.

Sir, I accept your ruling. I am merely asking the hon. the Minister a question. To-day, under the present law. there is delegation only in respect of three sections of the Act. The Minister is now amending the Act by taking authority to delegate his powers in respect of all the provisions of the Act.

No.

Sir, the words “the provisions of Sections 5. 28 and 27” are proposed to be deleted from the principal Act, and subsection 3 of Section 19 is to be substituted by the following provisions—

It applies to matters delegated by the Minister.

Yes, that I appreciate. You are not limiting your delegation now to those three sections …

The Minister has no powers of delegation except under paragraphs (a) and (b).

I think we are at cross-purposes, Sir. Let us just get clarity with regard to this matter. Section 19 provides that the Minister may delegate certain powers, and he now proposes to delete in sub-section (3) of Section 19, the words “the provisions of Sections 5. 28 and 37”, and to substitute for those words—

In other words, here we have a blanket delegation of power.

No, you are quite wrong. Read the whole clause; you cannot stop that.

Sir, I am trying to be constructive. This Minister is a very spoilt Minister; he thinks that every time we get up on this side we want to be destructive, but he is quite wrong. We want this law to be workable and understandable. The Minister says that I am wrong, but I do not see how anybody else could read it any other way. It is perfectly clear that the provisions of Sections 5, 28 and 37 will now not apply. Will the hon. the Minister tell me why he is adding the words “ ‘any provisions of this Act’ relating to the exercise of any powers or the performance of any functions by the Minister shall mutatis mutandis apply with reference to the exercise of any such powers or the performance of any such functions by any person by virtue of a delegation by the Minister under this section?” Sir, I am not opposed to it, but to me it appears to be a blanket delegation. Will you permit me now. Sir, to refer to the present law which says that any person who is dissatisfied may appeal within 60 days? All I want to know, if you will permit me to put the question, is this: Will any decision by any official under what is now a blanket delegation of powers be stayed automatically for 60 days to permit an appeal to be made? Sir, that is important. The next point I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is this: Will he instruct these gentlemen to whom he delegates these powers that they must give notice to affected persons that they have the right to appeal? I take it that that will be done. Let me say at once that nothing that I say is intended to reflect in any way upon the three gentlemen referred to in the Act. I can say from my own experience that the officials have always been most anxious to help and I think we should compliment them on the way in which they have tried to help. But, as we have said before, the officials are there to carry out a law, and it is no good saying that officials will be humane in carrying out the law; the law is there to be carried out. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether all actions will be stayed automatically for 60 days to permit of an appeal as allowed under the principal Act.

Mr. Chairman …

Why do you not join the Progressive Party?

Why don’t you go home?

I think the point is really that under sub-section (1) of Section 19 the Minister is empowered to delegate the powers under certain sections to certain persons. the secretary or the deputy-secretary or the under-secretary of his Department. Under sub-section (b) he is also allowed to delegate the powers under two of the same sections, Sections 16 and 18, to a member of the board or an officer of the Public Service. As the Act stands at present, and in terms of subsection 3 of Section 19, the position at present is that if the Minister does delegate any of these powers under those sections, it is only the provisions of three sections which the officials take over, that is to say, the provisions of Sections 5, 28 and 37; in other words, they exercise those powers delegated to them subject to the powers and functions which the Minister has under those three sections. The difference in the proposed amendment lies in the fact that the officials to whom the powers are delegated will now exercise those functions by taking over all the powers and functions of the Minister as set out in the Act, not only the powers and functions which are given to the Minister under those three sections. That is where the difference lies, and because that is an extension—not an extension of the delegation so much but an extension of the powers and functions in terms of which the delegation is exercised—this undoubtedly does extend the delegation itself. For that reason all the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House, particularly by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), apply and the objections raised by hon. members on this side have not been met by hon. members opposite. In particular the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) has said that the Minister must review all decisions …

I say that he takes the responsibility.

The hon. member for Standerton has now changed …

No, those are the words I used. I did not use the word “review”. You do not understand Afrikaans; that is what is wrong with you.

The hon. member for Standerton must not try to get out of his difficulty by suggesting that I do not understand what he says.

I told the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) that it was the Minister’s responsibility.

Sir, the hon. member for Standerton is, of course, right in this respect that where the Minister delegates power the responsibility remains with the Minister.

Now you are putting it correctly.

To that extent the hon. member for Standerton is correct. Sir, I would like to deal with that aspect of it at some length. The hon. member for Standerton has suggested that, because the Minister bears the responsibility, there will not be any prejudice to anybody because, if they feel that the official concerned has made an unjust decision, they can complain to the Minister, who will reconsider the position, and if he agrees that the decision has been unjust, he will change it. I accept also that the Minister has the power to change a decision, but the point is this: How is a person who is dissatisfied with a decision given by an official going to get to the Minister to lay his complaint before the Minister? First of all, in most cases the individual concerned will not even know that the Minister bears the final responsibility and that the Minister can change the decision. They will not even know it, so, although they are dissatisfied, they will feel that they have to accept the situation. In any event I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the officials concerned are going to tell persons who are dissatisfied that, if they are dissatisfied, they can always ask the Minister to review the decision? Of course they will not do that— and here I am not reflecting on the officials concerned, but the point is that, if that were done, the Minister would be overburdened, and then he might as well take the decision in the first place. Clearly, therefore, the officials concerned are not going to suggest that to aggrieved persons. They will simply give their decision and leave it to the aggrieved person to do what he likes. Secondly, if the Minister Joes review the decision, he will only do it from the records which the official concerned may have; he is obviously not going to get the individuals concerned before him to go through the whole thing as the officials did, because, if that was the Minister’s intention, he would have provided for an appeal to him from the decisions of these officials. However, no appeal is provided for in this section, so clearly it is not intended that there should be an appeal to the Minister. It will only be in exceptional cases that any aggrieved person will ever put his case before the Minister and ask the Minister to change the decision and alleviate his hardship. Although in theory it is perfectly correct to say that the Minister bears the responsibility for the decisions in practice that will not help an aggrieved person to any extent at all.

He can always appeal to the Minister.

The hon. member for Standerton says he can always appeal to the Minister. Had he listened a moment ago, instead of talking to the hon. the Minister, he would have heard that I dealt with this question of appeals. For his benefit I shall deal with it again, as I have a little time available. The position is this: that if an appeal to the Minister was intended, it would have been provided for in this section. Does the hon. member for Standerton not accept that?

Carry on.

I am asking the hon. member for Standerton; he suggested that an aggrieved person could appeal to the Minister.

May I ask a question? Are there any provisions in the Judicature Act providing that there is an appeal after a judge has given his judgment? It is obvious.

Sir, I would have thought the hon. member for Standerton, who claims to be a professor of law, would have known the difference. The Judicature Act to which he refers makes provision for appeals, but you cannot appeal except to those bodies, and in those instances provided for in the Judicature Act. There are only those appeals. [Time limit.]

The hon. Minister must forgive me if I deal with one of the powers that is granted here to his colleague, the Minister of Community Development. It is reported in the Cape Arpus of this evening that the Cape Region of the South African Red Cross Society has been refused permission to stage their pageant at Maynardville. That in turn is within the function of the Minister of Community Development, but the Minister of Community Development only learnt about it when he returned to Cape Town, presumably to-day, because he was with me on the ’plane on Saturday afternoon. He read about it in the newspaper. And that is what it says here. The report goes on to say that an official of the Department, when asked to-day on what ground the Red Cross application for a permit was refused, said the Proclamation forbidding mixed gatherings, except on permit, prevented the holding of the function. Then he goes on to say—

The Minister decides, but the permit was refused and the Minister knew nothing about it until he returned. He says so. When it was pointed out to the official that the Minister had not signed the letter informing the Red Cross that its application had been refused, he said: “No, the Department is dealing with these matters. We do not give reasons when permits are withheld. I have nothing more to say.” Sir, this matter has got out of hand. Who decides? This hon. the Minister is going to deal with controlled areas, and in this regard the opportunity for using his discretion is even greater, because they are not proclaimed areas at all; they are controlled areas in which prima facie any race is entitled to be for various purposes. But, in terms of what is now known as the Luxurama proclamation, everybody needs a permit to be present in an area where he would not be allowed to occupy or own a house without a permit. Everyone who wishes to hold a function of any sort whatsoever which will be attended by different race groups, whether it be a sports function or a concert or a pageant for the International Red Cross, needs a permit. What is the hon. Minister going to do? What is he going to do under this section of the Act as it is proposed to amend it? Is he himself going to exercise these powers? Is he going to give every application his personal attention, or is he going to get his Department to get into the position in which the Department of Community Development is, namely, where the Department says the Minister decides, and when the Department is asked what the reasons for the decision are, they say they do not give reasons for the decision; and that when it is pointed out to them that the Minister did not sign the letter, they say: “Oh, no, the Department makes the decisions.”? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us who is going to decide in terms of this section as about to be amended by this clause? Who is going to exercise his discretion whether or not a function should be held; whether or not members of a certain race group should be allowed to attend that football match or this football match. At the moment it does not make sense. Either the Minister is going to have that power or he is not. Can the Minister give us any indication as to how this power is going to be exercised when it is delegated? Does he give instructions to the members of his Department as to how they are to exercise their discretion when he is away? It is no good the hon. member for Standerton saying the aggrieved person can appeal to the Minister. How do you appeal to the Minister if you have a football match coming off on Saturday and you hear on Thursday from the Department that permission for a permit has been refused? To whom do you appeal? How do you appeal to the Minister? The hon. Minister must appreciate that people in this country are entitled to conduct their affairs on a certain basis of certainty. There must be some basis of certainty as to the future conduct of an operation as, for example, the existence of an orchestra by a city council. What is this Minister going to do? We have already seen the Department of the Minister of Community Development breaking down completely in this regard. In terms of an arrangement already come to by the Government, an arrangement which is now being enshrined in this Bill, this hon. Minister is going to be in charge of all the controlled areas. What is this Minister going to do in respect of those controlled areas, the business areas of this country? We are entitled to know. Are we going to have the same monstrous nonsense that we have had in the case of the Red Cross pageant at Maynardville? Or is this Minister going to exercise the discretion himself?

As I said originally, as I read this clause, when powers are delegated in relation to permits, it gives the officials the discretion the Minister has in terms of the Act. Sir, this nonsense cannot go on much longer. Does the Minister really want this power because every single movement of every single person in South Africa is covered by the Luxurama proclamation, and the Minister knows it. That was the object of it. The object was to place everybody in the position that he may not attend any function outside his own group area without permission from the Department, without permission from the Minister. If he is going to exercise this power properly, he is not going to be able to deal with all the applications himself. If he is going to delegate power to his Department, let us hope he is not going to follow the example of the Minister of Community and Development. If he is going to follow that example, we are going to have two conflicting runs of decision applying to the permit system under the Act. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us what he is going to do. I know he cannot speak for the Minister of Community Development. We already know what he does and what he does not do. I think this hon. Minister owes us an explanation. This is the first time he is going to have these powers in terms of the law. We want to know exactly what he proposes to do when this discretion in regard to permits has to be exercised. Will he do it or will he delegate it to his Department?

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has spoken about the blanket clause. I have tried to explain that there was only a power of delegation in respect of the powers set out in Section 19 (a) and (b). This clause does not give the right to delegate other powers. It does not mean that all power can be delegated; only the powers described there can be delegated and in that regard there is a right of appeal. It was asked whether the parties knew about this right of appeal. I wish to point out that in all statements issued in terms or delegated powers it is stated that they are issued on behalf of the Minister in terms of delegated power. The people are aware of the fact that the power has been delegated. As far as an appeal is concerned the position is that not in all cases where decisions are given it is stated that they are subject to appeal; that is not the practice in our whole legal system. If a person wants to lodge an appeal he himself must know that he has that right. Where a person is dissatisfied with anything and writes that he objects to it is regarded as an appeal and submitted to the Minister.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) referred to certain instances and asked whether the power had been delegated. As far as I myself am concerned I have delegated those powers. We are creating new powers here but as I explained in my second-reading speech, according to the Interpretation Act, those powers have been in existence since August 1964. It is not a case, therefore, of these powers being given to the Department of Planning for the first time. Powers have been delegated to the Secretary and he consults me from time to time concerning his power. The hon. member is doing his utmost to get me to say what I shall do in this or that hypothetical case. The cases to which he has referred fall under the Minister of Community Development and it is for him to report on them. It is not my function to report on them in this House. He tries to find out what I shall do in this or that case but they are all hypothetical cases. I have not had the opportunity of going into them. When such matters are brought to my notice I shall go into them thoroughly and decide accordingly.

Clause put and agreed to.

Official Opposition dissenting.

On Clause 11,

This is another clause to which we are opposed for several reasons. In the first place when a proclamation is issued in terms of Section 20 the present position is that the provisions of Section 23. i.e., that if you are a disqualified person you may only occupy that proclaimed group area in terms of a permit, shall, with effect from a date determined by the Minister, which shall be not less than one year after the date of publication of any such proclamation, apply. So at the moment you have at least one year. That is the minimum time. You are allowed one year from the time of the proclamation, if you become a disqualified person in terms of it, to remove yourself or to apply for a permit. You have one year’s grace. It is now no longer to be one year from the time of the publication of the proclamation but one year from the date specified in the proclamation. In other words, a date can be specified which is before the date on which the proclamation was published. So that in effect you get less than a year to get out of that area. In view of some of the statements that have been made in relation to group areas, and in relation to the hurry the Minister of Community Development is in, it would seem a very likely event that proclamations are going to have ante-dated specified dates. It is bad enough being subject to a proclamation under the Group Areas Act; it is bad enough having only one year. It is infinitely worse not to know even what time you are going to have. This is going to be determined by the Minister. Is no provision going to be made for persons who are affected by these proclamations? The Minister must know that all the people in South Africa are affected by these proclamations. The people in Isipingo, which was declared an Indian area, at least have one year in which to find alternative accommodation. We are entitled to know what the Minister’s intentions are in this regard. There is a further extension here of the system of government by permit, it is provided that in certain cases leases will elapse from a date determined in terms of the first part of this clause. In other words the lease lapses not after a year but it can be held to lapse after a month if the hon. the Minister decides to put a date in his proclamation which is 11 months prior to the date of publication.

The most interesting clause of all perhaps is sub-clause (d). This sub-clause provides that the period of limitation which this Government has set itself for the creation of group areas is now no longer to exist. I was not in this House when the Group Areas Act was passed but I have looked through Hansard. There must be several members here who must remember the hon. Minister of the Interior, as he then was, now the hon. the Minister of Finance, bragging that by July 1965, i.e., 15 years from the date of that Act, it would no longer be necessary to create group areas because the whole master-plan would have been implemented. What happened. Sir? I do not think they created one before the lapse of seven years. Since that date we have amendment after amendment in terms of that boast. That Act has been amended so often that in 1957 the Government had to come back to this House with a new Consolidated Act. We have amended it since then almost every year. We have reduced this wonderful master-plan to the state where, 15 years later, when the plan should already have been implemented, this Government wishes to take away that date. One must remember what was provided for here. It is something which affects every member of this Committee; something which affects the very essence of parliamentary power. So confident was the Government that it provided in the original Act in Section 20 that “no proclamation shall be issued under this section”, i.e., the section which provides for the proclamation of group areas—

What a dismal failure this has been, Sir. Not only have they not set up group areas but when the 15 years period is passed there is more uncertainty about group areas in South Africa than there was in 1950. That is the stage we have now reached. Not only is there that much more uncertainty as to where these areas are going to be but there is uncertainty as to who is allowed to live in those group areas which do exist.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister would give this committee some idea as to when it is expected to have this finalized? Now that he is Minister of Planning in charge of these matters does he think he will be able to do a little bit better than his predecessors did in this regard? Can he give us some idea when South Africa can expect this master-plan to be in full operation?

Are you looking forward to it?

Looking forward to it! There is one thing which I, as a lawyer, always look forward to and one thing that I expect and that is certainty in the law. That is the least people are entitled to expect. There is no certainty, Sir. Not only is there no certainty as to whose area is which area but there is also no certainty as to whether one is even entitled to move into an area. There is no certainty as to whether you can even attend a football match. That is something which I think people are entitled to have certainty about. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give us some idea: When does the Minister of Planning intend to have proclaimed the group areas in South Africa, the areas about which his predecessors spoke with such confidence? Will he explain to us why it is that he apparently does not allow those persons affected by proclamation a year’s grace within which to move out of an area? Why does he take the power to provide that the year shall be from a date specified in the proclamation? Good heavens, Sir, does he think a year is too long for somebody who suddenly finds himself, without any warning whatsoever, having to look for another home? In some cases he finds himself with only half an assurance that he won’t be affected. He has to go through all the rigmarole and red tape of selling his house to the Community Development Board with the prospect of losing money on it. He has to find another house at a time much longer after he bought his first one. The price of the new property will probably be twice that he paid for his original home. Surely the hon. the Minister has some explanation. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has hold of the wrong end of the stick again. This particular clause deals with occupation by disqualified persons after a group area has been declared. Three different groups of people are involved; firstly, those who lived there, who were there lawfully, before the date on which the group area was declared, and who must have a permit as from that date; secondly, those who moved in there under the authority of a permit, subsequent to the date of the proclamation; thirdly, those who entered the area after it had been proclaimed, but without a permit. All that this clause does in effect, is to grant the Minister the power to remove this last-mentioned group as well. The hon. member now complains and says that at any given moment such a person may find that he no longer has sufficient time left to remove himself. If the hon. member wants to understand the clause properly he must read it in relation to what the position was before, and that is that any person was entitled to 12 or 3 months’ notice, depending on whether he was a resident or a businessman. This remains the position in this amending clause. The clause provides that the Minister shall determine a date which shall not be less than one year after the date specified in such proclamation. In other words, the person concerned is given 12 months’ grace in any case. Why is the hon. member complaining? This person may even get a longer period of grace. If this person sits there and the Minister declares the area …

He is not given a year.

But here it is. Cannot the hon. member do some simple arithmetic?

It can be a date before the publication of the proclamation.

No. no! It says in respect of land or premises situated in an area to which a proclamation under so and so relates and lawfully occupied by a disqualified person immediately prior to the date specified in the relative proclamation and not vacated by him since that date, the provisions of section 23 shall, with effect from a date determined by the Minister, which shall not be less than one year after the date specified in such proclamation, apply, but subject to the provisions of paragraph (c). That is to say, the person who is there lawfully has one year’s grace. The person who is there under the authority of a permit is given a period of grace, but all that is now being taken is the power to remove any person who is there without a permit. Why should he also be given one year’s grace? There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever about the fairness of this provision. The person who was there, who was there lawfully, until the area was proclaimed and the person who is there under the authority of a permit are entitled to be there; the other person is not. I repeat that considerations of fairness and efficiency make it necessary for this provision to be drafted in the way it has been drafted.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) can possibly put forward a point of view as the one he has just put forward. What he has said is so obviously wrong that I can’t believe that he could be so stupid …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that; it is not parliamentary.

I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member for Standerton suggests that this applies only to a person who happens to be in an area without a permit.

I said there were three kinds of people; one was there legally, one came in with a permit and the other …

The hon. member can speak again a second time. The hon. member for Standerton said that this was intended to apply to those persons who were in an area without a permit and asked why such a person should complain if he got less than a year’s notice. Mr. Chairman, that is not the position at all. This applies generally. The difference lies in this that although a year is provided for under the existing provision and is also provided for in the amending provision, as the law stands at present the year’s grace must run from the date of publication of the proclamation so that the person concerned knows that he has one year from the date of publication but in terms of the amending provision it is possible for the Minister to specify a date in the proclamation which will be a date prior to the date of publication of the proclamation. In such circumstances the affected persons could get less than a year’s notice. If that is not the intention of the hon. the Minister then perhaps he would explain to us why the section has been amended in this way? Why not leave the section as it applied before, namely, a year after the date of publication of the proclamation? Obviously the amendment is intended to give the Minister the power to specify a date which will be prior to the date of proclamation.

I would like to deal with some other objections we have against this clause, first of all, a minor one which was referred to by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) in his second-reading speech, and that appears in line 16 on page 12 of the Bill, that is in sub-section (1)ter (a), where the word “inmate” is used. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Hospital, that word is quite inappropriate in these circumstances. Obviously the correct word would be “occupier” and I trust that the hon. Minister will make the necessary amendment.

In the same sub-section (1)ter (c) it is provided that a notice may be served by delivery to the person allowing the occupation personally or by dispatching it by registered post in an envelope addressed to him at his last known address. The effect of that is that no notice need be sent to the occupier. It will be sufficient from now on to send a notice, not to the occupier, but to the person who allows the occupation. But what is even worse is that if the person who allows the occupation, or rather if the address of the person who allows the occupation is not known, the notice will now be sent by registered post to that person at his last known address. Under those circumstances it is highly probable that the person allowing the occupation will never get the notice and certainly the person who occupies will never get the notice. So how the Government can justify such a provision. I find it very difficult to understand. To my mind this provision is extremely harsh and cannot be justified under any circumstances.

A further objection that we have to this clause lies in sub-section (c) which inserts the new sub-section (1)quat. I dealt with that at some length in my second reading speech. I pointed out that this provides for the automatic termination of leases and creates yet another hardship under this Act. I do not propose to go at great length into this clause because one other hon. member on this side of the House will deal with this provision more fully.

Finally, our further objection to this clause lies in sub-paragraph (d) in terms of which the words “before the expiration of a period of 15 years from the seventh day of July, 1950” are to be deleted. The effect of that is that parliamentary control beyond July, 1965, is being wiped out. Mr. Chairman, the whole object of introducing this provision originally was precisely to give parliamentary control beyond a number of years. In terms of the original Bill of 1950, the period was five years and at that time the Government presumably felt that that was ample time within which to put its group areas programme into effect. That was subsequently amended and the period was extended to 15 years. We find now that the 15 years’ period has expired and according to government members there are still vast areas which have still got to be proclaimed, there are still vast areas which have to be turned into group areas, and so now the Government proposes to* remove all parliamentary control from the proclamation of group areas. Sir. when this was discussed during the second reading debate. I think it was the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever who said that there is always parliamentary control because be subject can always be raised in Parliament. The hon. member is quite wrong. Once the power is given to the Minister to create group areas, one cannot come to this House and object to the creation of group areas. And this is what the Bill now gives to the Minister; it now gives him completely unfettered powers for all time to continue carving up the country into various group areas. [Time limit.]

In this case Clause 11 does in fact introduce something new, and it is a very fair provision. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Hourquebie) objects to it, because the position is simply that there may be people who are entitled to premises, but who are unable to occupy them. Such a person now goes along and leases these premises and permits them to be occupied by a disqualified person too. But if they then serve a notice upon him, he says: “I am not in occupation”, and then there is a flaw in the Act in that one cannot deal with that occupation, which is unlawful in any case. All that this Bill does is to provide that the tenant, or the person who is disqualified to occupy, may be dealt with as though he was in fact the occupier, the man entitled to occupy, and his contract with the person leasing the premises to him is now being cancelled. All that the hon. member for Musgrave is complaining about is that something may go wrong with the notice. But that is the way in which we give notice to people. One serves it upon an individual personally, or one sends it by registered letter. That is the practice followed in this peaceful country in which we live, and it is quite inconceivable that such a person will not be given notice. Such a person who allows occupation by a disqualified person is actually circumventing the law in any case. But he cannot have it both ways. He cannot evade the law and, at the same time, have recourse to the law. That, however, is what the hon. member for Musgrave is pleading for, namely, the power to evade the law and, at the same time, to invoke the protection of the law. The hon. Minister is merely taking away this power now, so that he can deal with a person who is staying elsewhere, and who cannot occupy the premises himself, but who allows others to occupy the premises who are also disqualified to do so. What is wrong with that? The fairness of such a provision is perfectly obvious.

I want to deal with the aspects of this clause that relates to leases. I asked the hon. the Minister at the second reading to give me some information on that point, but I don’t think he did so. I want to put it to him and to the Committee that I think the provision of “twelve months” is unfair, totally inadequate and that it is thoroughly misunderstood by all who are concerned with it. We say that we will give twelve months’ notice. In the Bill we speak of alternate accommodation. The hon. Minister mentioned yesterday that the only case he knew of was a particular Asiatic, in the town I mentioned, who had been compelled to move because of a road-widening scheme. May I tell the hon. the Minister that that particular individual has been trading not far from where he was removed and that he spoke to me only three weeks ago. He told me that his business has a permit to last until July. There is no alternative accommodation; there is no Indian area. That man is in a state of uncertainty and he is an example which proves the case—he does not quite know what to do; should he continue, shall I say, to use his ability, his talents to expand his business, should he purchase additional stock? What must he do? Therefore I say that the hon. the Minister could well amend this particular clause and give adequate time, because in dealing with alternative accommodation, it has to be provided by the local authority. We have many cases on record where areas have been proclaimed, of disqualified persons who are in occupation of properties which are disqualified, and the fine points mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) are not understood by the evicted and disqualified persons who are compelled to move. These people are living in a state of uncertainty because (a) there is no adequate alternative accommodation, and they live under this fear of twelve months. These people are trading where there is exclusively a White clientele. If the man is compelled to move in so short a period he is ruined. I also asked the hon. the Minister whether or not it was intended that this section would put an end to those cases where traders had been successfully negotiating a lease for an extended period of longer than twelve months, and whether it was intended that those leases would now rest upon the goodwill of the Minister. I asked whether he could, and would, give them twelve months’ notice on an arbitrary basis and say “Alternative accommodation is available”. I feel, as I have said often, that as much as we dislike the law, it is the law. Nevertheless I think that the Government and the Minister, in particular, could apply their minds sympathetically to the predicament in which these people find themselves. We hear glib stories and smooth talk that the individual gets twelve months’ compensation and twelve months’ notice, but, Mr. Chairman, when a person has been in business and he is 60 years of age or older, and he has been at a particular place for 20 or 30 years, and he has got a certain amount of goodwill, and he is a good and honest man, surely the hon. the Minister will agree that twelve months is inadequate. I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the position in regard to these affected persons. It should be a rule that before the Minister is advised to issue a proclamation, there really should be adequate, alternative accommodation. Up to now that has not been the case. That is the reason why all the hardship has been caused and all the criticism has been levelled at the Bill and will be levelled at the hon. the Minister. So I ask him to reconsider this clause and to give a very much longer period than twelve months, in which these people are required to move and to relinquish their businesses.

Reference has been made here to the fact that the wording is being changed from “one year after proclamation” to “one year after the said date”. It is said that the effect of this is that the proclamation can be put into operation with retrospective effect as from a date prior to the publication of the proclamation. I just want to point out that in the nature of things it is impossible to proclaim a group area with retrospective effect. Just think what the effect would be, Sir, if a group area in which there are disqualified persons were proclaimed with retrospective effect, it would mean that all those people had unlawfully occupied premises in that area. I think it is ridiculous to argue that a group area can be proclaimed with retrospective effect. There are many implications when an area is proclaimed and if you were to introduce such a proclamation with retrospective effect it would mean that a great number of people would be guilty of contraventions on the day of the promulgation of the proclamation and they would in fact have contravened the proclamation for a considerable time, ever since the date on which the proclamation came into force with retrospective effect. That is not the intention nor can it happen in practice. The intention is to regard a group area as a group area as from a certain date, not from the date of proclamation. Much greater certainty is created by providing that a certain area will be a group area as from a certain date.

Reference has been made to the fact that leases can be cancelled or deemed to be cancelled, but Sir, that is one of the ways in which the operation of the Group Areas Act has been circumvented. Prior to proclamation certain persons entered into leases for very long periods and in that way they remained in lawful occupation. It is true that the lessor could be prosecuted but nothing could be done to eject the lessee. The clause rectifies the position as far as that is concerned.

Reference has been made to paragraph (b), the amendment to Section 20, and it has been suggested that this will mean that notice will have to be given to the owner alone and not to the occupier. This clause deals in the main with the way in which notice must be given and it also refers to sub-section (1)ter or 1 bis. When you look at that, Sir, you will notice that it provides that notice must be given “By the Minister to the occupier of any land or premises situated in the area to which the proclamation relates, not being an area which is the subject of a notice under paragraph (a) and, if the Minister deems it desirable also to the person who allows the occupation of such land or premises”. The law therefore provides very specifically in 1 bis (b) that notice must be given to both the occupier and the lessor. There is no substance in the objection therefore because (b) only deals with the way in which the various people must be given notice.

Reference has also been made to the English text in which the world “inmate” is used whereas the world “inwoner” (occupier) is used in the Afrikaans text. I think that criticism is justified and we shall try to correct it. My attention is being drawn to the fact that that has always been the wording but I agree that it is not the best wording.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) raised the case of an Indian who had to be moved because a road had to be widened. At the moment provision is made for him in a White area. The hon. member says his permit will expire in July and that this creates uncertainty. He is free to apply for his permit to be extended but that does not fall under this Department because it is a proclaimed area; applications for extensions must be made to the Department of Community Development. I might point out, however, that there have been cases where extensions have been granted for a period longer than a year and this may be a case where it can also be done. I do not want to express an opinion, however, because this is a matter which does not fall under my Department.

I have also been asked whether this relates to leases entered into by traders. Yes, it does. Reference has again been made to the abolition of Parliamentary control by changing the provision relating to the period of 15 years after 1950. The question was asked why this was done. I tried to indicate in my second reading speech what the reason was. Over 700 areas have already been proclaimed. There are still a few difficult cases and in those cases the proclamation is often done in conjunction with the Department of Community Development because we always try, when a group area is proclaimed, to ensure that there is alternative accommodation in those cases where large numbers have to be moved. It is impossible to come to Parliament every time with proclamations of this kind. I think the fact that so many have already been finalized shows the extent to which progress has already been made, and the outstanding cases will be dealt with in the same way.

Under this clause I want to raise the position of certain people, a certain group who have not yet been declared “honorary White citizens”. I refer to the Chinese people. In the clause we have already passed, it states that there must be alternative accommodation, where it says “the Board shall not advise the Minister in regard to any proclamation without taking into consideration whether or not suitable accommodation will be available outside the area”. Now I have had cases brought to my notice where in some of the group areas there are Chinese people in respect of which—unless the Minister can tell me that he has acted in terms of Clause 10 (2) (a) in regard to these people and that he has declared them to be a different group. I merely want to raise with the hon. the Minister what the position is of a number of Chinese people who have lawfully occupied, but who would be disqualified persons if the area were to be declared White. What provision is made? Has there been any provision made for these people, or will the hon. the Minister carefully consider granting permits to people of the Chinese group if they are in fact occupying premises in an area declared White. I know of certain Chinese business people who were anxious to purchase property in an area which was a so-called “mixed area”, neither one nor the other, but who have been unsuccessful in getting permits. They are a frustrated group of people because they do not know what their future is and they do not know where they have got to go. All I ask the Minister under Clause 11 is this: If he finds that there is a family or a group of families belonging to the Chinese group who have lawfully occupied prior to a proclamation whether the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to these people in view of the fact that there is no area set aside for them.

I wish to point out that that is a matter to be dealt with by the Minister of Community Development if it is a question of occupation after proclamation.

I am glad to hear from the hon. the Minister that it is not the Government’s intention under 1bis (a) or (b) to so proclaim areas whereby the affected persons will have less than one year’s notice. I accept that. That being the case, I would urge the hon. the Minister to leave the first amendment under sub-(a) and the second amendment under sub (b) as they are, in other words to leave it reading “which shall be not less than one year after the date of publication of any proclamation”. If that is done then more than a year’s notice can be provided for and the intention which the Minister has can also be provided for. In fact if it is not the Government’s intention to give affected persons less than a year’s notice, I cannot understand why these two sub-sections have been amended in this way. It seems to me to be quite unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. the Minister for the sake of removing any doubt will allow these two portions of the clause to remain as they are.

In regard to sub-section (b), dealing with Section ter (c), the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) I think has missed the point in regard to this question of notice. I have to refer to Section 21 bis to make my point. Section 21 bis, which is referred to in 1 ter, and in particular paragraph (b) of this sub-section, reads as follows: “the provisions of Section 20 (3) shall will effect from a date …”, and then it goes on to deal with the question of notice and speaks of “prior notice in writing having been given by the Minister to the occupier of any land or premises”. The point is this: Under paragraph (b) of sub-section (1 )bis. notice is required to be given to the occupier. Now sub-section (c) of Section 1 ter says that in place of the occupier the notice can be given to the person allowing the occupation, or it can be despatched to the person allowing the occupation at his last-known address by registered post. Mr. Chairman, these two provisions are of course contradictory, but assuming that it were held that Section 1 ter (c) is operative, then in my submission it is quite unfair that a notice which is required to be given to an occupier may be given to a person who is not the occupier at all but who simply allows the occupation. And it is even harsher as regards the occupier when such a notice can be given to the person allowing the occupation at his last-known address, an address where he obviously is not, and in such circumstances it is very likely that he will not get the notice at all. It may not be re-addressed to him or it may go astray in being re-addressed. So this provision, I think, is so harsh and unfair that I hope the Minister will consider removing sub-section (c) altogether and leaving Section 1 ter as it stands at present.

In regard to the question of parliamentary control, the Minister said that already over 700 group areas had been proclaimed but that there were still a large number to be proclaimed, and therefore it would be impracticable at this stage, from July 1965 onwards, if it were necessary to obtain parliamentary approval for every proclamation. Sir, it would not be a very long-winded affair to obtain parliamentary approval for future group areas and it would not take up the time of the House unduly, and since these are provisions which affect people so materially—in many cases there is a large-scale movement of populations—I suggest that it is reasonable to expect their parliamentary approval will be obtained from now on. The Government has had 15 years in which to put its group areas legislation into operation. That is ample time and there is, I suggest, no excuse at this stage for not complying with the original undertaking given in 1950, an undertaking which was persisted in in 1957 when the provision was amended to provide for a 15-year period. By removing this altogether, the Government is going back on an undertaking it has given not once but twice in this House, and there is no justification for this whatsoever.

The hon. member referred to the fact that proclamation could indeed be made of retrospective effect and asked whether we could not return to the position when it was provided that it would be a year from proclamation, or rather, not less than a year from the date of proclamation. I may just want to point out that as it is worded here the period may be considerably longer than a year, because the date is being put forward and the persons consequently know about it for more than a year. As the position was it was practically a year from proclamation and if we were to return to that position it would mean that that period would be shortened whereas it can now be longer than a year. I just wanted to draw attention to that aspect.

It cannot be longer than a year.

It is possible perhaps, but that has not been the position in practice. We could perhaps put it in that way but that would be an impossible task because you cannot proclaim with retrospective effect. I do not know how that can be done in practice. In that case you would unnecessarily cause a great many people to be guilty of a contravention.

As far as the second objection of the hon. member to (b) is concerned it would appear to me that the way in which it is worded it may perhaps imply something which was never intended, namely, that it also refers to (p) (i)bis. It may perhaps be possible to improve the wording so the wrong interpretation cannot be placed on it. We shall go into that. In consultation with the hon. member we may perhaps try to word it differently so as to avoid a wrong interpretation possibly being placed on it.

Reference has again been made to the uncertainty that this has brought about and that we should come back to Parliament. But I want to point out that that would create a great amount of uncertainty because it would mean that when an area has been proclaimed that is not the last word on the subject because it still has to be confirmed by Parliament. That consequently extends the period. Until such time as Parliament has decided there will be uncertainty as to the final outcome whereas it is final otherwise. I can only draw attention to the implications. I want to give an example. Large portions of Durban have been proclaimed but there are portions which have not yet been proclaimed. I can well imagine what would happen to the members of Parliament or to other people as well if a proclamation, which in any case gives rise to a certain measure of dissatisfaction, were to be subject to parliamentary approval. They would be approached and asked to prevent the area from being proclaimed whereas others would again be in favour of it. In the case of each proclamation there are people who want it and others who are less happy about it. That is unfortunately the position and if it is not final and a member of Parliament still has a say I can well imagine the big problems he would have to face. His life would be unbearable until such time as the matter has been finalized. I think it is in the interests of everybody that we leave the matter as it is.

With regard to the last point dealt with by the hon. the Minister, i.e. the question of the expiration of the period of 15 years. The proposal means the virtual abolition of parliamentary control and making the proclamation of group areas a permanent portion of our legislation, I want to say that I concede the point made by him with regard to the difficulties experienced now that they are getting busy with a large number of proclamations if each such proclamation has to come to Parliament. But may I ask the hon. the Minister whether instead of doing away altogether with the provision requiring proclamations to come before Parliament after the 15-year period which expires in July, he will not consider extending the period for, say, a further five years which would give the responsible authorities an opportunity to carry on without having to come to Parliament for every proclamation during those five years. It is the ordinary principle of Parliamentary control whereby these exemptions were given to allow something to establish itself, and then you come back to Parliament if you want extension of time. The Minister feels that it is not competent or not wise to abolish the control altogether, could he not consider an extension of the period by five years and if necessary another five years at the end of that period; would that not meet the difficulty which the hon. the Minister foresees and at the same time give Parliament an opportunity after those extended periods of five years, an opportunity of passing judgment on what has happened. In the original law when the 15-year period was provided for it was assumed at that time, that at the end of the 15 years the whole of the main structure of the group areas framework would have been established. Well, it has not been established. We have had full inquiries conducted in terms of the original Act and at the end of five years, instead of any decision, we come back to hold another similar inquiry. I know one particular case where that has applied. An extension of the 15-year period would to a certain extent—I do not say altogether— meet the objections that we have to the abolition of parliamentary control. At the same time it would go a long way towards meeting the hon. the Minister’s difficulty if he would consider such extension of the period by five years. At the end of the five years we can then again consider whether we have arrived at the stage where there are so few group areas still to be proclaimed that parliamentary control would no longer be necessary or alternatively ask for another extension at that time.

As the hon. member has said, most of the areas in the country have been proclaimed and we are at present dealing with those which still remain. Some of them involve difficult proclamations but I presume that they will be finalized within the next year or two. These are only smaller areas. Is it really necessary for these proclamations to be submitted to Parliament for another five years when they have already come before Parliament over the past 15 years?

At this stage we know how the proclamations affect people. Over another five years it will really affect a very limited number of people in the country. I think the principle of separation is so well-established that it will serve no purpose to extend the period another five years.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie, and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes. Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 12 put.

I move— That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Agreed to.

House resumed:

Progress reported.