I move—

In every Budget Speech I have delivered, I have emphasized the need for a flexible fiscal policy; in other words, the Budget has to be geared to prevailing economic conditions. This does not mean that fiscal policy should simply aim at either rapid expansion, or a complete standstill—the so-called stop-go policy. On the contrary, the Budget can be, at least in theory, a delicate instrument, influencing the various sectors of the economy in different degrees according to individual needs—in one direction a strong incentive might be given, in another over-rapid development might have to be slightly restrained, while, in a third, the economy’s infra-structure might be strengthened somewhat.

In South Africa we do not have at our disposal the full range of fiscal instruments available in some other countries to regulate the course of the economy. We do not have, for example, a general sales tax, quite common to-day in many countries, and which constitutes a useful weapon, in certain curcumstances, for containing excessive consumption. We might have to consider supplementing our instruments at some future stage. For the present, however, we shall have to employ the tax and other fiscal measures which are at our disposal.

Before considering the appropriate fiscal measures, it is necessary first to analyse the prevailing economic conditions. But before doing so, I wish to emphasize a proposition which, in my view, is too plain to need argument. It is, namely, this, that in our country we cannot afford to gamble with inflation. The importance of our gold mining industry, and the dependence of our economy on foreign trade, make it imperative that we should maintain price stability. I shall, therefore, turn a deaf ear to the siren voices trying to lure us into believing that action against threatening inflation is not really necessary, that rising production will inevitably overtake monetary demand, and that, above all, we should refrain from measures which might even slightly slow down the growth rate of the economy. This is the way of financial irresponsibility—enticing maybe, but its advantages are fleeting, and it leads on to economic instability and financial chaos. However unpopular it may be, we in South Africa shall not travel that road.

Some temporary retardment of our rate of growth is, after all, a small price to pay for averting the disaster of a prolonged recession in our economy.

And this brings us to the crux of the problem in formulating a Budget for 1965-6. Which fiscal instrument or combination of instruments should be employed, and to what extent, in order to restrain our still rising rate of growth just sufficiently, without bringing it to a standstill or a near-standstill?

In order to provide a rational answer to this question it is necessary, in the first place, to obtain a clear picture of:

I am sure that all of us had begun to feel a little disappointed that the Minister had abandoned his endearing habit of appearing in a fresh disguise every year when he presented his Budget. I think he must have tantalized us deliberately in keeping his secret until the last few minutes of his speech. He has now emerged as a merchant tailor. He has explained what the duties of a merchant tailor are. All I can say is that the hon. Minister, as a tailor, in the whole of his career as Minister of Finance, has never yet managed to make a suit which has fitted this country in the course of the year’s activity. I very much doubt whether he has departed from his established rule of making a thoroughly ill-fitting suit in the Budget which he has presented this year.

It must be many years since the country has awaited the Budget with more anxiety than the present one. As the hon. Minister mentioned in his speech it must be many years since so much advice from so many quarters has been offered to him as to what he ought to do in order to cope with the dilemma in which his Government has landed this country. It must be many years since so many hopes and fears have been expressed as to what his Budget might contain. I have no doubt that there are many hundreds of people in the country at the present moment who are busily checking to see to what extent their hopes or their fears have been realized by what the hon. the Minister has just said. I am afraid that more fears will be realized than hopes.

Listening to the hon. the Minister it appeared that he had two main objectives in view and two important intentions. The two main objectives were, first of all, to maintain the development of the country at a reasonable rate and, secondly, to help to put a curb to the rising prices to which he referred and to assist in checking inflation in pursuance of the policy which is already being pursued by the Reserve Bank. Another object he had in view was to provide help for the agricultural industry which, as we all know, has been so sorely hit by climatic conditions. The hon. Minister was unable to give us any indication of how that help can best be given, but we shall doubtless hear more about that in due course.

Lastly, his intention was to give relief to the social pensioners who have been the chief sufferers during the so-called boom. Well, we have no fault of course to find with any of those four objectives or aims of the hon. the Minister, and particularly as for the last one we are very glad of the eleventh hour admission on the part of the hon. the Minister that he can no longer dodge his responsibility towards the social pensioners who have been suffering all this time, as we have repeatedly pointed out to him.

Jeremiah!

I hope the hon. member for Cradock will follow our example and study these proposals, I won’t say “intelligently”, because that would be asking too much, but I want to ask him to study these proposals so that he can take an intelligent part in the debate that will follow, in order to see to what extent these steps are likely to be effective in the right direction. That they will have an effect, there is no doubt. Whether the effect will be in the right direction is another question. And also to see to what extent they represent what the hon. the Prime Minister is an advocate of these days, namely, proper planning, or to what extent they are stopgaps, patchwork to deal with a situation which the Government has allowed to threaten to get out of hand. But I think before we cap comment in detail on these proposals, we shall have to study them, and therefore I would like to move—

Agreed to.

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

The Bill now before the House for its third reading cannot be regarded as otherwise than giving the green light for amongst other things four major objects: (1) The substantial intensification in group areas activity, as well as (2) its diversification and a speed-up to introduce the principle of compulsory racial group separation into practically every phase of the every-day life of the Republic; (3) its exploitation of the principle of widespread powers of delegation of authority, which side-tracks to a large measure normal parliamentary control; and (4) its provision for the wider use of the S.A. Police Force as inspectors of group areas.

Summed up very briefly, the net effect of this amending Bill will be that whilst it provides the legal authority for a number of administrative practices which in fact has been used for some time in the past, it also applies the new phase of living by permit to the every-day life of the Republic. Sir, permit control under this measure, now amending the main Act, will be increasingly applied to almost every phase of the normal daily lives of the people of the Republic, and will steadily replace the pattern of individual, community and personal freedoms under which the Republic, and the Union before it, has developed and prospered with maximum interracial harmony and confidence from its very early days.

Probably one of the most alarming features of the Bill before us, a Bill which comes before us without amendment since its introduction, will be the scope that it provides for government under control by “policy” or “official edict”, as distinct from law, in which system there is very wide and dangerous scope for misunderstanding, conflict of rulings and widespread confusion, not only damaging the economic life of the Republic, but also a fruitful source of undermining relations and mutual confidence between the different racial groups.

South Africa has already been treated to what one might call a preview of a shocking exhibition of this Government’s ineptitude over the past few months in the various events which have taken place, starting off with the Luxurama case in Wynberg, interference with the football of the country, entertainment, municipal cultural activities, and in many other examples which we have covering a wide diversion of activities in the different provinces, a wide diversion of opinion amongst the different officials who authorize these controls, and the over-all ministerial inability to clear up the confusion that has been caused. I do not propose to go over all the examples again, but many have been brought to notice here in the previous readings.

Sir it is a most disastrous and dangerous interference with the financial and economic structure of the country. It goes far beyond anything contemplated in the original Act itself or by the people who originally introduced group areas legislation.

We on this side of the House have repeatedly objected to the scope of this measure, the scope that it gives for delving into the private affairs of citizens on matters having no connection whatsoever with questions under examination. This Bill by its diversification of control over at least three, and in some cases four different ministerial portfolios, coupled with its wide powers of delegation of authority, still further extends this scope and in fact it encourages the probing into the private lives of citizens. This very diversification whilst it encourages that action by its diversification also reduces the efficiency of responsible control which can be exercised over such actions. Particularly the responsible control which falls under the direct authority of Parliament.

We have had striking examples that this objection is fully justified. It has more than been fully substantiated over the past few weeks by the clear evidence of the lack of competent liaison and consultation between the Ministers concerned, which in addition to rulings given by members of their staffs, has resulted in widespread confusion and conflicting decisions given in the different parts of the Republic, some of them bearing little relation one to the other although covering the very same set of circumstances or public activities.

The Bill before us is clear evidence of an instruction having been given to speed up the division of the Republic into a number of group areas, based on colour and racial ideologies. The Bill itself represents an attempt for what might be called a co-operative effort by combined ministerial departments to cover up the failure of the Government’s apartheid policy as it has been conducted up to date. One can ask the question, and I wonder whether the hon. Minister will be able to reply to that question, on whose orders has the speed-up been inaugurated? We do remember that about two to two-and-a-half years ago the hon. the Prime Minister himself gave instructions for the speeding-up of this type of activity, now called community development. To those who studied the career of this type of legislation it is self-evident that the present pattern which is developing is an attempt to meet the hon. the Prime Minister’s instructions to get on with the job. Get on with the job, Sir, in compulsive terms over the wide range and extent that is now being applied.

Sir, whilst separate residential and social development achieved by consultation and a build-up of the spirit of tolerance and mutual respect for each other’s just aspirations remains part of our policy, we can find no place for this approach in the Bill now before us, nor the Act as it will be when these amendments have been passed. Not only do we believe that it is likely to develop ill-will and further racial friction inside the Republic, but it also carries a dangerous scope with it to damage the Republic’s economic structure, to damage the very foundations of that structure which depends so much on complete cooperation, both in the development and the conduct of the economic activities of the country, complete co-operation between the various racial groups involved. The maximum measure of confidence and goodwill between all racial groups is imperative. This Bill provides little scope for a continuation on that basis.

Sir, when we approach this Bill with our criticisms, we do so from the angle that neither White nor non-White can prosper in this country independent of one another. We are too interlinked and interdependent. This Bill does not work in the direction of promoting that co-operation which is so essential. As now before the House for its third reading, this Bill is also likely to increase rather than to decrease the external dislike and condemnation of the Republic, the very last thing that any Act of this Parliament should encourage or risk at the present stage of affairs. Parliament should not accept any measure which runs the slightest risk of creating such further feelings overseas.

Whilst on the one hand it is clear that the expansion and intensification of group area activity must mean considerable increase in the extent, the nature and volume of the work involving inspection, both community as well as individual activities and living conditions of White and non-White citizens, it is clear that it will also entail much more detailed and expanded investigation and control over a wide range of public, local government, and of sporting, recreational and cultural activities. There is ample evidence, as I mentioned earlier, of its impact in this direction already. Particularly its impact on economic and business activities, quite apart from its very serious impact on race relations in the country. That being so, to now provide, as this Bill does, that these duties to a very large extent, under Section 15 of the Bill, will in future have to be carried out by the police, acting as “inspectors” of the Department of Community Development, is quite unacceptable to the Opposition. The Police Force of the Republic have the specific task of the prevention of crime, the preservation of law and order, the overall maintenance of the security of the Republic in those regards. As far as our Police Force is concerned, it is also regarded as part of the home defences of the Republic, and on them falls the responsibility, the first-line responsibility for coping with any form of internal sabotage or disturbance. And I would say that as far as these responsible tasks are concerned, the police enjoy a deservedly high reputation. The police as a whole have done their particular job and carried out that responsibility with distinction. But one has only to read the report of the Commissioner of Police or of the Department of Justice; one need only read our daily papers, the daily stories of crime and lawlessness, to realize that the Police Force to-day is not only heavily over-loaded, but seriously under-staffed for their real work as guardians of the law. Every day we get the instances of resignation, people leaving the force, a meagre force which has to carry out real police work almost warranting a force twice as large. To now add this group areas load and expect them to take on all the volume of irritating, unpleasant and often objectionable tasks, which have of necessity to be tackled by group areas inspectors, as stated in this Bill, is against the best interests of law and order. It does not fit into the accepted pattern of police duties, as we know them in this country, and it is not doing the police a service to make them police responsibility. The long-term effect must inevitably be as far as the Police Force is concerned to make their already difficult task still more difficult, and it is likely to discourage the type of man who would be valuable in the force from joining, or remaining in such a force; it will make recruiting still more difficult. It is no use members opposite, as they did in an earlier stage of the debate, claiming that the police have been doing this work for some years, and that therefore it does not mean any extra work. The legislation we are now being asked to accept in the third reading, if it is to be carried out efficiently by the police, must mean a very large extension in the amount of work, even in the work of the type they have already been doing as far as group areas are concerned. It must be accepted that the increase in the group area work, the increased number of group areas to be proclaimed, the increased amount of planning and declarations provided for by this Bill, must call for a substantial increase in the field work and investigation by inspectors. It will no longer be restricted merely to residential and living conditions, but over and above that, Sir, they will have to cover practically every phase of the Republic’s daily and nightly life, particularly in regard to entertainment, sports, cultural and recreational activities. Somebody has to see to it that the rules are carried out. We come down to it that under legislation of this type we are going to use the Police Force to see to it that sufficient toilets are provided on the football fields and on public recreation grounds to cover the needs of people of all races and colours. That is not a job that should be carried out by the Police Force. The Bill does not limit the activities of the Police Force only to doing the duties involved in breaches of the law. True it would be a breach of the law, Sir, for a ground to be insufficiently equipped for all these necessary facilities provided by the law. Therefore that would bring it within the ambit of police duties. We say that there is the widest conceivable range of that type of duty and such other activities as fall within the scope of community gatherings, which will then also fall within the scope of police duties.

Hon. members have said that many of these duties have for years been carried out by the police. May I then pose the question to them: Why is it necessary then to now provide for it legally in this Bill. For the police to have this authority if they have been doing these things for years? Why include it in this Bill at this stage?

We on this side are completely opposed to this additional load being placed on the S.A. Police. If it is necessary for these things to be done, then it is a matter for careful handling by persons specially skilled in that type of delicate and responsible work, and not by a Force already over-loaded by work of a far more responsible nature, work which is nationally important. I do not propose to go into detail in regard to the very large number of objections we have to the Bill, even now in the third reading stage. I have attempted to sum up the main points of difference. Other speakers will deal with these objections in more detail, but we on this side of the House believe that for the reasons I have stated: it is in the best interest of the Republic that this Bill should not be accepted by the House at the third reading. For that reason it is not possible for us to support the Bill at the third reading, and I therefore move—

If there has been any doubt hitherto in the discussion on this measure as to what the attitude of the Opposition really is in respect of grout) areas, then we no longer have any doubt at this stage. It was suggested here by front-benchers of the Opposition during the second-reading debate that they too were entirely in favour of separate residential areas, but that they were not in favour of introducing an element of compulsion by way of legislation. To-day they are singing quite a different tune. To-day they condemn this legislation hocus-pocus and because the third-reading debate happens to be taking place on the same day as the provincial elections, they can afford once again, now that election day is fast drawing to a close, to turn to the left the tide of public opinion which has swung to the right. The main objection of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) is to the use of policemen for the implementation of this Act. The hon. member looked for all sorts of possible objections to the use of the police. He visualizes that they will be overloaded with work as a result of the passing of this measure. But if the implementation of this legislation by the police is going to mean that members of the Police Force will be overloaded with work, is it not a fact that the scarcity of manpower that we are experiencing is such that a greater burden would be placed on the staff of the Department if they had to perform these functions? But the real issue is that the police have in fact been used since 1957 to do this work. And, as was pointed out here yesterday during the Committee Stage, there has been no objection since 1957 to the way in which the police have performed this task. If there has been no objection in the past, then I cannot see why the hon. member for Simonstown is now meeting trouble halfway in connection with the use of the police for the implementation of this amended legislation. The fact of the matter is that at the time when investigations had to be instituted with a view to proclaiming group areas, the nature of the work that had to be done differed from the nature of the bulk of the work that has to be done at the present time. The investigations at that time were investigations of a specialized nature by officials of the Department specially trained or equipped for that purpose and they were perhaps in a better position than the police to carry out those investigations but we are now reaching the stage where the demarcation of group areas has largely been disposed of and the bulk of the work connected with it at the present time is to ensure that there are no contraventions of the Act and that the provisions relating to group areas are not flouted. This is work for which the police are eminently suitable, but I want to make the point that in their efforts to oppose this legislation and to attack the role to be played in this matter by the police, the Opposition are in fact trying to thwart the implementation of this legislation. Moreover, they are trying to make the whole system of group areas and separate residential areas impossible of fulfillment. Because the thing that they are really advocating will only come about if the police are unable to fulfill this task. They say that there must be separate residential areas, that the different racial groups should live in separate areas but that this must be achieved on a voluntary basis. Sir, if separate residential areas are to be brought about on a voluntary basis it means that anybody who is against the idea of separate residential areas will be able with impunity to act in conflict with this principle because he will not have to contend with the police. That is why I say that the discussion on this matter which is taking place here today on the third reading, coupled with the manner in which the police are being dragged in. only proves once again that the Opposition want to use this opportunity not only to attack this amending legislation but to make it impossible to give effect to the principle of group areas in our country, and I believe, Sir, that the attitude that they are adopting here will not go unnoticed.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) says that if there was any doubt before as to the Opposition’s attitude towards group areas, then the speech by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has dispelled all those doubts, and he ends on the note that the Opposition by its attitude here at the third reading is out to ensure that group areas can never be implemented in South Africa.

Yes.

What I would like to ask the hon. member and all the other hon. members is: What do you mean by group areas? Let me remind the hon. member that the United Party has always been in favour of separate residential areas. In fact it was the United Party Government which provided for such a measure of separate residential areas in Natal. It was the United Party that provided that. But that is quite a different thing from the Group Areas Act which we are amending here to-day, and the hon. member should know that. You see, Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that the hon. member who says he supports group areas tries to convey to the public the impression that what he is in favour of is separate residential areas and that we are not. That is quite wrong. The trouble with that hon. member and all the hon. members there is that they cannot in dealing with group areas distinguish between the ownership and occupation of a house in a residential area and the attendance at a football match by people of different race groups, and when you have got to that stage, there is very little that one can do to help the attitude of those hon. members. You see, Sir, when they talk about group areas, they must talk about the Bill that is before this House to-day, they must talk about this Bill as it amends the Group Areas Act as it first was. And what has the Committee Stage shown us? It has shown that the Minister in charge of the Bill has no explanations for the various aspects of the Bill. He can give no assurances as to the future, how it will be developed and administered, and he offers us no apparent understanding of the provisions of this Bill as they stand to-day. It is no good the hon. members talking about the Group Areas Act as if it means separating the country into areas where the ownership and occupation will be reserved for various groups. What in fact has happened is that the whole concept of group areas as envisaged in 1950 has been reduced to utter chaos, particularly by this Bill. What did we have in 1950 when this Act was first introduced? We had a dream—I can call if no less than that—of a political, philosophical ideal of the separation of the land of South Africa into group areas for the exclusive occupation and ownership of the various race groups. It was a wonderful dream, quite unrelated to reality and to human reaction and quite unrelated to any planning whatever, quite unrelated to any planning in the field of housing, and quite unrelated to economics; so unrealistic that the Government has abandoned group areas in the concept in which it was formulated in 1950.

Nonsense!

The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) says this is nonsense. Let me ask him why was it that in 1950 the Minister in introducing the Bill said that within 15 years the whole of South Africa would be mapped out in accordance with some master plan, into White, Asiatic, Bantu and Coloured areas?

Did you support us or not?

No, we have never supported an amendment to the Group Areas Act, for very good reasons, as I shall indicate. But that was the idea of this Act in 1950. I say the Government has now abandoned that concept. In this Bill parliamentary approval, which was provided for in 1950, is taken away; that the proclamation of group areas would need, after July 1965 the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament. So confident were they in 1950 that the whole of South Africa would be determined into group areas.

Why did you agree previously when it was done without parliamentary approval?

We did not agree to the Group Areas Act of 1950. [Interjections.] Why were they so confident that they could do it then, when now they realize they cannot and they are taking away in this Bill the provision for prior parliamentary approval of group areas?

There was never prior parliamentary approval.

The hon. member has been away for a long time. He must look at the Act. The hon. member for Vereeniging is the living example of the confusion this Government has got into. He thinks we are dealing with separate residential areas and he does not know what is in this Bill.

What does this parliamentary approval say? Let us have it.

The Act says that if you want to proclaim a group area, apart from a Bantu area etc., you may do so without prior parliamentary approval, provided it is done within 15 years from the coming into operation of the Act, and that period expires in July 1965.

So what? Must everything come to Parliament now?

This is about the 15th amendment to the Act, and what has it been reduced to? It has been reduced to complete bureaucratic anarchy. That is what group areas mean to-day—bureaucratic anarchy. The way group areas are dealt with to-day is I this. You can proclaim areas if you want to. The Government apparently is not very keen on doing so. It has had 15 years in which to do so but it has not done so yet, and we have had no assurance from the new Minister of Planning as to when he thinks it will be done, although we asked him repeatedly. Group areas to-day means that you have the various areas, either the group areas or the controlled areas, in which the residence and the occupancy and the movement of people and their entertainment and their businesses have no relation whatever to the sort of area which is determined. What it depends on to-day is one thing alone, and that is a permit from a Minister. That is all. To-day the law in regard to group areas is reduced to this, that if you want to live somewhere or wish to have a business somewhere or if you wish to go somewhere, if you wish to go to a theatre or a football match you must first go to the Government and ask for permission and say Baba Nkosi, and then you will get permission to earn your living there, or you will get permission to live in an area or to visit an area or to go to a football match. Good heavens, what have we been reduced to in South Africa, if this is what group areas means to-day? And nobody can deny it. [Interjections.] Has the hon. member ever applied his mind to what is happening? Does he mind that South Africa must be reduced to that? But that is what group areas is to-day, and it is worse in terms of this Bill than it ever was before. In terms of this Bill, this permit system is to be split three ways. There are now three Ministers who can grant permits. During the Committee Stage certain factors emerged which make the whole conception of group areas even more laughable than it has become in the last few years.

The whole conception?

Yes. The conception of group areas and the implementation of it by the Government are two quite different things. Here we have three Ministers. The Minister of Planning is now to be the grand master of the future. He is the master planner. He will determine where those areas will be, if there are going to be any more. We do not know. Then we will have the Minister of Community Development who will also issue permits, and this Minister will issue permits, and the Minister of Bantu Administration will also issue permits. But worse than that, the Minister of Planning said in the Committee Stage that in fact the discretion whether to give permits or not is being delegated to the officials of the Departments; so it will be delegated to the officials of his Department and to the officials of Community Development and without doubt also to the officials of Bantu Administration. I want to ask the Minister whether he gives any directions to his officials when he delegates these powers to them, and if so, what directions does he give them? What is the policy of the Government? What sort of functions will he allow them to carry out? What sort of football matches and what sort of entertainment, and what sort of business will be allowed by them? Every single decision made in this regard is a political decision.

Nonsense!

Of course it is a political decision, because the law does not provide for it and it is a determination by the Minister or an official of the policy of the Government in every instance. That is why it is a political decision. There is no law to determine this. The law says there is no law; you will come and get permission and I will give it entirely at my discretion. So therefore there is no law and every decision is a political decision, and every decision affects somebody’s livelihood or his right of movement or his dignity in some way.

We had a most lamentable and pathetic entrance into the debate by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. He was asked what part he was going to play in this group areas legislation and he was unable to tell us. He is given the power in terms of this Bill to proclaim group areas within the area of jurisdiction of a White local authority. He is given the power to proclaim areas for the occupation of Bantu within the area of jurisdiction of White local authorities. He said that their policy was to have homelands for the Whites and for the Bantu, and never the twain shall meet, but he was unable to answer the question why these powers were being given to him.

You did not understand what he said.

All I know is that the hon. member for Standerton did not understand a word that was going on in the Committee Stage, so perhaps it is understandable that the Deputy Minister also did not understand. He was unable to explain any of these things. And then there was the Minister of Planning. What I want to ask the Minister of Planning is this: How is he going to cope now in his own area? This Minister is going to deal with proclaimed areas. I want to know, when a permit reaches him, how does his Department determine whether it is this Minister or some other Minister who has to decide, and is it ultimately this Minister’s responsibility or that of some other Minister? We are entitled to know that.

The other thing the Minister has not explained is why it is now provided that there may be a shorter period than one year when a group area is proclaimed within which the persons affected have to get out. He has given no explanation for this at all.

He gave the explanation, but you refused to accept it.

That is right, I do not accept it. The law is very clear. If you proclaim a group area, then in the proclamation the people shall have at least one year from the date of the publication of the proclamation before they are obliged to leave. That is what the law says now, but now the law is to be changed, to provide that you will have one year’s grace after a date specified in the proclamation. That is not the same thing as one year from the date of the proclamation; it is the date specified in the proclamation, and there is nothing there to prevent the Minister from determining an earlier date. But even if I am wrong about this …

You are.

Then perhaps the hon. member for Standerton will explain why the Minister amends that part of the law which ensures a year’s grace from the time of publication. We have not had such an explanation yet.

This Bill goes much further than that. This Bill, together with the Community Development Amendment Bill, changes the whole concept in South Africa, in our law, as to the use and occupation and ownership of land. One of the things of which South Africa could always be very proud was its system of law relating to immovable property. We had certain basic laws and a deeds registry and everybody knew exactly where he stood, but to-day this law may just as well be scrapped. The Bill might just as well provide that nobody may use any land or own any land or go anywhere or do anything unless he gets a permit from the Minister.

That applies to-day. You cannot go where you like.

It was not until this nonsensical application of the group areas by this Government recently, and not until this Luxurama decision, that I had any doubt that I was allowed to go to a football match. There was never any doubt in the mind of the public as to whether they could go to Newlands to watch a rugby match, or to watch a soccer match. But to-day nobody knows where he stands. Does the hon. member for Vereeniging know whether he can go to a football match next month or not? He does not, and nobody does. Even the Minister does not know. He says he will determine it in each instance when it comes before him. What has that got to do with group areas? Let me tell the hon. member for Vereeniging that the time the Group Areas Act was passed in 1950 was a time when the hon. member had seen better days as far as his political outlook was concerned. He voted against the Group Areas Act.

He was not in Parliament then.

I was a big noise in the Transvaal then.

No one in 1950 thought, least of all the hon. member, that the group areas had anything to do with whom may attend a football match. Nowhere was it stated. But a provision whereby a theatre like the Luxurama could be mentioned in the Gazette is nevertheless contained in this Bill. The power was there, but nobody ever mentioned it; nobody thought it would be used, but to-say it is being used, and hence the permit system, and the Government does not know what it is going to do in future. It wants the power to determine from day to day exactly what it is going to do in each instance as it comes up.

Do you know what will happen in future? Are you a prophet?

If ever there were prophets in this political world, it is the Nationalist Party. Who prophesied what the future of South Africa would be? Who was so stupid as to try to do so? The Nationalist Party, with their dream of group areas, where there would be only Whites in one area and only Coloureds in another, etc. What nonsense !

Try a prophecy about to-day’s election.

Order! Hon. members should not interrupt the hon. member so much.

I wonder whether the hon. member for Vereeniging will take part in this debate and deal with some of the aspects of this Bill. Perhaps he would like to deal with the aspect of the police. He was not here unfortunately …

I was in Natal. That is why you do not want to prophesy the result of the election there.

If the hon. member had been here we might have educated him as to what the provisions of this Bill are about. The police are being brought in, as the hon. member for Simonstown pointed out, in a completely different capacity from before. What is the purpose of bringing them in? It is not to enforce the law, which is one of their functions; it is to enforce thousands upon thousands of ministerial permits. We have abandoned here every principle of the sanctity of a man’s right to be alone in his own home. [Interjections.] I am not exaggerating. The hon. member must look at the Criminal Code, which provides that even if you are going to investigate a case of murder, you should not, if possible, enter at night and you must take two respectable citizens with you before you search premises without a warrant. We maintain those provisions when a case of murder or treason is being investigated, but we abandon it in order to give the police powers to go snooping around to see whether some ministerial permit has been infringed. That is what we are reduced to. The hon. member for Standerton says the police can do this work best. I doubt whether the police can best do a snooping job to see whether or not a ministerial permit is being obeyed. But what concerns me is what it will do to the police. The hon. members will remember that the Liquor Act was repealed to allow Bantu to have liquor, and one of the main reasons why it was done, and why I supported its repeal was that it put the police in a very invidious position. There is no police force in the world which can maintain law and order, having regard to its small numbers in relation to the general population, were it not for the fact that it has the general respect and support of all the law-abiding citizens of the State. I do not think that any favour is being done to the police in relation to these powers. Sir, let me tell you why I do not like this most of all. It is because it puts the seal of the State on every aspect of group areas, and every aspect of every man’s life in relation to his business and his home and his entertainment is today the concern of the State, and the seal of the State is put on it by having the police do these things; and I want to say that this is a deliberate move on the part of the Government, to have the police at all these functions, to create in the minds of the people the thought that if they are at a football match and the Government has not given its permission, the police are there and it is wicked and it is criminal, and that if they dare move out of their group areas the police are watching them and it is wicked and criminal. Sir, there are lots of other countries where this has happened, where the stamp of the State was used in order to put into the minds of the people the thought that what they were doing was wrong and that the State did not like it and therefore they were criminals. Hitler did it and Mussolini did it and a lot of these Black countries to the north of us do it.

And you have done it.

No. This hon. member must not try to quote now once again, as he did before, instances where remarks have been made on this side of the House. Last time the hon. member was guilty of a terrible distortion of what I said.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon, member is guilty of a distortion?

What did the hon. member say?

I said that last time the hon. member tried to quote me in relation to this, he was guilty of a terrible distortion.

And he knew it.

If the hon. member said that the hon. member knew that he made a terrible distortion, it should be withdrawn.

May I ask the hon. member for Vereeniging whether he heard me say “and he knew it”?

No, you said I was guilty of a terrible distortion, but I say you are now guilty of a terrible distortion.

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member must not again try and quote what was said. The last time he quoted me he deliberately left out certain words which followed the words he quoted, which changed completely the complexion of what he said.

You know it is not true.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, the basic aim of this legislation is to provide machinery to make the demarcation of group areas a practicable, feasible proposition. The crux of this whole debate is whether we can make it practicable. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), with much ado, has advanced a series of arguments here but everything that he says against this Bill, every-thing that the Opposition say against the Bill, simply amounts to this that they do not want the demarcation of group areas to become a feasible proposition. They say that they are in favour of group areas but that such group areas must be established by way of consultation. They do not want practical machinery to be created to make it possible to demarcate group areas. They drag every conceivable thing into this debate; they talk about attending football matches. Even the other day when we conducted a debate here with regard to the purity of the English and the Afrikaans languages, one of the Opposition members dragged in the question of Whites and non-Whites attending the same performances. They object to everything because they do not want the demarcation of group areas to become a practical, feasible proposition. They say that the sole function of the police is to investigate crime. Surely that is not true. The police are also there to prevent crime. Another task of the police, which is even more important than the investigation of crime, is to prevent crime, because prevention is better than punishment. That is why we have to use the police to see to it that the law is not contravened, that offences are not committed, and if we succeed in preventing the commission of an offence it is so much better than to investigate crime and to punish the offender.

Then the Opposition come along with this other argument that people are allegedly so attached to their own group that one can bring about separate residential areas simply by way of consultation. The Opposition ought to know that if we follow those lines we will never be able to bring about completely separate residential areas. They say that there must be consultation because people are allegedly very attached to their homes and to the area in which they have always lived. Sir, is that true? Let us take the case of Whites, for example. While I was still representing an urban constituency 25 per cent of the voters in my constituency moved every year—and that is what happens in the case of Whites. There is not one out of a thousand Whites in the cities, or throughout the whole of the Republic, who insists on always living in the same house. It may be true that on the farms people are anxious to continue to live on the old family farm, but nine out of ten farmers nowadays have built modern houses for themselves and have handed over the old buildings to their foremen. There is no such thing that people want to go on living in the same house. On the contrary, the practice in the cities is that people shift from one house to another, from one suburb to another, and the impression that the Opposition want to create here that people are so terribly keen to continue to live in the house in which they or their forebears have lived for 100 or 1,000 years, is absolute fiction. That is not the position in this country, nor is it the position in the rest of the world. We had the case in England where, with the clearance of slums, with the clearance of bombarded areas, the Government proceeded to plan housing schemes elsewhere. And what happened? Those people voluntarily and eagerly shifted to those new houses which were superior to the old hovels and old houses in which they had formerly lived. Sir, that is the experience throughout the world and that is also our experience in this country. I say that perhaps one out of 1,000 Whites would prefer to continue to live in the house in which he as lived for a generation or two, but in the case of the Coloureds, not one Coloured out of 10,000 cares whether he continues to live in the old little house in which he was born and in which his parents lived. They move from one place to another and the thought never enters their minds that they want to continue to live in a particular area.

Reference has been made here to a Coloured person who occupied a very stylish house but who had to give it up and go and live in a house offered to him in one of the housing schemes. Mr. Speaker, the Act provides that in such a case the man’s house is bought from him at its market value-plus. He can therefore go to a non-White area and build a house for himself there which is just as stylish or even more stylish than the one formerly occupied by him. If the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has such clients he can send them along to me; I have a Coloured township in which I am prepared to build the most beautiful houses for them.

You want to make money out of their misery.

That is nevertheless the truth. In the whole history of the Bantu, in their tribal life or their city life, there has been a desire on the part of the Bantu to continue to live in the hut in which they were born. The Bantu have always been migrants. The superstition prevails amongst some Bantu tribes that if anybody dies in the family straw hut, that straw hut must be broken down and that they must go and build another hut elsewhere.

That is still their custom.

There is no such thing as the Bantu having a love for the house in which he has lived for a long time or in which he was born. Take the case of Chaka and of Dingaan and Ghaika and all the heads of the Bantu. They moved time and again from one place to another; time and again they broke down one stat and built another, and yet hon. members of the Opposition come here with the ridiculous, childish and stupid argument that the Bantu is attached to the house in which he lives and in which his forebears lived. Sir, that is a ridiculous and stupid argument. It is an argument which they are simply using here because in principle they are against group areas, as the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) said when I put a question to him after he had stated that he was in favour of group areas, because the hon. member said that the whole concept of group areas was unacceptable. Those were his words. That is what they really want. They will go on saying until 9 o’clock this evening that they are in favour of group areas, but after 9 o’clock this evening, or if this debate continues until 9.45 p.m., the hon. member for Durban (North) will repeat what he said a moment ago and that is that the entire concept of group areas is unacceptable.

You must not quote what I said out of context; do not do what the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) does.

I put a question to the hon. member and his reply was that the entire concept of group areas was unacceptable. That was what he said in his rashness …

He cannot remember it.

He cannot remember what he said. As a matter of fact I do not think he remembers much of what he usually says because whenever he gets up to speak he usually tries, with much ado, to conceal his real meaning. He is really a Progressive but he lacks the courage to go and stand as a Progressive in his constituency.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

I am just putting him in that group area—the group area of the Progressives.

On a point of order, is it not unparliamentary on the part of the hon. member to call me a Progressive?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Hon. members of the Opposition refuse to tell us honestly what they really have in mind. They refuse to tell us honestly why they are opposing this legislation, this legislation which is simply designed to make the machinery for the implementation of the Group Areas Act capable of implementation in practice. Why do they refuse to tell us what they really have in mind? They have moved that this Bill be read this day six months. Sir, that can only mean that the Opposition are opposed to our finding practical instruments and creating practical machinery to make the implementation of group areas a feasible proposition. That is what is behind the whole of their argument, and they cannot deny it.

Nonsense.

Sir, I need not take up any of my time to answer the hon. member who has just sat down. He took no part in the discussions.

He was not here.

I was here.

He does not know the contents of the Bill, and for that reason I will not waste much time on his speech, except to say that he made the point that the amending Bill now before us is designed to make it practicable to implement group areas. Sir, they have tried for 15 years to make it practicable and they cannot succeed. They will try another 15 years …

No, they will not be in power.

No, that is correct; they will not be in power, but as long as they remain in power they will go on trying and they will not succeed because the underlying principle of group areas is injustice. It is based on injustice to the people affected. I want to tell the hon. member that in no country in the world, except in South Africa—and I challenge him …

No, do not challenge me; challenge the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell).

I challenge him to tell me in which country in the world except South Africa citizens of a country are herded into group areas simply because of colour. In which country are people deprived of their homes because of their colour?

Smethwick.

Sir, the hon. member’s pronunciation is a little wrong. I wish he would get the name right. It is pronounced S-M-E-T-HT-C-K.

No, you are also wrong.

Sir, I am very serious about this Bill. I repeat my question to the hon. member: In which countries have people been uprooted from their homes, except in this country?

In England and in India, amongst others.

In which country must people have permits to enable them to move about freely?

In all countries in the world.

You do not know what is happening around you.

Sir, hon. members on that side do not know as I know of the losses and the tragedies in the homes of Coloured people as a result of this measure.

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort made a great point of the fact that Europeans move voluntarily from their homes to other areas. I want to stress that that is a voluntary act, but the removal of the Coloured people of this country is not a voluntary act, they have to move in terms of an Act brought in by this Government to deprive people of the right to move voluntarily. They are being forced to move. Sir, I am very sorry for this hon. Minister, and I am quite serious about it. He has been landed with a task which he will never be able to carry out; he will get all the kicks which the Government deserves for introducing this type of legislation. I want to tell the hon. member for For Beaufort another thing that he does not know and that is that there is no such thing as a man getting the market value of his house plus. I would ask the hon. the Minister to introduce such a clause because then the Coloured people would at least benefit, but as the position is to-day every Coloured person who moves loses on the deal.

That is not true.

I do not know of a single Coloured man who has made a profit on leaving his home.

That is not true.

The hon. member must not tell me that that is not true. I challenge that hon. member to bring me once case where a Coloured man has benefited. Sir, market value is not taken into consideration nor is municipal valuation taken into consideration. If the man sells his property above the basic valuation, he has to pay 50 per cent of the profit to the Government and if he sells below the basic valuation he only gets back 80 per cent of the loss. Sir, it is a tragic situation in which the Coloured people find themselves. It is all very well for us who are in better positions to laugh and to treat the tragedy of other people as a joke. The hon. member does not realize what is going on. The hon. member for Vereeniging cannot justify this Act.

I do not fall for your silly sob stories.

The hon. member cannot justify this Act.

You will not impress the Progressives in your constituency; they will still oust you.

With due respect to this House, Sir, I say it is a tragedy that hon. members make a joke of a Bill of this kind which affects so many thousands of people and under which so many thousands of people are moved and ruined. They do not know what tragedy this Act has brought to the Coloured people; they do not know of the suicides which have taken place as a result of this Act.

Utter nonsense.

I have come to the conclusion that the Government is so bankrupt in policy to put before the voters, that the only thing which remains to them is this colour question. They constantly have to wave this flag of colour before their supporters.

Hyde Park.

I say that in no other country do they have to live under a permit system as we have to do in this country.

What type of soap-box do you prefer—Sunlight or what kind?

Sir, I know of no country where the permit system prevails to the same extent as it does in this country. Sir, the Coloured people are bewildered; they come to me and say: “What have we done to deserve the treatment we are getting to-day? We used to be able to go to places of amusement, football matches and boxing matches and today we cannot go unless we have a permit.” The time will come when the hon. the Minister will have to consider the question of the Coon Carnival, one of the greatest holiday attractions in the Cape.

Are you upset about it?

I am upset about it if it has to be done under permit.

But has it been banned?

It will be unless the organizers get a permit. It is a tourist attraction …

Will they not get a permit?

I wish the hon. member would get out. Sir, I do not mind interruptions if they are reasonable or clever …

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I want to say that that is an example of what is going to happen under this Bill. We know that there are other fields in which the Coloureds have played their part and to-day they are harassed; they are almost in a state of disbelief that in their own country they are not free to do what they used to be able to do in years gone by.

To come back to some of the clauses of the Bill I want to lodge the strongest protest against the Minister’s refusal to accept the suggestions made by me with regard to Clause 15 where I asked him to remove the words “or suspected”. Sir, the matter has been fully dealt with again this afternoon by the hon. member for Durban (North). I do not want to say much more about the Bill except that it is a tragedy that in South Africa Parliament should be dealing with legislation which curbs and limits …

Order! That point has been made.

I can only express the very sincere hope that the hon. the Minister in applying this amended Bill, which I know will become law, will show sympathy for those people who are affected and that he will deal sympathetically with applications which will be made to him so that although this law is on the Statute Book there will still be ample opportunity for those who want to enjoy life freely to be able to do so.

The hon. member who has just sat down raised a great hullabaloo— as a matter of fact he was almost moved to tears—about Coloureds who are taken out of their homes. Does he not know that it is a daily occurrence in South Africa that people are taken out of their homes?

What about Residensia?

Yes, there is the case of Residensia, right next to my constituency, in the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. There are 2,000 Whites living in Residensia and those 2,000 Whites are now going to be removed from Residensia because it is becoming a Bantu area. They are not leaving voluntarily. I know of a prominent Nationalist who lives there and who does not want to leave Residensia; he objects but in spite of his objection the Whites are being taken out of Residensia.

But you justify it.

Of course, I justify it, because those people are all going to better homes; they are all going to a better area. Mr. Speaker, Vrededorp in Johannesburg is at present being replanned, not by this Government but by a United Party-controlled city council. Thousands of families have to be taken out of their homes to permit better planning. Whenever a new street is constructed in Johannesburg, people have to be removed from their homes. Here in Bellville the Dutch Reformed Church had to be broken down and people were taken out of their homes. What objection can there be to it? Sir, hon. members of the Opposition raised the same objection when the Bantu were taken out of Sophiatown. They would have preferred to see those Bantu continuing to live in the hovels of Sophiatown. They opposed the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown in this House. Why did they oppose it? Those Bantu were forced to leave Sophiatown. Is there anybody who objects to-day now that those Bantu are living in Meadowlands? The trouble with that hon. member is that he would prefer to see the Coloureds living in hovels in District Six rather than that they should be given decent housing. He comes here with the childish story that people are being ruined and that people commit suicide because they are removed from their homes. Is he not ashamed to talk such nonsense? Sir, a man who commits suicide because he is removed from a rotten house and placed in a better house should have committed suicide long ago. As I say, the hon. member comes here with his absolutely nonsensical stories. Thousands of Whites are being removed from their homes every day. They are forced to leave those homes, just as they are being forced to do so in Residensia today and just as they are being forced to do so in many areas of Johannesburg and in many areas of Cape Town. Whenever a road has to be constructed, people simply have to be removed; they are simply told: “Whether you wish to do so or not, you will have to clear out because we want to construct a road here.”

But that is under the Slums Act.

It has nothing to do with slums. Sir, a road is at present being constructed to the airport in Johannesburg and some of the finest houses near Gilloolie’s Farm will simply have to be demolished.

Harry Oppenheimer’s house is in danger.

Yes, Harry Oppenheimer’s house is in danger.

What has that to do with this measure?

The hon. member’s whole speech was devoted to people who are actually being forced to leave hovels, and he comes along with this nonsensical story about people having to suffer great hardship, when in point of fact all of them are going to better houses. However, I do not want to deal further with the hon. member. He is practically out of Parliament already; the Progressives have finished him off already …

That is quite all right.

As far as I am concerned it is also “all right.” The hon. member will in any event not be returned to this House again, and if that is “all right” as far as he is concerned, then it makes it “all right” with two of us.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Durban (North).

You are a political chameleon.

I have been wearing the same colours for 12 years at any rate! I come now to the hon. member for Durban (North!. The hon. member for Durban (North) says “The United Party has always been in favour of separate residential areas.” On a voluntary or on a compulsory basis? Are they in favour of separate residential areas on a voluntary or a compulsory basis? The hon. member is the man who pretends to be so important here; he is the man who throws out challenges here; he is the man who asked the Minister “What is your policy; what are group areas?” He says that he stands for separate residential areas. Let me ask him a very simple question: On a voluntary or a compulsory basis? No, the hon. member refuses to reply because if he says that it must be on a compulsory basis, he will be making himself guilty of advocating what is a terrible crime and that is to take a man out of a house which is precious to him and to put him in another house; but if he says that it must be done on a voluntary basis then it is meaningless; then it simply means that every Coloured can go and live where he likes; every Bantu can go and live where he likes and every Indian can go and live where he likes. The hon. member lacks the courage to say whether it should be on a compulsory or on a voluntary basis. Sir, is he not ashamed of himself?

He will give the answer at ten minutes past nine this evening.

Yes. He was not sent to Natal; the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) went to Natal. They had to keep the hon. member for Durban (North) here; he was too dangerous; he had to stay here.

No, I was also in Natal.

No, the hon. member went there once only and they then sent him back; they say he talks too much nonsense; he is too much of a Leftist; he is even more of a Leftist than the Progressive Party, but now that people in Umhlatuzana and Pietermaritzburg (North) can no longer hear what he has to say, now suddenly he starts talking again, and, as the hon. member for Fort Beaufort has just said, he is going to become very much more talkative this evening at ten minutes past nine o’clock! The hon. member is afraid to tell us whether he wants separate residential areas on a voluntary or on a compulsory basis. Mr. Speaker, for 15 years group areas have been declared in this country. Did the hon. member ever ask for the right to discuss the declaration of group areas in this Parliament? For 15 years group areas have been declared without the permission of this Parliament. Do hon. members of the Opposition want every future declaration of group areas to be discussed in this Parliament?

During the first seven years you did nothing.

The fact of the matter is simply that it has not been possible over the past 15 years to dispose of this work, and all that is now going to happen is that we are going to carry on with the declaration of group areas, as we have been doing in the past, without discussing each declaration of group areas in this Parliament. The hon. member has shown no great desire in the past to discuss the declaration of any group area in this Parliament: that is why he has not raised the matter here before. Sir, the hon. member says that we must have permits to be able to visit certain places. The fact that one has to have a permit from the Government to be able to visit certain places has suddenly become a terrible sin. But does he not know that that is the position in any event? I want to know whether he has any objection to it. If he comes to visit me in Vereenising—and he is very welcome to come and visit me. and if he plays golf he will be twice as welcome to come and visit me—and he wishes to visit Sharpeville, he will have to have a permit. Has he any objection to it? If I, as the representative of Vereeniging, want to visit Sharpeville I must have a permit. Has the hon. member any objection to that? Of course he has no objection. That is how these things, have to be arranged. Good Heavens, is there any person who has the right to walk into any place? If I want to go to the Colosseum I must have a permit, the owner of the Colosseum can refuse me admittance and I can do nothing about it. I have no right to enter if he refuses me admittance. The hon. member knows that that is the position. If he does not know it then surely he knows that Brian Brooke has forbidden Oliver Walker, the dramatic critic of The Star, to enter his theatre. Does he know about it? Oliver Walker simply cannot get a permit to visit Brian Brooke’s theatre.

And it is not the Government that refuses him a permit.

Yes, it is not the Government, it is Brian Brooke, and Brian Brooke does it under the regulations of the City Council of Johannesburg, which consists of United Party supporters, people of the hon. member’s kind or at least people who are United Party supporters, not Progressives like the hon. member; they are honest enough to be United Party supporters.

The hon. member says that we are forcing people to live in certain places. I take it that he is in favour of compulsory residential segregation and that he wants the Bantu to live in Langa and Nyanga. Sir, is he prepared to say that his Party’s policy is that the Bantu of Langa and Nyanga should be able to come and trade in Adderley Street; that they should be able to buy business premises there? Is he in favour of that? Is that his party’s policy? Tf that is not his party’s policy, in what respect does his party’s policy differ from that of the Nationalist Party? Hon. members opposite strenuously object to the fact that people have to obtain permits in order to be able to attend football matches and to visit the Luxurama, etc. Will the hon. member give me his reply to this question: Is he in favour of the proposition that all places of entertainment should be thrown open to all races? The hon. member now sits there and pretends that he cannot hear me. Is he in favour of the proposition that all places of entertainment should be thrown open to all races?

Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to rise while the hon. member is addressing the House?

With pleasure, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wants to reply to my question I shall sit down. I just want him to understand clearly what my question is, then I shall sit down and he can get up and reply to it. The question is very straight forward and very simple. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) must not become so nervous now; I am not putting this question to him. I want to know from the hon. member for Durban (North) whether the policy of his party is that all places of entertainment in South Africa should be thrown open to all races. Let him answer that question.

Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to get up and answer the hon. member’s question?

Yes, I am sitting down; you can answer.

Am I entitled to get up and answer, Sir?

Yes.

Let me tell the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) what the position is. The United Party is in favour of separate residential areas for the different races …

By force or not?

We are in favour of that. We introduced this legislation before but the manner in which it is to be achieved in terms of the law, the matter of compulsion, is what distinguishes us …

No compulsion?

No, no; I did not say that. I ask the hon. member to remember the Pegging Act. That Act provided for a method whereby persons could be removed from an area which had been declared an area to be, say, for Whites. The method was that when that property was sold it had to be sold to a qualified person. When that person died his estate had to sell it to a qualified person. That was quite a different method, Sir, from the method employed by hon. members opposite.

Answer my question.

In answer to his second question let me tell him this: This Bill has nothing whatever to do with residential separation.

It is perfectly clear that the hon. member does not want to reply. I wonder whether he feels very proud of himself now? Throughout his speech he kept on referring to the question of separation in the field of entertainment. I put a simple question to him: he stood up to reply, he spoke for a few minutes and he has still not answered my question. I am prepared to sit down again but will he answer this time? Is the policy of his party that places of entertainment must be thrown open at all times to all races?

Mr. Speaker …

The hon. member can say “yes” or “no”; he cannot make a speech again.

Oh no.

When we put questions to Ministers on Tuesdays and Fridays they do not simply answer “yes” or “no”.

This is not question time; this is debating time.

Thank you very much for your assistance, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for bringing home the point so effectively; I know that you cannot take part in these debates. Sir, it was not only the hon. member’s “timing” that was wrong; his mood is also wrong. That is his trouble. Hon. members opposite were under the impression that this Government would allow that mad movement in England, which calls itself Equity, to come and dictate to us whom we should allow to attend the Luxurama and whom we should not allow to attend. They were making use of these places of entertainment to conduct a campaign which was designed to present this Government in a ridiculous light and to embarrass the Government. They tried, by making use of people like Dusty Springfield and others, to change the entire social pattern in South Africa. Sir, the only thing that this Minister and the previous Minister did was to say, “We are not going to allow Equity to dictate to us who may attend places of entertainment in this country and who may not do so”. They are disappointed now; that is why the hon. member for Durban (North) is afraid to say whether his party would allow this. He lacks the courage to get up and to say that they are prepared to throw open all places of entertainment to all races. He lacks the courage to say it and he also lacks the courage to say the opposite. If he lacks the courage to say either the one thing or the opposite, has he any courage at all? He only has the courage to be a Sap (United Party supporter). That is the only thing for which he has the necessary courage. Sir, these are the people who place themselves on such a high moral pedestal! Is the hon. member not ashamed of the fact that he is afraid to reply to such simple questions? Is he not ashamed of the fact that although he is unwilling to state their policy he nevertheless attacks our policy? What is wrong with our trying to arrange and to organize these things on a proper basis? Why should we allow a bunch of so-called artists, a lot of “pop singers”, to come and upset our policy in this country? We do not interfere with the Eoan Group and their operas. Those things can continue, and they are continuing but they are continuing with the permission of the Minister. What is wrong with that? Our only object is to prevent these co-called artists from coming here and trying to change our entire social pattern as they have been trying to do for a long time. Wherever they appear they insist on mixed audiences consisting of both non-Whites and Whites. If they are given their own way the time will soon come when they will appear in the Colosseum and insist on the presence of a lot of non-Whites. Why does the hon. member approve of Coloureds being prohibited and admittance to the Colosseum when he does not want Whites to be prohibited from attending the Luxurama? Why does he approve of it? Where is the logic in his argument? Where is the morality in his argument? Where is the honesty in his argument? Where is the common sense in his argument? Sir, I wish I could think of another few words to drive home this point but he is already looking so sad that I am beginning to feel sorry for him.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Did the owner of the Luxurama want mixed audiences whereas the previous owner of the Colosseum did not want mixed audiences?

Sir, no question has ever been more welcome than that question. If the owner of the Colosseum is willing to admit Coloureds, will the hon. member agree to it? The hon. member for Durban (North) must not sit there now pretending not to hear me. Let him reply to my question. I will tell him what the owner of the Luxurama said; he says that he built the theatre for Coloureds only; he obtained his licence for that purpose; he informed the City Council that it was for Coloureds only. White persons then went along and ousted the Coloureds. The Minister actually did the Coloureds a great favour. Sir, according to the hon. member it is of vital importance to the poor Coloured lad that he should be able to attend the Luxurama, and if he cannot attend the Luxurama then the hon. member over there raises a great hullabaloo about it; he immediately adopts a high moral tone and wears a halo around his head, but when that same Coloured lad is forbidden to attend St. George’s Grammar School the hon. member does not say a single world; then he has no objection. Mr. Speaker, I have never before seen such political helplessness, such political opportunism. They have degenerated to such an extent now that they are no longer a political party.

Here is some water for you. (Mr. M. L. Mitchell.)

Mr. Speaker …

No, Mr. Speaker, if it is not a point of order, the hon. member must resume his seat.

Are the messengers of this House entitled to sit on the benches in this House?

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the further steps taken by him. Sir, this Government has refused to allow itself to be dictated to by a Leftist, semi-communist organization in England, an organization called Equity, which wants to dictate to us what our social pattern should be and who should be allowed to attend our places of entertainment. Hon. members opposite are annoyed now. They lack the courage to say whether they are going to allow it. They want to allow mixed audiences in the Luxurama but they refuse to allow it in the Colosseum. A more dishonest, a more weak-kneed, a more indefensible attitude …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dishonest”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. That “honest” policy of theirs! I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) whether he believes that this is being honest? They want to allow mixed audiences in the Luxurama but not in the Colosseum! Sir, have you ever seen greater political opportunism, greater political helplessness? Hon. members on that side of the House have exposed themselves here this afternoon as they have seldom done before and I have really enjoyed this opportunity to rub it in a little.

Sir, I think we might get back to the Bill. Before doing so, I would like to tell the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) one thing: There are many cinemas in this country, which have been used for years exclusively by Coloured people, long before the Group Areas Act came into effect. They went there of their own accord; there was no compulsion. The Colosseum to which he referred is a White cinema. It has always been such. It is owned by a company which has had the right for donkeys’ years to reserve the right of admission. The hon. member should know, because he was in the Cape at one time, that there is a sign above the door; “Right of Admission reserved”. Whether that is necessary for the likes of him, I do not know; but I do not think so. Hon. members who make such a song and dance trying to embarrass the United Party, must realize that on the platteland, in every town, mixed audiences have, for donkeys’ years, been attending cinema shows. And nobody took any notice of it.

The essence of this Bill is to accelerate the type of action which has motivated the Government recently. “Ownership”, “acquisition” and “occupation” are the three words used in the clauses of this Bill. The police are now going to roll up in the dead of night, and make searches. If it is a question of ownership surely the group area inspectors, through municipal records, their own records, and from various other sources, should be able, in the hours of daylight, to ascertain, who is the correct owner of any premises or piece of land. The occupier or the tenant is also easily identified, through records which are kept by the local authority, in regard to light, water and other services. What is left? These things are provided for and can easily be accomplished in daylight.

However, when we come to questions other than “occupation”, I want to say that the whole of this legislation is directed at the Coloured community. I say that, because of a remark made, by way of an interjection, by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. He said that Bantu areas, or “woonbuurtes”, as he called them, in urban areas, are not group areas. The “group area” can therefore only be the Coloured area, the Asiatic area, or the Chinese area. As far as the White area is concerned, as I have said so often, it is always the Coloured man who has to move.

I want to deal with the point that has been raised, namely, that the Coloured man gets a better price. I believe that this Bill will cause more hardship than that suffered before. It will cause more distress. I think examples are the best way of explaining what is actually the impact of the Bill the Coloured community. We say in the Bill, which is going to be passed into law, unless the Minister softens his heart at this eleventh hour, that we will give alternative accommodation. I have a case on my desk where a local authority, in order to move Coloured people out of a Bantu area, built a certain standard of house. That standard meant no doors, no floors, no washing facilities, no communal facilities …

No doors?

Yes; no inside doors. And no ceiling, no washing facilities and no communal washing facilities. A proclamation under the Group Areas Act was made which affected another portion of the same town. The town council said that the two-roomed township was not suitable for the particular persons to whom that particular proclamation was made applicable. I have the correspondence; the Minister can have a look at it. The town council asked for permission to build a second group of houses into which the affected people could be moved and applied for an extension of time. That extension was refused. A letter from a Government Department, when it was appealed to, to give an extension of time to the affected persons, said, that the matter was now in the hands of the police, and that they had no further control. I want to tell the hon. Minister that that is the type of thing, which is causing the hardship, the frustration, the disappointment and the despair amongst the Coloured community throughout the country, especially in the Cape Province. These are facts. The town council itself says that for them to be required to handle and deal with the large number of Coloured persons in that town, almost three times as many as there are Whites, is beyond their capacity. The council can make no progress and an official letter from the Department says “This matter is now in the hands of the police”.

I want to revert to the case which I mentioned to the hon. the Minister where, in another city, an area, which was the commercial centre, was proclaimed. It was proclaimed although the local authority said: “We are getting on with the job.” There are affected persons, Asiatics, Coloured and other traders. The hon. Minister said to me that if these were in a White area, irrespective of how their business was conducted, they must get a permit.

They can apply for a permit.

That is the whole point. I am glad the hon. Minister corrected me, because that is the crux of the matter. That man’s permit—he has a substantial business—expires in July. He must “apply” for an extension which he “may” get. Think this over, Mr. Speaker: There is no alternative accommodation; there is no established Indian area with any type of shop to cater for the class of business that man conducts, and he only “may” get a permit. These are the times and the occasions when permits should be readily and freely granted and for periods longer than 12 months. This must be done, so that these people can feel secure in their future. There is no shadow of doubt that people of that calibre are going to be ruined. We cannot wink facts in the face; we cannot say it will not be so. They will be uprooted and put elsewhere.

I should also like to say this to the hon. Minister: When I spoke to him about delegation of power down the line, he told me that in terms of sub-section (4) of the particular section which is being amended, that appeals could be made to the Minister. Does the hon. Minister realize the expense, the heartaches, the delay and rigmarole affected persons have to endure and follow, before their appeals reach the Minister? To cap it all, there is all the uncertainty that goes with it, because he only “may” get a permit. The Government has said in 1950 that 15 years was the target. That target date expires in June. The hon. the Minister himself has told us that many hundreds of group areas have been proclaimed, but that there are still some difficult cases. There are many difficult cases, Sir, and I want to say to the hon. Minister that it is a great pity that, after 15 years, we must still have wordy warfare in this House, as to who agrees with what, with whom, and about which. The Coloured community are involved in group areas; they have to live with it. We hear statements that they do better. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) quoted an example to show that they got better houses. That is not correct, Sir. In my long and vast experience I have yet to come across a case where the Coloured man did better and got more than his property was worth. The municipal valuation is not used, in cases of expropriation, which is valuation plus 30 per cent, or an agreed price. We do not use the basis of a willing buyer and a willing seller, which is market value. We do not use these two values. We use the basic value and the basic value, to my knowledge, is never in the range of the two valuations I have mentioned. As the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) pointed out; if an individual can sell his property above the basic value he must hand over 50 per cent of the profit. If he sells below it, he gets 80 per cent of the loss— so he loses 20 per cent on that as well. I am convinced, because not one word has been said from the Government side that this legislation is not directed at the Coloured community, that it is directed at them. We have had a great deal of discussion, we have had many statements, about the Bantu in other parts of the country. But I want hon. members to remember that their own Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration has said that those Bantu areas are not group areas. It is there, where we have all the temporary sojourners and men on holiday.

In dealing with the question of the police an attempt has been made to indicate that we, who object to the Group Areas Act, and oppose this amending Bill are tilting at the South African Police as a body of men, and, as a force. Let me say right now, that that is not correct. When matters are handed to the police, the mere fact that a policeman turns up at a Coloured man’s house, especially after dark, does not engender confidence in that particular individual, who is the owner or the occupant of the house.

Raise that under the Justice Vote.

I am raising it under this Bill. This is the right place.

Are you suggesting that the police have misbehaved themselves?

I would like to condemn in the strongest possible terms these suggestions that, because I say that the appearance of a man in uniform at a man’s house after dark engenders fear, trepidation and anxiety, I suggest, that they, the police, have misbehaved themselves. We do not say that at all. Nobody has ever said that. But the fact remains that it does engender fear, anxiety and worry. I would like the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) to tell me what his reaction is when somebody in uniform knocks on his door at two o’clock in the morning.

They have never done so.

Well, you are in a special group: that is why.

Do they do it in the case of the Coloured people when they investigate group areas?

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to be put off my course by the hon. member for Standerton. What I would like to say is, that that particular aspect is an objectionable one, and will not be accepted easily and lightly by the Coloured community.

There is very little else that I can add, which has not already been said. I would like to point out, however, that the clause which deals with the police and “suspected” crime opens up an avenue which, I think, is wrong, in this country. Who is going to suspect who; who is going to contact the police and tell them what is going on, and that they must call at a certain address and that they may find this, that, or the other? Such people are classified as snoopers and informers. I do appeal to the hon. the Minister, even now, to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Boland and take out the word “suspected”. I appeal to the Minister to act upon the lines suggested by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), who went to great pains to explain, and to give authority to his statement, that under the law relating to search, the job must be done in the daytime, at reasonable hours, and under certain conditions. Surely, Sir, if books are going to be examined regarding ownership, accounts, receipts and such things—I do not know what “things” are going to be; I thought we were investigating people—that that should be enough. The hon. the Minister referred to it as being a crime. Surely, Sir, to be under another man’s roof is no crime. It might be a crime, technically, in terms of the law, but it is not something which needs a visit from the police. Surely not. Nevertheless that is what this law is going to bring about, unless the Minister decides to amend it. There are a number of hostile people about, Mr. Speaker, people who think they are clever, people who are malicious, people who, to work a point off against a neighbour, can create a set of circumstances, which will give rise to the position where the police will knock on the door in the dead of night. I do hope and I appeal to the hon. the Minister, because I know he is reasonable and fair, to appreciate and realize the position. He is a lawyer; he should know. Why is it that we must have the police? I have been in local government and other public jobs for many years. The strange thing is, that for a variety of offences there are inspectors of many kinds and types. Even prosecutions can follow from such inspections. Why, in the case of group areas, have we to have the police?

I have here a little quotation which I think is well worth repeating—

Both the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) and the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) have tried to create the impression here that this Bill is only aimed against people of colour and that any group areas legislation is only aimed against people of colour. How can they say a thing like that? That is not the experience of the whole of South Africa. They may think so in the small circle of their limited horizon, but if I tell the hon. member that we have had a group areas proclamation in Standerton in the past six months, that we have had to remove White people from a certain area and that there are White people who object to being removed, will he deny it? Furthermore I want to tell him that as a group the people there are satisfied with the proclamation and that they want to move out of the area as soon as possible, so much so that they are moving out at a faster rate than the Government administration can cope with. Moreover, the Coloured people for whom this area has been proclaimed and the Indians for whom it has been proclaimed are moving in there more rapidly really than the rate at which they can conveniently be dealt with. In the light of this, how can the hon. member say that this is only intended as a discriminatory measure against a certain group of people? Surely that is absolute nonsense. Sir. I am mentioning this only for the record.

Are they willing to move at Standerton?

The Indians are as pleased as a dog with two tails, as pleased as a spaniel with two tails.

And the Whites?

The Whites are also happy to move out. The Coloureds are only too glad to move in there. They are moving in as rapidly as the Whites are prepared to allow them: they are moving in so rapidly that the United Party’s candidate in the provincial elections tried to make some capital out of it by saving, “This is apartheid: the Government is allowing Coloureds and Indians to live amongst you.”

Is that not true?

It is not true. The position is that all the groups are exceptionally happy and agreeable as far as that situation is concerned. These are the facts of the matter. But the hon. members come here to slander South Africa both here and overseas by creating this impression. Once again they are only being true to themselves. I want to add that the statement by the hon. members for Karoo and Boland and Durban (North) that the valuations are always unfavourable to the owners is also not true. It is just not true. Here again I want to refer to a matter with which I am very intimately acquainted, and that is the position in Standerton. All the people there are satisfied with the valuations, with the exception of two or three, and the Act makes provision for them to appeal against the valuations. This is not something that is done arbitrarily. But it is useless to discuss the merits of a matter with people who have no judgment but who are motivated only by prejudice. They do not judge things on their merits; they judge everything in terms of their own preconceived idea that these things are bad. Sir, I cannot tolerate that and I must say it here for the sake of the record. I do not have much time, but now that the hon. member for Durban (North) has come back I also want to deal with the suspicion that he tried to sow here yesterday and again to-day; I say that in this matter he knowingly distorted the position.

Order!

Very well, Mr. Speaker, let me say then that he again refused to try to understand the position and that he tried to sell his ignorance to the country.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. Mr. Speaker. Sir, what I have in mind here is the date of the proclamation. The hon. member wants to create the impression that the Minister by means of the amendment we are bringing about here wants to create a situation in which he will no longer allow the usual period of grace, either 12 months or three months. But what happens in practice? I say this not because I think the hon. member for Durban (North) will understand it. not because I think he wants to understand it. but merely for the record. The facts are that any group area proclamation must have a date, the date in respect of the particular area affected will be the date mentioned in the proclamation and that date in any case cannot be a date other than a date subsequent to the date of the proclamation, or the date of the proclamation itself.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 68 (1).

I have tried to ascertain whether new arguments were advanced here, but hitherto there has been nothing new. There has just been a repetition of the old objections to this Bill. It was said that parliamentary supervision is being dispensed with here. It was also said that more Ministers are now concerned. That is correct. Whereas under the principal Act two Ministers handled this legislation and issued permits, there are now three, but it has been clearly stated where the dividing line is drawn and what the functions of each Minister are. I shall not go into that again. It has been alleged that this Bill has been introduced “to speed up the implementation of group areas”. How much this can contribute towards that I do not know. In any case, that was not the intention. The basic intention was to set the situation right after the appointment of the Minister of Planning. It was said here that we were now dispensing with parliamentary supervision, and the question was asked as to when group areas’ proclamations would be finished. I have indicated that hitherto there was no parliamentary supervision when more than 750 group areas were proclaimed. But when we take into consideration the time spent here in opposing this legislation, what is the reason for taking up all this time? The Opposition says that in principle they are opposed to this Bill. I therefore take it that in principle they will be opposed to the proclamation of every single group area.

I am.

You see. Sir, the other members are keeping quiet now. It means that when we report about the further group areas which still have to be proclaimed, there will be opposition in principle to each of them, because they are opposed to them. Where will it lead if parliamentary supervision is exercised in that manner? What will the position be if we proclaim group areas and every one must be submitted to this House and each is opposed in principle? Then it is better for this side of the House and the Government simply to assume responsibility, as it has done for the past 15 years, and save the House trouble and the country expense.

The hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) referred to the proclamation. It says that as from a prescribed date it shall be a group area. “Shall be.” But the “shall be” has no meaning at all to the hon. member for Durban (North). He says that we can proclaim retrospectively. Is “shall be” retrospective? Surely it is stupid to argue that way. A longer time can be granted now, and it is to the benefit of these people if it is provided that an area will become a group area a year after a certain date. In terms of this these people can be given a longer time, but the hon. member alleges that the opposite is the case. It was said that these decisions taken when group areas are declared are political decisions. The hon. member for Durban (North) is an advocate. and sometimes advocates try to sow confusion when they want to distract attention, and that is what the hon. members did yesterday and also tried to do to-day. They tried to distract attention from the basic principle, and the hon. member tries to read things into this and he creates so much confusion for himself that he simply refuses to accept any argument. It is clear that what they oppose is the legislation as it is before us, because it brings about compulsory separation. The hon. member himself said that it concerned not only separation in regard to residential areas, but also separation in other respects. He said that it had nothing to do with residential areas, but was concerned with separation in other spheres. There they do not want compulsory separation. They say they want separation, but it should be voluntary, whether it applies to football matches or the theatre or anything else, but it must be voluntary separation. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether, as far as Durban is concerned, he would be satisfied if the separation was suspended in so far as football matches are concerned, so that everyone could sit just where he liked? No, he would not be satisfied with that. Now he keeps quiet.

That is not the position to-day.

Precisely, but is the hon. member prepared to suspend the separation that exists at present?

It simply does not happen.

It was done in a certain part of it. That is why there is an application for a permit, and that is why we try to regulate it in conformity with their request.

Who asked that they should be granted a permit? Was there ever any trouble in connection with the football matches at Newlands or in Durban?

To ask at this stage whether there is any problem! It is clear that there are bodies which are trying to undermine our traditional approach and the fact that we want to be apart, and if these powers are not granted those people will continue their efforts, and they do so deliberately because they know that we follow the course of apartheid. But there are certain strongholds which they are still trying to retain, and this Government is prepared to intervene and to remedy the matter for the sake of those who want it. The hon. member asked the hon. member for Standerton, who requested action to be taken in regard to the Luxurama.

No, I did not ask that.

The question was asked as to who had requested that action should be taken in regard to the Luxurama. I want to put this matter right. Who asked that the Luxurama should be set aside for Coloureds only? I have here a letter from the owner of the Luxurama, dated 3 February. He sent me a copy of the letter, which was addressed to the Secretary for the Department of Community Development, in which he says this—

Then he sets out his problems. He erected the building and it was intended for that purpose, but he cannot economically justify its being used for Coloureds only because there are cinemas in the White area where Coloureds are allowed and they receive priority in respect of certain films. He sets that out and then he says—

A pistol was held to his head.

He says, further—

Then he concludes as follows—

In this way. promote a better understanding between Whites and Coloureds and prove to the outside world that the Government’s racial policy is sound and practicable.

The pistol was being held to his head when he wrote it.

Then he says—

That is what the owner wrote and the date of this is 3 February.

What did the hon. member for Boland mean when he said: “He wrote this letter with a pistol at his head”? Who held the pistol?

It was meant symbolically.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I want to point out that the proclamation promulgated and made applicable to the Luxurama was only promulgated on 12 February, and this is dated 3 February, and therefore the representations came from him to the Minister of Community Development to try to assist in turning this into an out-and-out Coloured cinema or theatre, and in the statement he issued after the proclamation the Minister said this—

And then he mentioned their names. So this assistance was given. The owner of the cinema asked for assistance in order to use this theatre for the object for which it was originally intended.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the Minister explain what he thinks is wrong in non-Whites attending soccer matches or cricket matches at The Wanderers, as they have done for generations?

If the hon. member alleges that at The Wanderers Whites and non-Whites attend soccer matches intermingled, and that they sat there among each other, and have done so all this time, then I say that there is a large number, if not the overwhelming majority of the people attending those soccer matches, who would prefer to sit apart, as Whites, and as non-Whites.

They do not sit together.

Confusion is being created here, and I want to point to the manner in which confusion is being created by certain parties in regard to the proclamation and the policy set out here by the Minister of the Interior when he replied to a question in this House. Last night a report appeared in the evening newspaper under the headline——

The report says—

That is what appeared here, and then it says that a permit was applied for, and the impression created is that the Government refused to allow the Whites to officiate. Now I have a statement here from the man who applied for the permit, and which he also sent to the Press, and in it he points out that he applied for this sports gathering of the Western Province Cycling Union to be mixed. The reply of the Department was that they would give him a permit and that it could be mixed, but that there must be separate seats, etc. He then went to the City Council which said that they could not make such provision there, and consequently they could not make the terrain available for him. Then he returned to the Department, and they themselves applied for a permit to be issued just for Coloureds. He writes as follows—

Your news report creates the impression that officials of the Department of Planning induced the representatives of the Union to amend their application to exclude Whites from the championships, as indicated above. This is not a true reflection of the position.

Here we therefore find that this impression is being created, whereas the person himself says that they asked that Whites should be allowed as starting officials and that consent was duly given. But what was the reaction on the part of the non-Whites in this regard? In this morning’s newspaper the following, inter alia, appeared from one of the leaders of the Coloureds here—

That is the standpoint of a Coloured man in this respect. The fact is that what these hon. members want is that there should not be apartheid in these broad spheres, in these social spheres. They simply want this old pattern of integration and intermingling to continue, and that is the smokescreen which they try to put up here in that regard.

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

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

This clause amends Section 10 of the principal Act, which is an important section of that Act, in that it comes under Chapter II of that Act which deals with the protection of infants. Section 10 of the principal Act lays down certain conditions which have to be met for the protection of infants, which have a direct bearing on the adoption of infants, and it is a matter which has caused concern in the past, particularly where children have been placed with certain persons and then it is discovered that the child has to be removed from those persons after perhaps a long period of time, which makes it difficult both for the child and for the parents who have cared for it. This section reduces the time limit in the one case, and in the other case, in sub-section (1), certain words are deleted from the existing Section 10. Whereas before it stated “within seven days after receiving that infant”, it is now proposed to delete that sub-section and bring in a new sub-section which says “as soon as he has maintained that infant for a period of 30 days will, without delay, transmit a notice in writing in the prescribed form of the receipt of that infant to the Commissioner of Child Welfare”. I should like to have further clarity from the Minister as to the meaning of “without delay”. Previously it was seven days after receiving the infant and it is now proposed to amend this so that as soon as he has maintained that infant for a period of 30 days it is necessary for him without delay to transmit such notice in writing to the Commissioner of Child Welfare.

The other portion of this clause, the new paragraph (a), will bring in a section whereby it will be necessary that the commissioner for the district shall be notified if the intention is to maintain the child apart from the mother for a period longer than 14 days, whereas in the existing Act it is for 30 days. It is a question of the time limits which are being amended here. I think it is important that we should have clarity in regard to the time permitted, particularly in the first instance where it is stated “without delay”. If you refer to the principal Act, under Chapter II, dealing with the protection of infants, one finds in Section 16 the following: “Any person who is in terms of this chapter required to obtain the consent of the commissioner for the receipt of an infant or to give notice of the receipt or delivery of an infant and who fails to obtain such consent or who fails to give that notice within the time specified therefor or who knowingly or recklessly makes or causes the making of any false or misleading statement when obtaining such consent, or in any such notice, shall be guilty of an offence.” In view of the fact that the clause here does not specify any definite time wherein it is necessary for him to transmit a notice in writing in the prescribed form to the Commissioner for Child Welfare … it is merely using the term “without delay”, and it is on that particular basis that I hope the Minister will be able to give us some interpretation to ensure that perhaps it could be more specifically mentioned as to what the period referred to as being “without delay” shall be.

The problem is where a child has been under the care of someone for a long time, has adapted himself to some extent to his surroundings and then has to be removed. The hon. member agrees with me that the older the child and the longer he remains there the more difficult it becomes to remove him. We now provide that immediately after 30 days that person must notify the Commissioner.

The same day?

Yes, immediately. The object is so that people will know they have to do it immediately but something else is also intended with this “immediately” namely that the person concerned must immediately furnish the commissioner with details regarding the child and those are the cases where the child may perhaps still remain for an indefinite period. You have to draw the line somewhere and the object is to ensure that when the child has been in the care of someone for 30 days that person must be obliged to give notice immediately that the child is in his care. It is felt that this will assist in solving the difficulty we are experiencing to-day of trying to negotiate the adoption after a child has been living with someone for an indefinite period.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

This clause gives us a great deal of trouble. We feel very strongly about it, as was said in the second reading. The original section made it impossible except in cases of emergency for a policeman to enter a home unless he suspected or had extremely good reason for thinking that an offence against the child was being committed. To obtain a warrant to go into the house is not a difficult or a lengthy procedure, and in the ordinary way the call usually goes to the police. Generally the people who ill-treat their children or commit offences against them are repeated offenders, people who get drunk over the week-end and come home and beat up their children, or people who do not feed them, or throw them out into the street to play, and the neighbours know them and the police usually know them also, and the welfare officers know them, so that there is no difficulty about it at all. I personally feel very strongly, especially after the long speeches made on the. subject earlier, that we have no right, and we should jealously guard the right of all our citizens to the sanctity of their homes. While it may become necessary for welfare officers or for the police to enter the home, they should have a good reason for it; if it is done without a warrant and there is good reason for it they will be upheld. If, on the other hand, they go in there when it is unjustified, this Act will make it justifiable for them, because there is then no come-back. Under those conditions we feel very strongly that his should not be allowed. We do not feel that this amendment is at all necessary. We feel that the original Act amply met the situation and we therefore strongly object to it.

I should like to add my voice to that of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) in pleading with the Minister to delete this clause. We will vote against this clause because we feel very strongly that the sanctity of the home should not be invaded unless it is essential. The point of paramount importance in this Bill is the protection of the child, and if there is one thing which will upset the child, unless that child is being ill-treated, it is the appearance of a policeman in his home, or anyone coming into his home to take action against his parents, unless there is a disturbance where the parents or guardians are drunk or are ill-treating the child. We know that where a policeman under the common law has any reason to believe that an offence is being committed against any child, he has the right to enter those premises immediately, but if they only want to investigate a suspicion that something is not as it should be there is no difficulty at all in obtaining a warrant to enter the House. We know that the Minister is very interested in the sanctity of the home and the care of children, and I am sure that if he looks at it from that angle he will see that there is no necessity for this provision. The present Act has operated very successfully over the years and we can see no reason for altering it at present. We have heard no good reason given during the second reading and we feel it would not be in the interests of the children themselves to bring an amendment such as this into the Act. We therefore appeal to the Minister to delete this clause.

Perhaps I should reply to this immediately. To judge the position from what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) has just said we have had no problems in the past but it is obvious that we could not have had any problems because if that child is in the custody of an undesirable person and that person refuses to consent to your removing the child —it is very natural for him to refuse—then there is no problem, of course, except that the child is living in an undesirable home. I cannot understand how hon. members can object to it. The fundamental principle underlying the Act is to look after the interests of the child but instead of the State doing it you allow an undesirable person to look after the interests of that child; he decides whether or not to give his consent. Section 26 (1) of the Act provides that a child can be removed from the place where he is by a probation officer, police official or an authorized official. If such an official suspects that the child is in need of care, or if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being committed upon or in connection with the child he may be removed. But the effect of the existing proviso is that where the person in whose care the child is refuses to give his consent your hands are tied and this section is useless. These people cannot go in and fetch him. It is very possible where it is suspected that a child is in need of care that no offence is being committed upon or in connection with the child. I just want to refer to the definition of a child in need of care. Section 1 of the Act says it is a child who frequents the company of any immoral or vicious person, or is otherwise living in circumstances calculated to cause or conduce to his seduction, corruption or prostitution. Such a child is in need of care but the State who has to protect that child cannot do anything in that regard because consent is refused. In terms of (i) it is a child who is in a state of physical or mental neglect. I really think hon. members must appreciate the logic of this argument. Of what use is it to have legislation which cannot be carried out in practice? There was no difficulty in the past because those persons simply refused to give their consent. Everything is done here to protect the interests of the child and it is only done when the child lives in such circumstances that it is essential that he be removed as soon as possible. It is very important, therefore, in view of the underlying principle in this legislation, to see to it that the child is removed as soon as possible.

One must agree with the hon. the Minister that in relation to the custody of children the only test to be applied by the Department and the courts is what is in the best interests of the child. What we are amending here is the proviso to a section which gives certain powers to various officials. This proviso is the guardian of certain powers already granted, which are granted to any policeman, probation officer or authorized officer to remove the child from any place to any place of safety, on two conditions. firstly if, in the opinion of the policeman, probation officer or authorized officer, this is a child in need of care, or if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence mentioned in the First Schedule has been or might be or is being committed upon the child, and those offences are abduction, child stealing, assault, any sexual offence and offences involving bodily injury to the child and an offence under Chapter III. Well, those are very broad, wide powers, but the Act specifically provides that there should be some sort of restriction on the exercise of those powers, and so we have the proviso which says that if the child is in a public place and is accompanied by the person having custody of that child, or if the child is not in a public place, i.e., is in a private place or, in other words, is at home, he shall not be removed against the will of the person in whose custody he is unless there is reason to believe that an offence is being committed upon that child. The Minister says that if the child is in the custody of an undesirable person, surely it is in the best interests of the child to remove him from that custody. But if the Minister is right in saying this, then surely whether the child is in a public place or in a private place makes no difference. The principle that the Minister enunciates is equally applicable either at home or in a public place.

What about the case when the child is in need of care?

I am not concerned with that now. The Act says that any probation officer or policeman may remove the child from any place whatever if, in his opinion, the child is in need of care, but the Act restricts that by saying that if the child is in a public place and is accompanied by the person having custody of that child, he may not remove him unless he has reason to believe that an offence is being or has been committed in respect of that child. But if it is not in a public place the same restriction applies. The test is always there. This is our difficulty. If he is at home then apparently a policeman, probation officer or authorized officer may remove him. At the moment, if the child is at home, he may not be removed unless the policeman has reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been or is being committed in respect of that child. That is a good reason for removing him from his home. One must ask oneself the question why was this proviso put in the law, and the only reason I can think of is that it is not in the interest of any child to be removed while accompanied by his guardian or by the person having custody of the child, and in 99 per cent of cases it is his parent. But it is not in the interest of the child to be removed forcibly from the presence of his parents. A fortiori it is not good for the child to be removed from his home unless there is reason to believe that an offence is being committed. If there is reason to believe that an offence is being committed. the law is clear and it is right as it stands, and he must be removed. But is it in the interest of the child that any officer may remove him if, in his opinion, he is a child in need of care, and if his opinion is formed by the gossip of the neighbours, for example— and this is not unlikely. When this Act was passed, the proviso was put in for the very good reason that in those days, as now, and as since the beginning of time, our law has been concerned with what is in the best interest of the child. As this thing reads at present, the policeman or authorized officer may go into the home of the child and forcibly remove him if, in his opinion, he is a child in need of care.

Why not?

Because the law at present says he cannot be removed unless he suspects that an offence is being committed.

In other words, you are not concerned about the child.

No, I am most concerned about the child, and the Minister of Transport must ask himself why do we not allow a child to be removed from the custody of his parents in a public place. The simple answer is because it is not in the best interests of the child. Again, why? The answer to that question is that it is not in the interest of any child to be forcibly removed from the custody of the person with whom he is in a public place. Likewise, the Legislature at the same time provided that if he is at home he may not be removed unless an offence is being committed. The Minister of Transport asks why. Let me give this example. The Minister lives in a house and he may have three neighbours with whom he does not get on. They may hear his children crying in the daytime or at night and they phone the police and lay a complaint and say that the child is being beaten or is being chained to the bed, and this story can grow. The policeman or the probation officer can then come along and take this child away.

Do you not think that is rather far-fetched?

It may be, but the Legislature made provision that that should not happen because it is not in the interest of the child to be removed from his home if it is humanly possible to keep him there. Now I ask the Minister of Social Welfare whether this is not what he is trying to encourage, and whethere there are not many cases where parents do things like this, like going away for the week-end and leaving their children there. [Time limit.]

I do not agree with the hon. member for Durban (North) because as the section reads at the moment an official has the power to remove a child in two cases, firstly, if he is a child in need of care, and, secondly, if the official suspects that a certain offence is being committed upon or in connection with that child. The proviso now says that he can only remove the child from wherever he may be if there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed and then only with the consent of the child’s guardian. In other words, supposing a child is in his home and is in need of care, as the law reads at the moment, the official cannot remove him without the consent of his parents. The Minister has explained why he is changing it because it is precisely the child who is in need of care whom the official wants to remove and he cannot do so without the consent of the child’s parent or guardian and he cannot get that consent. Why is an exception now made in the case of public places? Because when the child is with his guardian in a public place the very object of the law is to protect that child by not wanting him removed without the consent of his guardian. But that protection is no longer necessary in the home because there nothing is done in public. In that case it should be possible to remove the child in need of care without the consent of the guardian and by changing the proviso that is all we are providing for. It was not at all necessary for the hon. member for Durban (North) to argue at length about this; it is not relevant. What we are trying to do here is to protect the interests of the child and nothing else. As I understand the hon. member’s argument he is concerned about the interests of the child; he first wants certain offences to have been committed before the child can be removed. If he is concerned about the interests of the child it is precisely this proviso he must vote for but he wants certain offences first to have been committed before the child can be removed. That is the crux of his argument and that is precisely what we are trying to avoid.

There is complete common cause between the Minister and this side of the House that this section is here to protect the interests of the child, but the section gives exceptional powers to the police or probation officers or authorized officers to deal with two evils. He can remove the child if the officer thinks the child is in need of care or if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a serious type of offence is being committed against the child. But the law then goes a step further and provides two exemptions, two safeguards, which obviously are there also in the interest of the child, or otherwise they would not have been put in. Those two exceptions are both safeguards in the interests of the child. The first is that the child shall not be removed if he is in a public place in the custody of the person having custody, and the second is that he shall not be removed if he is in a private dwelling. The section refers to the negative position, namely where the child is “not” in a public place, but the obvious context is if the child is in a private place. In those two circumstances he shall not be removed unless the officer concerned has reason to believe that an offence has been committed against the child—and not that it may be committed. I do not think the Minister has given us any reason why this second safeguard should be removed. The second safeguard is more understandable because it is in the private home of the child, and in those circumstances the law makes the reservation in favour of keeping the home there as a unit. There is no need to use exceptional powers in those cases, just as there is no need to use exceptional powers when the child is in a public place. In those cases you revert to the normal method of bringing the child before the court, or bringing the parent or the custodian before the court, but you do not use the exceptional powers set out in this section in those two circumstances. I must say that I have not heard any argument advanced, least of all by the hon. member for Heilbron, why this second safeguard in the interest of the child should now be removed. I think it would improve the section if. instead of saying “if he is not in a public place”, it says specifically “if he is in a private dwelling, because that is obviously what is intended and that is the way in which it has been applied. That would be an improvement. But simply to remove the second safeguard is not in the interest of the child. In the normal case you do not use these exceptional powers. but proceed in the normal way. I think the hon. member for Heilbron looks Upon these exceptional powers as being normal. but they are not. I think the Minister should leave the matter as it is or. if it is to be amended he should use the words “if he is in a private dwelling” instead of “in a public place”.

Mr. Chairman. I have listened very carefully to the discussion on this "articular clause up to now and also to the Minister’s remarks on it during the second-reading debate. I have been waiting all the time to hear of some detailed practical difficulties that exist which necessitate the inclusion of a clause of this nature in this Bill. We studied section 26 of the principal Act and this is an amendment to the proviso which relates to section 26 of the Act which is divided into two parts. Sub-section 1 (a) of Section 26 deals with a child in need of care and subsection 1 (b) deals with a suspicion that an offence included in the First Schedule to the Act is or has been committed upon or in connection with a child. Now. to my knowledge the normal way in which such cases are dealt with, for instance in a case where the parents are ill-treating the child, is for a probation officer or some other authorized officer to go to that house and remove the child. The offences that can be committed against a child are contained in the First Schedule to the principal Act. and that Schedule also refers to offences included under Chapter 3. In that chanter we find offences relating to the ill-treatment or negligence of children, and consequently children under those circumstances will also fall under the category of children in need of care. It is a very important provision of the principal Act, as incorporated in the definition of a child in need of care, and there are nine grounds upon which a child can be declared by a children’s court to be in need of care. After such a declaration such child is then dealt with in terms of the provisions of the principal Act. To my knowledge the practical application has always been …

Order! The hon. member is now going too far. He cannot discuss that under this clause.

This, Sir, is a proviso that is being altered in respect of children in need of care. If one refers to …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment proposed in this clause.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. May I point out that this clause adds a proviso to Section 26 of the principal Act which deals with the removal by a policeman, probation officer or other authorized officer of a child who is in need of care to a place of safety. Consequently, the question of what is a child in need of care and how such a child can be dealt with is, in my submission, a matter which is pertinent to this clause. In support of that, may I point out that the Minister himself just now when he dealt with this clause also covered these grounds. I therefore submit that it is pertinent to the discussion of this clause and that the hon. member is in order.

The hon. member has been repeating the same argument, an argument which has been used over and over again. He should now advance some other arguments.

Mr. Chairman, this clause removes a provision which has existed in the principal Act. The Minister should indicate what grounds there are for removing a child from his home to a place of safety before an inquiry before the Children’s Court, and a declaration that that child is a child in need of care.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what hon. members wanted … [Interjections.] No, wait a minute! Let us discuss this calmly. We have ample time to-night. Let us look at Section 26 of the principal Act. Sub-section (1) reads—

1. (a) if he is, in the opinion of that policeman, probation officer, a child in need of care; or
2. (b) if there are reasonable grounds for believing that any offence mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act is being or has been committed upon or in connection with that child;

Well, a child is in one of two places—in a public place or not in a public place. It is now proposed to delete the words “or if the child is not in a public place”. In other words, it is only when the child is not in a public place that he may be removed without the consent of the person in whose custody he is.

That is the point.

Experience has taught us that it is the very person who cannot look after the child who will simply not consent to the child being removed.

Order! I must also point out to the hon. the Minister that he must confine himself to the amendment.

This amendment is being moved in the interests of the child itself because as the law stands at the moment you cannot remove a child in need of care without the consent of the person in whose custody he is. My Department has had experience of many cases where such a child in need of care could not be removed. Hon. members then raise such cases in this House and want to know why my Department has not taken steps in respect of those children. I think hon. members will now agree with me that this is an essential and desirable amendment.

I agree with hon. members that it is not desirable to remove a child by force in public because you would probably only cause a scene. Everybody in the vicinity, perhaps even his schoolmates, may witness it.

I am sorry but I cannot follow the arguments of hon. members opposite.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Before I allow the hon. member to proceed may I draw the attention of hon. members to the provision of Standing Order 59 which provides that debate in Committee of the whole House shall be confined to the proposed amendments to the principal Act. The proposed amendment to the principal Act proposed in this clause is the omission of the words “or if the child is not in a public place”. It has nothing to do with the fact of whether a child is in need of care or not.

It is here a question of what is in the best interests of the child in need of care. The Minister has not yet made out a case to justify the deletion of these words from the principal Act. This proposed amendment entails that a child can be removed from his home. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are—believe it or not— people in Durban for instance who go away for a week-end leaving their children unattended at home.

Do you agree with it?

Of course I don’t. I think it is scandalous.

How can they then be removed?

Many of those children go to public places unattended, unaccompanied by persons in whose charge they are. I should like to mention what the attitude of the Department of Social Welfare is to-day. The Department pursues a policy that if a child can be left in his home, despite the fact that the parents behave in an unsatisfactory way—I gave an example of one instance—then the child should be left there. If the child can enjoy the home influence, although there are grounds for removal, the Department’s policy is to allow the child to remain at home.

Now, what is your argument?

If you are convinced that a home influence is a wrong influence, what do you suggest then?

In that case the Minister has powers under the Act to take the necessary steps in the interests of the child.

Order! That is not the point at issue.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has raised a point and I am trying to answer him. I say to the Minister that this side is not convinced that there is any need for a section of our law, which has been the law for a long time, to be removed or altered now. This protection, this limitation, this restriction on the powers of a policeman or other authorized officer has been part of the law for a long time, but it is now being sought to have it deleted, as I see it, because it is in the interests of the child that it should be deleted. I may be wrong in my assumption. If so, I should be glad if the hon. the Minister would explain why the limitation on the officer’s powers is in the proviso if it is not in the interests of the child. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is there in the interests of the child and I believe it is in the interests of the child that it should remain on the Statute Book.

Order! The hon. member should advance some new arguments now.

I am going to advance a new argument now, Sir. I am coming up to my point.

I think you have no point.

The Minister, when replying just now, mentioned that it was of importance to decide whether or not one was dealing with a person who was fit to have the custody of a child. In my opinion 90 per cent of the persons having the custody of a child are parents and most of the children live with their parents at home. Now, if an authorized officer, without suspecting that any offence in connection with such a child is being committed, can enter the home and remove the child—because that is what this clause provides—on what basis then can that officer ever come to a conclusion? Because the child is in a private home, he is within the four walls of his home, within the confines of his ground. Where then will that authorized officer or policeman get his information from? If a child is in his home then he is of course not in a public place. The words “or if the child is not in a public place” are sought to be removed, and it must follow that the child will then be in a private place, that is to say, in his own home. If he is in his own home, how is the authorized officer to judge that the child is in need of care, or that an offence is being committed? He will be unable to see into the home, and all he can go by is what the neighbours or other people told him, or what a telephone caller informed him.

Which people will make a report on a child living at his own home?

If a child lives at home a report can be made by a neighbour or any chit chat or a telephone call can be made and an authorized officer or policeman is then entitled to go into that home and remove the child. Mr. Chairman, I wish to state that the onus is on the hon. the Minister to justify the proposed deletion. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) said that, as far as an offence being committed is concerned. our attitude was that a First Schedule offence has to be committed upon or connection with that child before he can be removed. But that is not so. Sub-section 26 (1) (b) refers to an offence being “or has been” committed. This is what the law says.

Mr. Chairman, we want to know from the Minister whether he can cite one instance where the powers or the restriction on the powers of the authorized officer has resulted in some injustice being done to some child. That is all we would like to know, and if the Minister can persuade us of that then we will not argue about it.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has referred to cases where parents go away for week-ends and leave their children alone at home and even perhaps without supervision. In terms of the existing provision such a child cannot be removed without the consent of the parent or guardian, not even when he is with his parents but nevertheless in need of care. That is the position because that is provided for in Section 26 subject, of course, to the proviso that there is no reason to believe that an offence is or has been committed upon or in connection with the child. The offences set out in the First Schedule to the Act do not cover all the circumstances in which a child becomes in need of care. The definition of “a child in need of care” covers a wider field than that covered in the Schedule. In order to cover all cases it is now proposed that when a child is in need of care he can be removed from a private home without the consent of the parent. Surely the interests of the child must determine our actions. Cases may arise where the parents, although they dearly love the child and consequently do not want to part with him, are nevertheless not in a position to care for him. In such a case the child can be regarded as being in need of care. In terms of the existing law such a child cannot be removed unless an offence as set out in the First Schedule has been committed upon or in connection with the child. That is what we are trying to prevent. The concept “in need of care” is wider than the concept “offence” in this connection. That is the point.

Mr. Chairman, I intend confining myself to the amendment proposed by this clause, as you have already ruled. As was said, by this amendment it is proposed to remove a safeguard, a safeguard which the legislature found it advisable to insert in the law in 1937, and not in 1955 as the Minister indicated just now. When the 1937 Act was amended in 1944, this safeguard was retained. The hon. member for Durban-North said that the onus was on the Minister to satisfy the Committee that the proposed amendment was really necessary. In saying that the hon. member was on sound grounds. If the hon. the Minister can name one single instance where the administration of the Children’s Act has been hampered or defeated because of this safeguard, then we shall have to review our attitude to it. However, the Minister has not quoted one single instance to justify the removal of this safeguard, as I call it, from the present legislation which has. as I have said, been there since 1937. If the Minister can give us such an instance, and he has had ample opportunity to find one during the period from 1937, but the Minister obviously does not do so because he cannot find an instance. The hon. member for Heilbron has only confused the issue further. It is my submission that this clause has nothing to do with cases where children have been left unattended for weekends as he suggests. The law is quite specific as to the circumstances under which a child shall not be forcibly removed. There must be hundreds of cases where parents, while the child is still with them, are brought to court for an enquiry as to the position of the child.

Here we are dealing with exceptional powers. Whereas the Minister has justified that part of the provision which remains unaltered, he has not done so in respect of the removal of the words proposed to be removed. Mr. Chairman, it is extraordinary for the hon. the Minister to expect us to be convinced of the desirability of changing the Act as it stands in this respect, without even quoting to us one single instance in support of what he is proposing to do.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question. What will be the position, what do you propose doing if a child is a habitual truant?

Then there is provision under the law for the parents to be dealt with.

That is an easy explanation.

The hon. member for Heilbron is either not reading the law correctly or else he is not trying to be of assistance in this debate. We should like to ask the Minister to be patient about the matter. There is, after all, no need for urgency here. Consequently we ask the Minister to be patient and convince us first of the desirability of changing the law in this respect.

I think there is a conflict between the Minister and this side of the House on the question what is in the interests of the child. If the main consideration behind this Bill is the interest of the child—and I accept that it is—then the question remains whether the child should be separated from the environment of his home. Unless an offence has been committed, as stipulated in the First Schedule, or unless other grounds exists for urgent action.

I submit there is plenty of time for the officers of the Minister to get permission for taking the child from the custody of his parents or guardians. We have not been convinced in the least that this position should be altered. It has, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) been in existence for many years and we have not been convinced that there is any necessity for destroying it now.

Clause mit and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

On Clause 4,

This clause defines the cultural and religious background and nationality of an illegitimate child as being that of his mother. It also stipulates that no such child shall be placed in the custody of a person, other than the guardian or parent of that child, whose cultural and religious background is not the same as that of the child itself. This means that the child must first be so classified before it can be accepted that the child’s religious background and nationality will be the same as that of his mother’s. Is my interpretation correct and can the hon. the Minister tell us what machinery exists for such a classification under the Population Registration Act? Because it is only in respect of children so classified that this clause can be applied. At present the population register contains a classification of people of 16 years of age and upwards. Here we are dealing with small children. In the circumstances, I should like to know from the Minister how he envisages the practical application of this clause when it becomes law.

This question of the religious and the cultural background of an illegitimate child, which is dealt with in this clause, i.e., Clause 4, is one which has already been raised. As far as the basic principle is concerned we are all agreed. It is in the interests of the child that his religious and cultural background, his ethnic grouping and nationality should be deemed to be the same as those of his mother. There will be no doubt in this connection in future and the placing of the child will be greatly facilitated. This only refers, of course, to the illegitimate child.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give us some further information on this clause. Take the case of an illegitimate child. How is he going to classify such a child. Say, for instance, the mother is White and the father of her illegitimate child belongs to another race. As we all know, in the case of an illegitimate child it is often not known who the father is.

Order! That matter falls under the Minister of the Interior. The hon. member is now discussing the population register.

No, Sir. with respect I am talking about the matter of adoption. Supposing this illegitimate child is to be adopted how is the Minister going to decide to what race that child belongs so that it can be adopted by parents of the same race. I am dealing with the question of adoption and that falls directly under this Minister.

Order! That will depend on how the child is classified and that falls under the Minister of the Interior.

Mr. Chairman, how can the Minister classify a child of two or four months?

The question of adoption only comes into play after the child has been classified.

May I just draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that a child takes on the classification of its parents. If he is an illegitimate child he is classified in the same class as his mother.

I do not see how the hon. the Minister can classify the child in the same class as the mother under this Act.

Order! I have already said that the question of classification falls under the Minister of the Interior. Adoption only comes into effect after classification.

Sir. I am not dealing with the question of classification. I am dealing with the question of the adoption of the child. We are concerned about these poor children who have to be adopted.

Order!

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

There are a few aspects I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister at this stage in regard to this clause but, before doing so. I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

My purpose in moving this amendment is to try to give statutory effect to a practice which is at the present moment being carried on by the Minister’s Department in the assistance which is rendered by welfare officers who are not employed by the Minister’s Department. I believe that it is in the interests of the children we are trying to help that the Minister’s Department should make use of the qualified personnel in the employ of the voluntary welfare agencies and organizations.

This clause deals with the question of a report to be submitted to the Minister by a probation officer after a child has been in custody for two years. Now I believe the Minister agrees with the principle that the child should be returned to his home environment as soon as is reasonably possible provided that his home environment will be to his advantage. In terms of the clause, as it now reads, the duty rests on the probation officer to perform the task of submitting the report to the Minister. In terms of my amendment this task can also be performed by an authorized officer. It may be that a probationer officer is not available at a certain place and I believe the Minister should make use of outside agencies as much as possible. In terms of the principal Act “authorized officer” in relation to any Act, means any person authorized in writing by a magistrate, commissioner of child welfare, justice of the peace or probation officer to perform such duties under the Act. The effect of this amendment will, therefore, be to give statutory significance to the use of such authorized officer to do this task of the probation officer.

Sub-section (b) of this clause provides that the probation officer shall deal fully in his report with the desirability or otherwise of transferring the child concerned to the custody of his parent or guardian. I think this is an excellent way of keeping the Minister informed about the welfare of the child but I should like to know from the Minister whether he does not think this period of two years is too long. I should like to know whether the Minister has given consideration to reducing it to one year in an endeavour to have the child returned to his home environment sooner if that will be to his advantage. I know the Minister agrees with the principle that the child should be returned to his home environment as soon as possible and I do feel that the period of two years is too long. It may perhaps already be possible for a child to be taken out of custody after one year but in terms of the clause, as it now reads, a report only has to be submitted after two years. I think it will be in the interest of the child if this period is reduced to one year.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. In terms of Section 31 (1) of the principal Act a children’s court may place a child in need of care (a) in the custody of his parents or guardian or (b) in the custody of suitable foster parents. Sub-section (2) of that section provides that where a child has been thus placed, the children’s court may also order that the child be placed under the supervision of a probation officer or association of persons or a person who is working for the welfare and the reclamation of children.

In terms of sub-section (5) of the same section “any probation officer may during the period during which a child is on probation, and shall, on the termination thereof furnish to the commissioner for the district in which the child resides a report on the behaviour, welfare and progress of the child.” In other words, although the child is also placed under the supervision of an association, the probation officer nevertheless has to keep himself acquainted with the circumstances of the child so as to be able to furnish the report referred to in Section 31 (5). It would be very unwise, therefore, to provide in Section 46bis that “an authorized officer” may also submit a report to the Minister as to the reason why the child has not yet been returned to his parents. After all, it is only logical that the person under whose supervision that child is placed will be in the best position to furnish such reasons. After all, that person is acquainted with the circumstances of the child as well as with the circumstances of the parents. In practice therefore it will only be the probation officer. Where the child has been placed under the supervision of an association, the probation officer will first negotiate with the association concerned. The hon. member will agree with me that it would lead to an anomalous situation if only a probation officer had the right to submit a report in terms of Section 31 (5) to the commissioner with regard to the conduct of such a child and the progress made by him whereas, if the amendment of the hon. member were accepted, it would be possible to authorize any person in terms of Section 46bis to furnish reasons to the Minister as to why the child has not yet been returned to his parents after two years. The specific intention here is that in cases of this, kind reports should be submitted by probation officers only. This is a statutory function which ought to be performed by probation officers only. I am informed that experience has shown that a period of two years is adequate and that we ought to adhere to it. This also applies to cases where children are placed in institutions.

I have no doubt as to the position as stated by the hon. the Minister, namely, that if, in terms of my amendment, “or an authorized officer” is inserted after the word “officer” certain administrative difficulties will be created. In view of these administrative difficulties that will be created I would like to withdraw my amendment, with the leave of the Committee.

I am not very satisfied with the Minister’s rejection of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). While one does not want to cause any administrative difficulties surely there must be some way of overcoming them.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

This Clause is an improvement on the principal Act. Sub-section (1) of 48bis deals with the removal of the child from custody and placing that child in an observation centre. In terms of this Clause the child can be taken to the observation centre and kept there for such period as may be specified in such order and the Minister may from time to time extend such period for such additional periods as he may consider necessary. It is on this aspect of the Clause that I want to address the Minister. As far as the welfare of children is concerned I believe that time is of the very essence. I can find no fault with the principle of observation centres but I should like to move that a proviso be added to this sub-section—

I believe it will be in the interests of the child if his removal to the observation centre is subject to this proviso. I believe that a period of six months is sufficiently long for the persons who are at the observation centre to assess the position of the child and to recommend as to whether he should be returned to the centre or institutions from which he had come or be returned to his parents.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) unfortunately did not move the amendment standing in his name on the Order Paper, but a different one. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that I will devote attention to his amendment because it seems a reasonable one. I shall devote attention to it, and if there are no other difficulties I shall accept it.

In the Other Place?

Yes.

In view of what the hon. the Minister has said, and with the leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendments.

Amendments withdrawn, with leave.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

We on this side of the House do not like this clause. We do not like the Minister having the power to delegate his power to officers of other Departments. We believe that this is a fragmentation of the Department and the Department of Social Welfare is a very important Department in this country especially as far as children are concerned. We believe that those dealing with children should be specialized officials, people who understand what they are doing. I think it would be a great pity of we wem to depart from the present situation. If the Minister wishes to delegate powers to officials in his own Department, good and well but I think it is unnecessary for him to delegate power to officials of other Departments. He has no control over those officials. This Minister is responsible to Parliament for social welfare matters and his Department is specialized to deal with these matters. I think that social welfare matters should be kept in the confines of the Minister’s Department and that powers should not just be dished out to other Departments.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to carry on with this clause. We would rather he got his Department to deal with all social welfare matters.

I want to add my plea to that of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). I said yesterday that I was proud to have been associated with the Minister in 1960 in the passing of the principal Act and I think if he will take account of what we say he will be pleased in future that he has yielded to our pleas in this matter.

I think this Clause is of fundamental importance. This is a clause which affects our whole system of Government. The Department of Social Welfare is very important in this country and it is wrong that power relating to that Department should be delegated to other Departments. We do not wish the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to delegate his power to the Department of Bantu Administration or to the Department of Indian Affairs. I think in those circumstances the hon. the Minister should not have the power to delegate these powers to officers in other Departments. We have a Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We cannot have a Department of Posts and Telegraphs for every race in South Africa, any more than we can have a Department of Social Welfare for every race. We do not wish the hon. the Minister to delegate his powers to the Department of Bantu Administration or the Department of Indian Affairs and so on; if that is the intention then I think this clause is premature and the hon. Minister should never have introduced it in this Bill which is intended for much more serious work.

This arrangement, that welfare services in so far as the Bantu are concerned falls under the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is one which has existed since before 1957. It has been so all these years. Now hon. members expect me to cast overboard in a moment the standing policy of this Government which has been in office for the past 17 years. I was afraid that hon. members would go too far. They are definitely going too far. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) now argues that everybody should be thrown together in one pot. The Minister here happens to be the Minister of Social Welfare, and so he must now again be the Minister of social services for all races, and I must immediately say so. I shall not do so. The hon. member says that would be the right thing to do. Sir, this country is based on a system of separation. The hon. member for Kensington is an ex-teacher; I think he is an ex-inspector of schools; I was also a teacher in my time. I think the hon. member should realize that he goes quite too far. when he is fully aware that it is the declared policy of the country, in regard to educational matters and also in regard to universities, to have separate institutions in the best interest of those specific separate groups—and the proof is there that it is in their best interests. There has never yet been any objection to what has been established; those things still stand there, and while that is the whole basis of the policy, how can hon. members now ask me to do something like this? This particular clause was introduced at the request of the Minister of Bantu Administration. It provides for an administrative difficulty which arose. The Minister of Bantu Administration has his Bantu commissioners, but he cannot have a Bantu commissioner in every part of the country. There are quite a number of hon. members here who have been magistrates. Where there are no Bantu commissioners the magistrate acts as the Bantu commissioner. All we ask here is simply that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, instead of delegating powers to a Bantu commissioner as is provided in the principal Act, may also delegate those powers to a magistrate where there is no Bantu commissioner. That will greatly facilitate the administration. That is all. I think it is rather unreasonable to expect me, towards the end of this debate, to turn it into a debate on colour.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk), I think, is beginning to see something of the policy of the Department because he has just made a noise to that effect.

The hon. the Minister agrees with me. What I have suggested is that until these various Departments have trained professional staff who can do the work, the Minister should keep that work in his Department. When he speaks of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development having its own Department of Social Welfare, then I can understand that; if they have Africans who are trained for the work and are doing that work, well and good. Naturally I accept that. Then it is unnecessary for the hon. the Minister to delegate powers to another Department. But until that period has been reached in our development, or let me say the development the Government has in view, until they have reached that stage, the hon. Minister of Social Welfare should keep that power in his own hands and not delegate it to officers in other Departments. That is why I think this is premature. I quite see the Minister’s point of view about the Department of Bantu Administration.

Must Bantu Administration pass its own Acts now?

I do not say what they must do. I said that as long as they have their own trained professionals, I can see the wisdom of that rule, but to come along and just say that the Minister is going to delegate powers to any Department, without any plan, as is suggested in this clause, I think is wrong.

I appreciate the hon. Minister’s explanation and I am glad that he has given as long an explanation as he has.

But I want to deal with the practical effect of this delegation of powers under this clause, because the Minister here is seeking powers to delegate authority not to a member of his own Department, but to delegate it to members of another Department. It has been argued frequently from Government benches that the delegation of authority does not include the delegation of responsibility. The responsibility for what is done in terms of this Act remains with the Minister of Social Welfare. It is for that reason no doubt that where members of other Departments, such as magistrates, are brought into the terms of the statute itself, their duties are expressed in various sections of the law, which place responsibilities upon them individually. Those cases are quite clear. The officer concerned is charged by law with carrying out certain duties and responsibilities and he has to operate within the law, and if he does not there are means to deal with the official concerned. But I would like the hon. Minister to tell us how in practice he is going to exercise supervision over the officers in other Departments to whom he delegates authority which by law is placed upon him. It is the practical effect of this clause about what we must have clarity if we are to be asked to agree to a clause of this nature. I personally see that there will be difficulties, even if the delegation is confined to one single Department. As the Minister knows, the clause goes further and says “any other Department”, subject only to the consent of the Minister concerned. The hon. Minister has made it clear that at the present moment he has in mind delegating authority only to members of the Department of Bantu Administration. So we are confined to that at the time, and it makes the task of the Minister easier therefore to explain to us precisely how he intends to supervise the authority that he is going to delegate to officers of a Department over which he has no authority himself. It is a practical question and I hope the hon. Minister will give us a reply dealing with the practical aspects.

The clause reads that the hon. the Minister may with the consent of another Minister delegate to any senior officer of state administered by another Minister any power which he may delegate in terms of sub-section (1). You know, Sir, the hon. Minister here in terms of the next section of the Act has the power also to make regulations. The power to make regulations is excluded from the delegation that he can make to his own officials and obviously also excluded from the delegation he can make to officials of other Departments, officials under the charge of other Ministers. Now will the hon. Minister explain whether he has in mind, in delegating these powers, to have exactly the same regulations as he prescribes …

Order! The regulations have nothing to do with this clause.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause. He cannot discuss two clauses at the same time.

Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will not do that. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: When he delegates powers that he is entitled to delegate to his own officials, is he not going to be constricted in that delegation by the fact that regulations made by him in relation to …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to a discussion of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am merely talking about the delegation of powers. I wish to know, in delegating those powers, whether or not the hon. Minister is not going to be constricted by the regulations that he has made.

Order! There is nothing about constriction by regulations in this particular clause. The Minister is being given the power to delegate his authority. That is all that is before the Committee.

Can the hon. Minister perhaps indicate to this Committee which Departments he has in mind, which other Government Departments—to which other Departments of State, administered by other administers’ is he going to delegate these powers? You see, Sir, we have had this before; we have had a division of power amongst other State Departments, but it has been done by statute. We have known more or less where we stood. But the principle of parliamentary responsibility, the principle of ministerial responsibility to Parliament is affected here. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) said that the Minister as the law is now, delegates to his own officials. They are responsible to him, or let me put it better from the point of view of Parliament: He is responsible for them and for their actions …

Order! That point has been made. That argument has been advanced.

Mr. Chairman, what possible control, in the first place, does the Minister exercise over these people.

Order! That argument has been advanced already. The hon. member must come with new arguments now.

I know, Sir. I am going to come with new arguments.

Are you still fighting an election?

The polling finished an hour ago. and if you want to have any side-bets on Gardens …

Order! The hon. member must please resume his seat.

May I not continue, Sir?

No. The hon. member must resume his seat.

Is there a reason why I may not continue?

Order! The hon. member must observe my ruling.

Yes, Sir, but is there a reason …

Order! I order the hon. member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s Sitting.

The hon. member thereupon withdrew.

On a point of order, the hon. member was replying to an interjection.

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon. member for Kensington must also observe my ruling.

I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to what is a serious effect of this delegation of powers—his use of his skilled and trained staff and the serious effect that it must have on the development of this group of people, people belonging to a different race, because it is common cause that he is delegating to people who are in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. In the course of my work I had to deal with some of the sociological matters which bring people into mental hospitals and similar institutions, and I was shocked to find that the University of Natal is charged with the medical training of the bulk of the Bantu in this country was unable in the meantime to get itself a Department of Mental Health …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the question of the delegation of powers.

Can I not speak, Sir, on the effect of the delegation of powers? Because that is what this is doing.

The hon. member is wandering too far away.

I would like to go further and say, hoping to keep within your ruling, that until such time as the hon. Minister himself undertakes through his staff the training of these other races, which he is not doing now …

The hon. member has made that point before.

Well, then I want to make once again the plea to the hon. the Minister to change his mind.

I put a practical question to the hon. the Minister and asked him how he is going to deal with this matter practically, and what the practical effect of this delegation is going to be. Sir, we in this House look to the hon. the Minister himself to be answerable to the House for what happens in terms of this Act. Therefore when he delegates powers to his own staff, his accountability to Parliament is maintained. But when it comes to the delegation of authority to members of a different Department, a practical difficulty does arise, and I think the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to explain how he is going to deal with the matter in those circumstances. I put a courteous question to the hon. the Minister in regard to this matter and I think we are entitled to have his reply. I hope therefore that the hon. Minister will now deal with the matter and reply to my question.

If hon. members look at the definition in the principal Act, they will see that paragraph (xxii) reads: “Minister in any provision of this Act is the Minister to whom, or the Ministers to whom, in consultation with one another, the implementation of this provision is entrusted in terms of a proclamation issued in accordance with Section 93. That is what the principal Act says. That is the definition. Now hon. members want to object to it. This is something which has always existed in practice. Hon. members know, or ought to know, that various Ministers give instructions to magistrates, and this is a very simple provision. It is not I who give those instructions. The Minister may with the consent of any other Minister delegate to a senior official of any State Department administered by such Minister any power which he may delegate in terms of sub-section (1). That is what sub-section (1) provides. He can delegate it in those terms. That is the provision in the definition of “Minister”. The Act may be entrusted to various Ministers. Parliament has already decided that. In the existing Act that was provided and approved of. The Act may be entrusted to various Ministers. Now hon. members want it to be changed.

No.

Then what have they been pleading for the whole evening? In fact, this point is not really relevant here. The Minister of Bantu Administration, to whom the implementation of the Act has also been entrusted, will appoint the officials. That is in the reply to the question as to how it will be done. He will appoint the officials. There is co-ordination. I may tell hon. members that there is an Interdepartmental Committee representing the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs, Bantu Administration and Development, which serves to co-ordinate welfare matters in so far as they affect common interests. There is, therefore, co-ordination. How one can now change the position as the hon. members suggest, I just cannot understand.

With respect, the hon. the Minister has missed the point. You see, he refers to the definition of “Minister” with which we are acquainted. “Minister” means in terms of the definition, the Minister of Social Welfare or a Minister to whom authority is given in terms of a proclamation issued under Section 93. In those cases, the word “Minister” then means the Minister who is mentioned in the proclamation and his staff are responsible to him, and he is accountable to this House. In other words by notice of this Act duties are imposed upon him and he is answerable to this House for whatever his staff may do. But we are dealing here with an entirely different situation. We are dealing here with the position which entitles this Minister, the Minister of Social Welfare, to delegate powers to officials of another department. He is not divesting himself of his responsibilities to Parliament, and the practical question still arises: How is he going to supervise the actions of persons who are not in his department and to whom he, this Minister, not the Minister of the other department, has delegated authority? It is a practical question and I am sorry to say that the hon. the Minister has missed the point entirely. I hope I have now made it sufficiently clear that it is the practical aspects of the matter which I am putting to the Minister. The legal aspects are clear enough, but it is the practical aspect as to how he is going to supervise the work so that he can be answerable to this House not for what his own staff are doing, but for what the staff of another Minister is doing.

Clause put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting.)

On Clause 14,

This is another clause to which we take the greatest exception. We feel that it gives to the Minister powers far beyond what will be found in almost any other Act. Here we are dealing with a practical, one might almost say non-contentious Bill. We are only too pleased to co-operate, we are only too pleased if we can help the Minister either by suggestions or by advice or perhaps by stopping him from going too far. But he comes here now with this unnecessary provision. He has under the original Act, I think, some 13 different sections under which he can make regulations and those sections are fairly well circumscribed. But he comes now with this idea that he may prescribe on any matter which the Minister may deem necessary—that is a fairly reasonable one, but then the other words follow “or expedient”. I really think that the word “expedient” gives him such wide powers and such unnecessary powers, because a Bill of this type only gets through this House, as we have seen tonight after the most careful scrutiny and investigation by both sides, because we on this side, just as much as the hon. Minister and his staff, appreciate the responsibility that rests on our shoulders. Now how can the Minister possibly justify something which he is doing because he thinks it is “expedient”? He has got all the powers now which he needs when any trouble arises. We will not agree that he should have these powers to such an extent unless he can show us in some way or other how they have suddenly become necessary. He has carried along fairly well in the past with the other Acts that were passed. This is a Bill to fill up the gaps, to close the gaps in the previous Acts. This is a Bill to improve the precious Acts, but by no stretch of imagination can “expediency” possibly be justified when you talk about improvements. We feel that this is going far beyond anything that he can possibly justify, although we are prepared to give him a patient hearing if he cares to tell us why he wishes to have these powers.

The hon. the Minister during the second reading debate mentioned this extension of the powers to make regulations and he merely indicated that the power given to him was one under which he would have to make regulations in order that the purposes of the Act may be achieved. Sir, he rather indicated therefore that the powers to make regulations were in this regard also circumscribed. But it is quite obvious that if this formula which has been formulated since 1960, if this formula is to be adopted to give powers to the Minister to make regulations, then the 13 other provisions, referred to by the hon. member for Durban (Central), might as well be eliminated because they are quite meaningless. Thus far the word “prescribed” has had a very significant meaning. The word “prescribed” is defined in the Act: “Prescribed” means prescribed by regulation or rule made under this Act. Thus far it has had a specific meaning because it relates to “any matter which in terms of this Act may be prescribed”. The proposed provision of course goes far beyond this. At present the power means that the Minister has to get within the list enumerated in regard to which regulations can be prescribed That means in practice that anybody who doubted whether the Minister had kept within the terms prescribed could test the matter in court, and if the Minister had exceeded his powers, the court would say that he had gone beyond his powers and that therefore the regulations in question were no longer valid. But the discretion now is no longer set out in the Act itself, it is now vested entirely in what the Minister may deem necessary or expedient. If this formulation stands, I think it is quite apparent that the testing right of the courts disappears. No court can now test whether it falls within what has been prescribed in the Act. because the answer to the Court is that the Minister has deemed it necessary and expedient for the purpose of carrying out the Act to make the regulation. Consequently the word “prescribed” has now lost its significance entirely to the extent that I have said. Here again is an instance where the Minister wants to change the law, and I think he should give us an example as to why the law cannot operate as it now stands. The powers to make regulations under the statute were prescribed, and they have always functioned. If the hon. Minister can give us examples of circumstances in which he has found it impossible to deal with under his existing powers then we might have to revise our view about the matter. But it seems to me quite obvious that the powers that he now asks for will prevent the testing right of the courts to be used, and also we vest powers in the Minister far beyond what has been necessary over the years. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain it to us.

In considering this clause which deletes paragraph (o) that was included in the principal Act and substitutes this new paragraph, hon. members on this side of the House have raised very important questions which naturally must be taken into account should this Committee come to a decision in regard to these particular powers that the Minister envisages in terms of regulations—this clause deals with the Minister’s powers to make regulations. I feel that members on this side of the House have put forward arguments which at least warrant a reply from the hon. Minister It is not a matter which can be taken lightly by this Committee and in the interests of this House the Minister should deem it necessary to fully reply to the points that have been raised so that the Committee can judge whether the Minister should be empowered to delete paragraph (o) as it now stands, and to substitute by means of his clause, these new powers which it states will be required, or may be prescribed, or which the Minister may deem necessary or expedient to prescribe in order that the purposes of this Act may be achieved. Here is an important widening of the existing paragraph (o) which merely stated “as to any other matter which may in terms of this Act be prescribed”. So this goes very much further than the original paragraph (o), and I feel that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to the necessity that the Minister may “deem it necessary or expedient to prescribe further matters in regard to these regulations may be made”. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity to reply to these points that have been made from this side of the House so that the Committee may ascertain the necessity or desirability of substituting a new paragraph (o) as outlined in this clause.

I replied to this argument yesterday already. The question was put to me during the second reading and I expressly quoted the following—

I said yesterday that there was doubt as to whether the Minister had sufficient power under sub-sec. (1) (o) to issue regulations in regard to any matter which would promote the implementation of the Act within the provisions of that Act. The proposed amendment merely removes that doubt. Hon. members now want to pretend that a great change is being made, but we know each other well enough by now for them to realize that we do not accept just anything from them. But now suspicion must be sown and there is an attempt to see whether there is not another sinister motive behind this provision. I explained the whole matter yesterday already.

I am afraid the hon. Minister has not satisfied the Committee at all. We are asking him to give an example of what his troubles are. The Minister merely gets up and says that there is a doubt whether he has powers to do certain things. We have asked him to give him examples of what his difficulties are. He asks for extended powers. He cannot merely ask this Committee to grant him extended powers without telling us what difficulties he has to face. Why can he not continue as he did in the past? In what way has he been hamstrung? We cannot merely give the Minister any powers he likes because he says that he is having difficulties, or that he might have difficulties. We want to know what the difficulties are. After all he is asking us to give him carte blanche, he wants the Committee to give him the right to do what he likes by regulation. We cannot agree to that, unless he justifies his request by telling us what difficulties he faces. The Minister did not give us any example. Let us get some idea as to what his troubles are.

Certain difficulties arose in regard to certain regulations in the juvenile courts. Doubt arose as to whether those regulations could be issued in terms of the Act.

Such as what?

I do not have the details in regard to the regulations here. I just want to say that this provision, particularly recently, is being inserted in all legislation. There is, of course, the underlying fact that no Minister will issue regulations which are in conflict with the scope and the provisions of that Act. That is the position in regard to all legislation, and it expressly states “concerning any other matter”. I said yesterday already that one could not define all the details. It would take pages and pages to define all the details. And because one cannot define it all, it is done in this way: “concerning any other matter which may or shall be prescribed in terms of any provision of this Act”—therefore it refers to what may or shall be prescribed in terms of the provisions of this Act. Hon. members cannot expect me to give all the details. There may be new provisions which may or shall be prescribed in terms of this Act, and if any Minister goes beyond these provisions and exceeds the powers granted to him by Parliament, such a Minister may be held responsible.

The Minister now tells us that he cannot give us examples on the spur of the moment. He cannot think of any examples. He rather looked towards the official Bay for an excuse. The Minister should have come here prepared to give us the reasons and to give us examples. But what did he say? The Minister says to us that this is a provision which is now being included in other laws. That is our complaint against this Government that the Ministers are seeking more and more powers to govern by regulation, and this Minister justifies it because it is contained in other laws. Because other Ministers are taking these powers, he wants to take those powers too.

I say it is the general procedure.

The hon. Minister referred to the children’s courts.

Under the provisions of this specific Act we cannot do just anything.

We want to have particulars.

Business interrupted to report progress.