I should like to move the following amendment—

The first part of the amendment is self-explanatory. It is intended to ensure that compulsory school education will be introduced for Indian children, and I have many reasons for wanting to do this. The Minister himself, in introducing the Bill, explained to the House that one of his reasons for taking over Indian Education was that he felt there had been discrimination, in Natal anyway, between Indian children and the treatment meted out to Coloured children. He told us that there was compulsory education for Coloured children in Natal and he was anxious to remove the discrimination which existed. Therefore I believe it is in any case the Minister’s intention to try to introduce compulsory education as soon as possible, but I want to make it mandatory that it shall be done. I have not specified a date because I know there are difficulties about the provision of schools and having an adequate number of teachers, but I wish this to be included in the Act so that there will be no permissive aspects to the introduction of compulsory education for Indian children. I think it is something that we should have had long ago. It is more than 20 years since the Wilks Committee reported in Natal. That Committee unanimously asked that compulsory education for Indian children should be introduced and it suggested various interim stages until this could be achieved in toto. It suggested that to begin with the Indian children who had begun school should be kept at school up to Std. 4, or until they reached the age of 13, and thereafter compulsory education should be introduced as soon as possible, after review from time to time, but up to the same standard as that of White children. I want to emphasize again that this was a unanimous recommendation, made by the Natal Provincial Council’s own Commission under Mr. Wilks, who was (and is) a leading M.E.C. I think it is reprehensible that the Natal Provincial Council has not made any effort to carry out those recommendations. I know that the Provincial Council has advanced great sums of money for the education of Indian children, as indeed has the Indian community itself, but no effort has been made to carry out even the interim measure recommended by that Commission 20 years ago, in 1946. Therefore I want to try to speed things up and I hope that the Indian birthrate will not be used as an argument against the introduction of compulsory education, because I want to point out that the birth-rate has in fact been dropping over the last ten to 15 years. It dropped particularly from 1945, when the Wilks Commission made its investigation, until 1961. The drop has been from 39.2 to 29.9, and one cannot assume that the Wilks Committee was not aware of the Indian birth-rate when, 20 years ago, when the birthrate was higher than it is to-day, it made its unanimous recommendations to begin at least with the interim measure of compulsory education for Indian children.

The proviso is, I think, also self-explanatory. It is to provide that the compulsory education will also be free. The proviso in this clause lays down that compulsory education should be in primary schools and high schools, i.e. up to the age of 16, and not at other schools. In other words, I do not want compulsory education for training schools or agricultural schools or any other particular schools the Minister intends setting up. In Clause 25 I shall move a consequential amendment which will, I hope, ensure that if this amendment is accepted, the education which shall be compulsory shall also be free in every case where free and compulsory education is supplied to White children in South Africa.

I want to move—

This is in the form of a proviso. In this amendment it states that we would like compulsory education to be brought in not later than 1 January 1970. Looking at the clause as it stands now, it says quite clearly that the Minister is virtually in principle in favour of compulsory education, but he says that he must be satisfied that there is sufficient and suitable accommodation before he can introduce compulsory education. That is fair enough, but we also do not know what he considers suitable or sufficient accommodation. Suitable accommodation in one part of the country may not be suitable accommodation in another part of the country. There are no standards laid down as to what is suitable or sufficient. This could go on and on until this Minister or another Minister may be satisfied one day that there is suitable and sufficient accommodation. There is no time limit to it. We on this side feel that if we give not only the Minister but the parents of the children as well five years’ notice that compulsory education will be introduced, it will be a double stimulus.

Firstly, there will be an obligation on the Government to start providing now for accommodation which will be sufficient and suitable in the opinion of this Minister. We know what the excuse may be if his portfolio is taken over by someone else. He will decide what is suitable now and he will start building according to those specifications. It will also give notice to the parents that in five years’ time they must be ready to accept compulsory education. It is a big thing to be given the privilege of compulsory education and I think they must adapt themselves to it. It will require planning by families. They will have to start now putting away for the little extras that will be necessary, because we know that in the Indian community particularly there are these great extremes of riches and poverty, and there are more below the bread-line among these people than above it. Furthermore, we want to be quite realistic. We realize that in some parts of the country it will be virtually impossible to introduce compulsory education.

So we say here that it should take place in those areas where the Indians who will be affected are living within the boundaries of a municipality or are resident in the district and within three miles of the nearest State school. That is reasonable enough and it will obviate any difficulties in regard to travelling, and it will make it unnecessary for the Government to provide for hostels, because they will be in immediate reach of the State schools. It is a reasonable amendment. It gives time to the State and to the people. It does not demand anything more than the Minister wants to give. It only accelerates the process and I am sure that the Minister, when he considers this, will be prepared to accept my amendment, and it will satisfy those people who are desirous of improving the standard of education not only in Natal but throughout the country as far as the Indians are concerned. But it must be emphasized once more that the capacity of Indian children to absorb education is probably higher than among the other Coloured or Bantu groups. We will find the highest standard of education reached by the Indians more quickly and in greater numbers, and we should do everything in our power to facilitate this process of compulsory education.

I should like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). If there is one thing to which a nation or a national group looks forward it is to the time when they will have compulsory education and when that education will be free. But, as practical people, we realize of course that there are many stumbling-blocks in the path of compulsory education and we have also moved our amendment as practical people.

The hon. the Minister has spoken about suitable schools. We not only need suitable school space; we must also have sufficient school space; we must have sufficient schools to accommodate those children for whom we want to make education compulsory.

We talk about its being “adequate”.

Yes, that is true but adequate school space must not be the deciding factor. The history of the world proves to us that if a nation wants education it will go behind hedges or under trees or into church buildings or into ordinary halls to receive that education.

As the Afrikaners had to do.

I know the history of the Afrikaner but I also know that it happened in England and Germany and other countries where there was not sufficient school space. That is why we must not allow this fact to stand in our way and use it as an excuse. I repeat that the United Party was practical enough to realize this. That is why we say to the hon. the Minister that we are giving him from now until 1970. This ought to be sufficient time in which to make adequate facilities available, otherwise it will mean that it will have to become a long-term project One must set oneself a definite target. One tries then not only to do one’s best but also to satisfy the population group for whom one wishes to make the facilities available. That is why we ask that we set our sights at 1970.

But we go further. We realize that we cannot summarily introduce compulsory education in thinly populated areas. That is why we ask that education only be made compulsory in thickly populated areas, like the municipal areas, or within three miles of a school. I think that this is such a reasonable amendment that hon. members opposite will support us and not simply remain quiet and refuse to participate in this debate. I think that it is a pity that in dealing with an important matter such as this we cannot also be given the benefit of the experience and the knowledge of hon. members opposite. We know that there are hon. members opposite who have the necessary knowledge and we should like, together with them, to have the best for the Indian people.

I did not hear whether the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) moved his second amendment dealing with free education. Did the hon. member move it?

I thought my time was getting short and that I would get an opportunity to speak on it again.

If the hon. member moves it I will be prepared to accept his amendment to the effect that if compulsory education is introduced it must be free. I think that is obvious. One cannot introduce compulsory education unless it is free. One cannot compel people to send their children to school and then make them pay. It was never the intention to do anything else and I have no difficulty therefore in accepting that part of the amendment.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is concerned, namely that the word “shall” be substituted for “may” so as to make it compulsory for the Minister to declare that such school attendance shall be compulsory, and that a proviso be added, that amendment goes hand in hand with the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville which also seeks to make regular attendance compulsory but only as from a certain date, namely 1 January 1970. Sir, there are so many considerations that one has to take into account that I cannot accept the proposition at this stage that I should be obliged to do so. One has to take into account not only the availability of adequate classrooms but also the willingness of the community to accept compulsory education, and that may vary from place to place. Hon. members will know that until quite recently the Indian community was opposed to sending their daughters to these schools. That opposition is now disappearing but it has not yet disappeared entirely. The question is whether at this stage, when there is still a certain amount of opposition, one can place this obligation on a community which is not yet quite ready to accept it. In addition to that one must have regard to the circumstances of the community in any particular area. That is why it is necessary, before introducing compulsory education, to have consultations with the Indian Council, with the Education Advisory Council and with the existing school committees if one wants to institute it in any particular area. After all, one is not going to do it until such time as one has consulted with the school committee. One has to consult the parent-teachers’ associations as well as the teachers’ associations.

If I amend my amendment to include the words “after consultation with such bodies”, will the Minister then accept it?

No. If I am compelled to do it after consultation with those people, it means that if I consult them and they do not all agree to it, then I nevertheless have to do it. [Interjection.] I think the hon. member must accept my statement that it is our intention to introduce compulsory education as soon as possible but that one cannot do so without proper consultation with the people who are affected. Then there is the further consideration that if we introduce compulsory education, we must also make provision for the necessity, where necessary, of transporting pupils to school or the necessity to provide hostels. The hon. member for Rosettenville is now trying in his amendment to avoid the necessity of arranging transport for pupils or of providing hostels by inserting a provision to the effect that regular attendance shall be compulsory only for children resident within a municipality or in the district or within three miles of the nearest State school. But that would also place us in a difficult position. I know of municipal areas, in the Transvaal for example, where there are far too few Indians resident in the municipal area and in the whole district to justify the establishment of a school. In other words, one cannot provide for compulsory attendance for those resident within a municipal area without at the same time making provision for transport or hostels. That is the very reason why the provision is in its present form and why it makes it possible for us to make attendance compulsory in certain areas but not in all areas. One could, for example, exclude such areas until it becomes possible to provide the necessary hostel facilities, etc., there. In other words, it is not only a question of the provision of adequate school facilities or sufficient teachers, and it is not only a question of obtaining the co-operation of the community; there is also the question of the provision of adequate hostel facilities, etc. It is because this matter is so complicated and because there are so many considerations that have to be taken into account that I cannot at this stage agree to make school attendance compulsory.

Let me also mention this: If I did agree to make it compulsory within five years, it may look now as though it will be possible to make the necessary provision within five years but how do we know what is going to happen within the next five years? A world war may break out, to mention just one possibility, and we may be prevented as a result of a war from carrying out the building programme that we should like to carry out. Circumstances of that kind may well arise, and I do not think it is fair therefore to place such an obligation upon the Government. I think this is a case where one must accept the bona fides of the Government and of the Department when we say that it is our intention to introduce compulsory education in certain areas as soon as it becomes feasible to do so and to extend it as soon as possible to all other areas where it is possible to do so. That is why I cannot accept the first portion of the amendment.

As far as the proviso proposed by the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I must point out that the proviso is apparently based on the assumption that compulsion will be used to force pupils below a certain age who fail their examinations to follow specific educational courses as distinct from general education. The sole intention underlying compulsory school attendance in South Africa has always been to see to it that the child has the privilege of school instruction. Whether his parents feel that he should receive that instruction in a secondary school, a primary school, or a vocational school or at a technical college, is immaterial. It is doubtful in any event whether the provisions of this clause can be interpreted to mean that the Department can do more than to lay down what types of schools may be attended, which age groups will be compelled to attend and in which areas Indian children will be obliged to attend school. I cannot see that this proviso would give us the power to lay down that under certain circumstances certain Indian children must attend certain types of schools which are indicated by the Department. From the juridical point of view it would be practically impossible to determine whether a pupil who has failed the eighth standard and who is still under the age of 16 is capable of deriving any benefit from the instruction which is given in a secondary school. Pupils may benefit by instruction even though they do not pass examinations. For example, there are various types of schools that pupils can attend. Deviate children, for example, will be able to go to suitable special schools, where such schools exist. Provision has also been made for schools of industry to which pupils may be sent in terms of the Children’s Act. Attendance at part-time classes will, of course, not be regarded as complying with the requirement that school attendance is compulsory. I mention this to show that the compulsory educational system may embrace various types of schools. From the juridical and practical point of view, therefore, it is not possible to accept the proviso proposed by the hon. member.

I will not elaborate on the second part of my amendment, in view of the fact that the Minister is going to accept it. I formally move it—

1. (3) The compulsory education provided for in sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be free.

I am thankful that the Minister is going to accept it. Now, the Minister’s argument about the reasons why he is not prepared to accept compulsory education does not really fit in with the clause as it stands now. Clause 23 says that if the Minister is satisfied that sufficient and suitable school accommodation is available, he may by notice in the Gazette declare that regular attendance of such kind of State school or State-aided school as may be specified in such notice shall be compulsory for every Indian belonging to an age group and resident in an area so specified. Here we have a statement from the Minister which does not cover every aspect. The very points that the Minister has made here about the difficulties Indian families will find themselves in, either by lack of desire to go to school, or the time it will take to call these various bodies together and to consult with them, fit in with what I have suggested in my amendment. The transport difficulties will be obviated and also the hostel difficulties, if he accepts this amendment. We do not expect the Minister to bring in compulsory education for the whole group at once. We know it will take time to do this. We know what difficulties will arise, but we say a start must be made by 1970. Surely in those areas where it becomes practicable and where there is sufficient and suitable accommodation he can start it. Let us begin and show that we are in earnest. I would be the last one to say that throughout the country, in one fell swoop, we must introduce compulsory education.

I would go further and say it should be done in those municipal areas where it is practicable to do so. I would be prepared to amend my amendment if it would meet with the Minister’s wishes, and to say in those municipalities or those districts which the Minister may deem fit it should be introduced. But it is unrealistic to expect the Minister to bring it in throughout the country. We would never propose that, but let us use the following five years to prepare ourselves as far as possible to bring in compulsory education. Let us say that during this period we will consult with those bodies which are interested in education, and those bodies which have the interests of the Indians at heart, and let us say that during that period the Government will get on and build wherever necessary. These have not got to be elaborate schools. The cost will not be great, but we should show our bona fides and start in five years’ time by having compulsory education in those areas where it is possible, and we give the warning that as each area develops we expect every child who reaches a certain age to go to school, or else a penalty will be imposed. I think this is a reasonable request.

The Minister himself has emphasized that the Indian population forms the smallest group in South Africa, consisting of some 500,000 people. There is also evidence that by and large the educational facilities for Indians under the State-aided schools system have achieved a great deal of the results required in any educational system. This is borne out by this brochure “Indian South Africans”, which has become the policy statement of the Government. Reference is made here to the attitude of the parents, apparently with the approval of the Government, that these Indian parents have shown increasingly that they want the same secular education for their children that White children have: and then we have the statement that not only do parents send all their children to school at appropriate stages, but that the children go to school for longer and longer periods and learn more than the rudiments of reading and writing, etc. All this bears out the fact that the ground-work has been laid, and it now remains for the Minister to put the finishing touches on it and to provide for compulsory schooling. It is perfectly clear that if you leave out the first few words of Clause 23, it is the intention of the Government to provide this compulsory education. This is not in dispute between the Minister and us. The question appears to be whether it is feasible at this stage to give an undertaking of any sort as to the date by which that should be achieved.

Now there are two points I should like the Minister to consider. The first is that whether or not the Minister is satisfied that sufficient and suitable accommodation is available surely depends as much on him as it does on any other factor—because the Minister will have the power and the money to make sufficient and suitable accommodation available whenever he is satisfied that it should be made available. I do not think the Minister will argue about that.

No, I definitely argue about that.

The point is that the Minister himself will control the time-table, because he will be able to decide where and when school facilities should be made available, and clearly, if he makes them available he will have satisfied himself that they are suitable. So, those two criteria having been met, the Minister should have no difficulty, within a reasonable period, in achieving the position where compulsory school attendance is an accomplished fact. Therefore I turn to the other factor, which is whether there is enough time before 1970 to do this. Now if the Minister were heard to say to this side of the House: I think you are a little premature in fixing the date at January 1970, but I am prepared to undertake to make compulsory education available by 1975, then this would be a subject for discussion, because then there is acceptance of the principle of fixing a date by which this compulsory education must be available to Indian children, who form the smallest group in the Republic, for whom there is already a great deal of schooling provided, and for whom the Minister intends to provide the best as fast as possible, as he said himself—-then we will have a date to which he and his Department could gear their entire operation, and if that is the position, it only remains for the Minister to say he accepts such-and-such a date as being the target date.

My last point is: assuming the Minister has fixed that date, what happens if a world war breaks out? That is the point he made. You will remember the time. Sir, when the United Party Government was accused by the Government side of not having done certain things, and when we said that there was a war on, we got the biggest horse-laugh in the history of this House from that side. I can only promise the Government that if, fortuitously, it should still be in power at that date, and if a world war should have broken out, we will not laugh at them when they say to us that they have not been able to provide all the schools because there was a war on. What I am getting is that at any time the Minister can, by amendment, change this date and extend the period to something which is more reasonable. Assuming the Minister is still the Minister in 1968, and he finds that he only has two years in which to achieve that target, all he would have to do is to come to the House and to say that he moves that this date be extended to 1972. Whichever way you look at it, the intention of the Government and of the Minister to provide for compulsory school attendance for Indian children would be best expressed and soonest achieved if the Minister did agree to a date of some sort. I hope he will consider it.

I should like to pick a bone with the hon. the Minister in regard to his reasons for not being able to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). The hon. the Minister said, inter alia, that he would have to consult all kinds of bodies such as the school boards, school commission, the teachers’ associations, and, I presume, the parents, but that is not the method one uses in introducing compulsory education. One usually appoints a commission to inquire into these matters. This has been done throughout the history of South Africa and of every province. In my opinion the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister are not good ones; they are trivial reasons.

What can a commission do? It will also have to consult those people.

Sir, the hon. the Minister will have another opportunity to speak. His Department will have to do it and then … [Interjections.] I want to ask my hon. friends on that side to stand up and speak. What are they afraid of? Why do they follow the commands of their leaders so slavishly? They have become slaves to the demands of their leaders. My hon. friends must not just sit there and make interjections. I am asking them nicely to stand up and speak.

What does master Japie say?

They must not be afraid. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) knows education; let him stand up and speak instead of just sitting there making interjections.

Our amendment is to add a proviso at the end of sub-section (1). The hon. the Minister can still do all that he wants to do. If the hon. the Minister is convinced that adequate and suitable school space is available he may by notice in the Gazette declare that regular attendance at such kind of State school or State-aided school as may be specified in such notice, shall be compulsory for every Indian belonging to an age group and resident in an area so specified, with this proviso which we want to add—

In other words the hon. the Minister can do all those things in the meantime; he can start introducing this principle next week in areas where it is practicable to introduce it. But we say that one must have a target and we say that by 1970 he ought to be ready to introduce it in municipal areas throughout South Africa. Let us imagine that a terrible war were to break out, a third world war, which the hon. the Minister envisages, and which, of course, I hope will never take place, and the hon. the Minister were to find that he could not introduce compulsory education, he could then come to this House and say that he cannot do so because circumstances do not permit of his doing so. Then this side of the House, which will then be sitting on that side of the House, will probably expect that side, which will then be sitting on this side of the House, to support us. That would be a practical policy. We are asking the hon. the Minister by means of this proviso to do something in connection with his first clause. What is wrong with that? It is a practical suggestion.

I should like to say just a few words to help hon. members on the other side to understand how impossible their proposal is to bind me to a certain programme. I did not want to give this information at the beginning because there is the danger that in doing so I may be casting a reflection on the Natal Provincial Administration. I want to say at once that that is not my intention at all. I know that the circumstances in which the Natal Provincial Administration was placed helped to bring about the situation which exists at the present time. But the position is that when we take over we will be inheriting a backlog of something like 1,000 classrooms for Indian children in Natal. There is already a backlog of 1,000 classrooms and provision has to be made, of course, for the natural increase in the number of children attending school. The result is that before we can introduce compulsory education we have to work out a building programme that makes provision for this. We have already drawn up a tentative programme which is designed, if possible, to wipe out the existing backlog within a period of five years. This is a programme which will involve a total sum of at least R15,000,000 and an annual expenditure of R3,000,000 to wipe out the backlog. I cannot possibly bind the Government for a period of five years to make that sum available every year. One does not know what is going to happen; there are many other considerations which have to be taken into account. We are going to try to get it, but nobody can say whether we are going to succeed. I cannot bind Parliament in advance as to the amount that must be made available in order to provide schooling facilities for Indians. Parliament will have to approve of those amounts from year to year. Yes, we are going to try to get it, but if Parliament cannot approve of it then we simply cannot carry on with that building programme. Moreover, even if the programme were approved, even if the money were made available, money is not the only problem.

Hon. members know as well as I do that there is a tremendous shortage in this country at the present time of essential housing, not only for Whites but also for Indians. There is a great backlog as far as housing for Indians, Coloured and Bantu is concerned. There is a great backlog as far as hospital services are concerned. The Provincial authorities are at their wits’ end as far as the provision of hospital facilities is concerned, and the problem in connection with the provision of those services is not money in the first instance; the problem in the first instance is the availability of building workers, the availability of technical people to carry out and to plan building programmes—architects, clerks of works, etc. I want to tell hon. members that as a result of the tremendous shortage of architects and clerks of works experienced by the Central Government and the Provinces, the Government has sent a mission abroad, which is there at the moment, to recruit architects and clerks of works. We have now received a report to the effect that this mission has made inquiries in Britain and has found that the British Government has a shortage in its own service of more than 300 people; there are 300 posts which they are unable to fill in their own country. How can we recruit people there when they themselves do not have enough people for their own services? One simply cannot get these people. There is a world-wide shortage. Even if we vote the money, therefore, even if we say, with the best will in the world, that we want to carry on with that programme, we do not know whether we will have the manpower to do the physical building-work; we do not know whether we will be able to get people to do the necessary planning, and in addition to that we do not know whether we will get the material. In Durban, where they have the greatest backlog in connection with schools, it is practically impossible to buy a single brick. Orders for building material have been placed so far in advance that nobody who wants to erect a building in the near future will be able to get building material; it is simply not available. These are all factors which will hamper us in carrying out the programme that we envisage. That is why I cannot possibly bind myself in advance to a certain date. I can only say that we will try to wipe out the backlog as soon as possible, but I cannot bind this Parliament as far as the provision of money is concerned, and I cannot say in advance whether we are going to succeed in getting the people we need. These are problems that one simply has to face.

What is the Government doing in the case of the Orange River scheme? Why cannot we do the same thing in the case of education?

Does the hon. member want us to abandon the Orange River scheme, a scheme which is essential for the development of this country? The State tries to maintain a proper balance in connection with all these services. The period originally envisaged for the implementation of the Orange River scheme is already being extended in order to bring about savings of material and manpower, which we will then be able to use elsewhere. That is why it is entirely out of the question to bind Parliament and to bind the Government in advance to a particular programme. All I can do is to give hon. members the assurance that we will do our best to wipe out as soon as possible the backlog that we inherit and once it has been wiped out we can then introduce compulsory education. More than that I cannot possibly accept.

If there is one aspect of education which not only the Coloured people but I am sure the Indian people want and desire it is compulsory education. I have never known any Minister to put up such a deliberately good case to prevent the introduction of compulsory education.

We have done enough for them already.

Sir, did you hear that interjection, “Ons het al genoeg vir hulle gedoen”?

That was not what he said.

Yes, that was what he said.

It is a pity there was not compulsory education, otherwise the hon. member would not speak such nonsense. Sir, I want to reiterate that compulsory education for the non-Whites is important and that they want it. The hon. the Minister knows that that is their desire. That is why we have this window dressing that we see in this clause. It is nothing but window dressing. The Government says to the Indian people, as indeed they said to the Coloured people “We accept the principle of compulsory education”, but that is as far as it goes. The very same excuses which the hon. the Minister now advances, were also advanced in connection with compulsory education for Coloureds. They say, “we accept the principle but you cannot bind us”. The hon. the Minister has advanced the extraneous excuse that he has to consult the fathers and the mothers and the children and the welfare societies and everybody else. That is completely unnecessary. Sir, compulsory education must be introduced, and it is no use having this window dressing, this sop to the Coloured people. I have on many occasions raised the question of compulsory education for the Coloured people, and indeed the same applies to the Indian people, but the Minister tells us that they have not yet been able to overtake the backlog. As I see it, compulsory education will never become an accomplished fact. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) made the best point of all, and that is that the introduction of compuslory education is entirely in the hands of the Minister in terms of this clause. This clause does not talk about consultation with parents’ and other associations. This Bill, I am sure, will be passed as it is printed and the clause says very clearly that compulsory education will be introduced if the Minister is satisfied that adequate and suitable school accommodation is available.

Why are you not satisfied with that?

The Minister knows that there will never be sufficient accommodation unless the Minister provides it.

Are you insinuating that he is not doing his best?

I did not say that. This is no personal attack on the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister is perfectly honest in his point of view but we represent certain people in this House …

Do you really?

… Sir, it is entirely in the hands of the Government to provide the school buildings.

And they are doing their best.

The hon. member over there said that they were already doing too much for these people. That is the viewpoint of the other side, that we are doing too much for the Indians and too much for the Coloureds already …

What did you do in your time?

I want to ask the hon. the Minister rather to scrap this clause than to wave it in front of the Indian people and hold out the prospect to them that they will get compulsory education. When they want to know when it is going to be introduced the reply is, “At some future date”, when we have overtaken the backlog in school accommodation; then we will consider the question of introducing the question of compulsory education”. But surely there can be compulsory education in certain areas already. There must be sufficient school buildings in certain areas already where these Indian children went to school. As far as Coloured education is concerned, as the hon. the Minister no doubt knows, there are at least five areas in the Cape Province where there is compulsory education for Coloureds because the circumstances set out in this clause already exist. Does the Minister want to tell me that there are no places in Natal particularly where there is sufficient school accommodation to justify the introduction of compulsory education? Sir, I accept the bona fides of the hon. the Minister and I want to tell him that I understand his difficulties, but I will not accept that there are not already sufficient areas in Natal particularly where compulsory education cannot in the near future be introduced. It will be a different matter if the hon. the Minister tells me that there are certain outlying areas in Natal or the Transvaal where compulsory education cannot be introduced. I know that the Cape is not really affected because there are too few Indians there. But I want to say to the hon. the Minister: Do not play the fool with the Indians as you are playing the fool with the Coloureds; you should introduce compulsory education as soon as possible because it is entirely in your hands. It is nobody’s fault that the Government cut up education in South Africa; it is nobody’s fault that they closed the open universities to Coloured people.

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

I say therefore that compulsory education must be introduced and that the Government can do it and that the Minister must do it.

Question put: That the word “may” in line 41, stand part of the clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and first amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman dropped.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mrs. Suzman put and negatived.

First amendment proposed by Dr. Fisher put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I have an amendment on the Order Paper to this clause but in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister accepted a similar amendment on Clause 23 I shall not move it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 26,

I should like to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (2) The Secretary may, in consultation with the Treasury, compensate a provincial administration for any property or rights referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) of sub-section (1).

This really brings about no change except that it alters the machinery that will be used. As the clause read originally, the Secretary to the Treasury would have been the person responsible for paying compensation, but in terms of the amendment it becomes the Secretary of the Department of Indian Affairs in consultation with the Treasury. This is a better provision in terms of Treasury arrangements.

This amendment definitely improves the clause. We support it but I should just like to put one question to the hon. the Minister. Why has he made it a permissive clause? Why does he not say “The Secretary shall”? Why does he make it permissive? Under what circumstances will no compensation be paid to a Provincial Administration? I should like a reply from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Before the hon. the Minister replies, would he also please reply to a query I have? I am worried about the fact that the hon. the Minister considers it necessary in this clause to make provision for the payment of compensation by the Treasury to any Provincial Administration from which school buildings, etc., may be acquired under this Act, while no such provision is made in the subsequent clause for any compensation in respect of property taken over from State-aided or from private schools. During the second-reading debate and in the Committee Stage I asked the hon. the Minister if the expropriation of such buildings would take place under common law and that compensation would therefore be forthcoming. Why is it necessary not to leave it to common law in this regard? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would enlighten me on this because I am quite ignorant about it.

I can only say, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Houghton, that in a previous clause, where we dealt with the takeover of State-aided and private schools, we provided that these schools may only be taken over after consultation and agreement between the schools and the State. “Agreement” means that where these private schools want compensation they will be entitled to it and they will get it. We have already had cases, however, where the local communities have said, “We provided these school buildings, but we have had value for our money in the shape of services; we do not want that money to be refunded to us; we are prepared to offer the school buildings to the State free of charge provided the State accepts the responsibility for the maintenance of the school”. In a case of that kind no compensation is paid, of course.

That is how the clause reads after it has been amended; that was not how it read orginally.

That was the intention originally. In its original form the clause contained the word “consultation”. It was with that intention that “consultation” was inserted. I only accepted the amendment because it set out our intention more clearly.

The only reason why this provision is contained in the Bill is to make it possible to pay compensation. It is really only a financial measure as between Government Departments because, after all, the Provincial Administration is also a Government Department. To a large extent the school buildings were erected with funds obtained partially from the State. It is a question therefore of agreement between the Provincial Administration and the Central Government. Hon. members will find a similar provision in the Coloured Education Act. That Act also provides for an agreement between the Provincial Administration and the Treasury. An agreement has already been arrived at between the Provincial Administration and the Central Government as to the basis of compensation. I do not think this clause will cause any difficulty. It is merely an enabling clause to make it possible to pay compensation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

This clause states that the Minister may for purposes of consultation recognize associations of Indian teachers which comply with the prescribed requirements. We are opposed to this clause because we feel that it would be more advisable, that it would be more in accordance with tradition, if the constitution of a teachers’ association was not prescribed, as is provided for here. We feel that the teachers themselves should draw up their constitution for their teachers’ association, just as in the case of the Coloureds and of the Whites. The hon. the Minister must have his reasons for having this clause drawn up as it is and I should like to know what those reasons are. In normal circumstances the establishment of teachers’ associations is left to the teachers themselves. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what he means by “prescribed requirements”? I do not know what the hon. the Minister has in mind. If there have to be conditions, these conditions can be laid down by means of regulation, as is done at the moment. If a teachers’ association does not conduct itself properly or act in terms of the law, or if by its action it breaks any law, we have our ordinary laws in terms of which action can be taken against it; that then will be the time for the hon. the Minister and his Department to intervene. I am going to resume my seat in order to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say in this connection.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

It is a simple amendment in which I attempt to change what is a permissive clause into a mandatory clause and to substitute “shall” in the first part. This, of course, means that the Minister “shall” for the purposes of consultation recognize associations of Indian teachers which comply with the prescribed requirements.

The second part of my amendment attempts to define a little more clearly what shall be the prescribed requirements. I realize that this will mean a consequential amendment to the regulations in Clause 33 and if my amendment is accepted I shall be prepared to move a proviso to that effect to Clause 33. What I propose asking the hon. the Minister to do is to substitute his rather indefinite prescribed requirements and substitute instead that he must I recognize teachers’ associations to which 40 per cent or more of the Indian teachers in any province of the Republic belong. My whole idea is to try to get representative teachers’ associations recognized by the hon. the Minister for purposes of consultation. There are already in existence two such teachers’ associations which comply with this 40 per cent representation I suggest. I might add that this is an arbitrary percentage but it seems to me to be fairly representative if 40 per cent of all teachers belong to a particular society. I would be prepared to make it a higher percentage if the Minister thought that necessary. There are already two teachers’ associations which more than comply with this requirement. In Natal, for example, there is a society with which I know the Secretary for Indian Education is very familiar, because I know he has addressed that society on several occasions, and that is the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society which represents something like 90 per cent of the Natal Indian teachers. The Transvaal Indian Teachers’ Association represents 370 out of the 800 Transvaal teachers. So there are already two teachers’ societies which are pretty representative, one being almost entirely representative of the provinces’ teachers. There are also smaller ones.

What worries me is the fact that the hon. the Minister, in his second-reading speech, referred to one such teachers’ association in " rather favourable terms, namely, the Transvaal Asiatic Teachers’ Association and that represents a very small percentage of the total number of Indian teachers in the Transvaal.

I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to recognize that type of association just because it happens, perhaps, to have agreed with his take-over rather more readily than other societies, societies which, I might say, are now looking to the hon. the Minister with much more optimism in view of the assurances which both he and the Secretary for Indian Education have given them. This is a simple amendment, therefore, which I hope the hon. the Minister will find it possible to accept. If he does so I shall move the necessary proviso to the regulations in Clause 33 (1).

Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I shall give my reasons in a moment. Sir, I should like to move an amendment to this clause and also an amendment to Clause 33 (1) (a), which must be read together with this clause.

I want to move these amendments in pursuance of discussions that I had with representatives of the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society. The amendments that I propose to move meet with their approval. As far as Clause 30 is concerned, I move—

When we come to Clause 33 I propose to move that paragraph (a) of 33 (1) be deleted I and that the following paragraph be substituted: “(a) as to teachers’ associations for the purpose of recognition in terms of Section 30:”. I think those words express our intentions more clearly. This does not mean that I want to prescribe regulations for teachers’ associations as to how they should regulate their domestic matters or as to how their constitution should read or anything of that kind; it means that I will frame regulations only with reference to the requirements to be complied with by an association in order to receive recognition. The reason why I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow …

Order! No amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I merely spoke against the clause.

I just want to say that I would not have been able to accept an amendment which would have compelled me to recognise every properly constituted Indian teachers’ association or federation or associations, because if I accepted such an amendment I might then be obliged to grant recognition to every small teachers’ association. Surely it is obvious, as the hon. member for Houghton has pointed out, that that would be out of the question. In order to qualify for recognition, teachers’ associations have to comply with certain requirements; they must be representative.

My amendment makes provision for it; I say that 40 per cent of the teachers must belong to it.

A teachers’ association, as the hon. member for Houghton has said, must at least be representative before it qualifies for recognition. Those requirements will be laid down in the regulations and not in the Bill itself, because circumstances may arise that may entirely change the composition of teachers’ associations. Let me give an example. At the moment teachers’ associations are organized on a provincial basis. But once Indian education is controlled by the Department of Indian Affairs, it is quite possible that a teachers’ association may come into being in the near future which is organized on a country-wide basis and no longer on a provincial basis. As a matter of fact, I have information which indicates that there is already such a movement afoot. It is possible that the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society may expand. Discussions are already taking place between the society and the teachers in other provinces with a view to establishing a country-wide organization. We may well find therefore that a representative teachers’ association comes into being, an association with a country-wide membership, an association which is properly representative and the constitution of which provides that it must hold meetings regularly and that it must hold elections regularly, etc. If these provisions are not contained in the constitution and one recognizes such a teachers’ association, an association which in other respects perhaps has a very fine constitution but whose executive committee suddenly decides no longer to hold annual meetings or to reconstitute the executive committee, one will then be dealing with a teachers’ association which no longer represents the teachers because it is not acting constitutionally. In other words, provisions of this kind are all necessary—provisions which lay down that they must have a constitution which must be submitted for information and acceptance for the purposes of recognition, provisions which lay down that they must adhere to their constitutions, etc. Those things can best be laid down by way of regulation. That is why I should like to retain this as a permissive provision so that I will not be forced to recognize every teachers’ association. That would only get us into trouble. I hope therefore that hon. members will be satisfied with my amendment.

I think the hon. the Minister’s amendment is an improvement. If I can get one or two assurances from him I shall be prepared to withdraw my own amendment. May I put a direct question to the hon. the Minister? Would he, for instance, be prepared to say that he will recognize the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society?

Yes. I already said so in my second-reading speech.

And the Transvaal Indian Teachers’ Association which is representative of nearly two-thirds of the Indian teachers?

No, Sir, the Transvaal Indian Teachers’ Association has never yet been recognized by the Transvaal Administration. I do not know what their constitution is; I do not know what their composition is; I do not know how representative they are. I cannot bind myself at all to recognize them.

If they complied with those requirements, would the hon. the Minister consider recognizing them?

I shall consider it, yes.

As I have said I am more satisfied than I was at the beginning. I never intended the hon. the Minister to recognize any little society that set itself up as a teachers’ society. It was because he referred in such favourable terms to one such very small society that I thought of moving this amendment. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has given these assurances I will be prepared, with the leave of the Committee, not to press my amendment.

Amendments proposed by Mrs. Suzman withdrawn, with the leave of the Committee.

Although I think that the hon. the Minister has improved his original clause by omitting these words, I am still not at all sure after what the hon. the Minister has said that he is not going to regulate and control these associations by regulation or by way of regulation; in other words, that the words “which comply with the prescribed requirements” will be given effect to. That does not remove my objection at all. In my opinion teachers’ associations are independent associations, associations which, in my experience—and I was a member of two of the largest—are in 99½ per cent of cases independent of the Department or of the Administration and act completely independently on behalf of the teachers. They act as a liaison between the profession and the administration. They act on behalf of the teachers, and if this Department of Indian affairs is going to prescribe certain requirements by regulation, or whatever the case may be, I think that the hon. the Minister, through his Department, will be binding that teachers’ association which ought to be independent. I admit that the hon. the Minister has effected an improvement but he can still prescribe those requirements by way of regulation and in the light of what the hon. the Minister himself has said, or what he has in mind, this side of the House cannot support this clause.

I do not see why we need the clause at all. If a professional association comes along to the Minister and says: “We have an association, we represent a certain number of teachers and we wish to discuss certain matters with the Minister, or the senior members of the Department”, then it is for the Minister to say “I am prepared to consult you or I am not prepared to consult you”. It has been emphasized from the beginning that these teachers now become civil servants. If the Posts and Telegraph Association approaches the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, he does not say “you do not satisfy my regulations in regard to the establishment of your association”. The Chairman of the Chamber of Mines does not say to the Mineworkers’ Union “Your constitution does not satisfy our requirements”. The Chairman of the Chamber of Mines says “Here is a body of men who wish to discuss matters with us, to consult us, to put their case before the management; we are prepared to see them or we are not prepared to see them”. I do not think the hon. the Minister is acting wisely in binding these teachers. Is he afraid of subversive activities? Then he should deal with the individual. I do not think he should deal With a professional association on that basis. Tf the Medical Association approaches the Government in connection with one of the Bills, they say: “We represent the Medical Association.” The Minister does not say: "I don’t approve of your constitution”. Why should you say to a professional association of teachers: “I do not approve of your constitution”. Take the case of the three associations of White teachers in the Transvaal. Die Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging, the Transvaal Teachers’ Association and the Transvaal High School Teachers’ Association. Those three associations meet separately for the discussion of professional matters, and when they come to see the Administration, they arrange to come together. I think they call it the “Joint Council”. The Joint Council is received by the Administrator and the Director of Education. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he does not need this. If he finds later that he is having difficulties with teachers and it is necessary to introduce legislation, then he can come to the House and say so. But at present I do not think the clause is worth including.

I think that Clause 30, which concerns the formation and recognition of teachers’ associations, must be read in conjunction with paragraph (f) of Clause 16, which sets out very clearly the grounds on which a teacher can be charged with misconduct in connection with attendance at a meeting of any of these associations of which the Minister does not approve. If the hon. member will look at Clause 16 (f), in terms of which a teacher can be said to be guilty of misconduct if he “publicly, otherwise than at a meeting convened by an association or organization recognized by the Minister as representative of persons contemplated in subsection (1) of Section 15, criticizes the Administration of any department, office or institution of the State”, the hon. member will see that it is impossible for us to consider the present clause without considering that one. Quite clearly, as the hon. Minister has just said, there are only certain teachers’ organizations which are going to be recognized. He won’t be able to recognize all the little ones, and there may be certain others of which he does not approve. I do not think, with respect, that his amendment makes much difference. But if the hon. Minister is going to decide that he is only going to recognize one or two teachers’ associations what happens to the teachers who are members of some perfectly harmless other teachers’ organization but who get up and want to criticize the department within those organizations? Is he going to make provision for that in his regulations? I do not think this clause can be read without reference to 16 (f). The hon. the Minister has moved an amendment in anticipation of Clause 33 (a). Perhaps we can discuss that later. But I would like to say, in agreement with the hon. member for Kensington, that if the Minister has anything specific in mind in regard to these teachers’ associations why is it not set out in this legislation, why does he not come here and tell us what it is he has in mind? Does he expect them to be a lot of “yes-men” as far as the department and its work is concerned? The hon. member for Kensington is quite right in saying that this clause and the implications of it are nothing short of an insult to a body of professional people. Until we have trouble, why anticipate it by legislation in this way? I want to assure the hon. Minister that no teachers’ association, which is a body of professional people, anywhere in the world, short of the communist countries where they are accustomed to taking their orders, would tolerate this form of dictation from any government at all. I would ask the hon. Minister to give serious consideration to Clause 16 (f) when considering the amendment he has moved.

If the hon. Minister had said to us that he was going to delete those words which he said he would delete “which comply with the prescribed requirements” in Clause 30, and left the provision just there, then I think it would have created a very different situation from the one which he seeks to create when he deletes those words, but then goes on to say that he is going to change Clause 33 in a certain way in regard to prescribing regulations. Sir, the fact is that those prerequisites or requirements are then being replaced, in another clause. If the hon. Minister thinks about it and he puts together his own amended 30 with his then amended 33, he achieves exactly the same object, which is to create prescription of these organizations in one clause or the other, in some form or another. If that is his intention, of course we must try to persuade him that that is not the right course.

Hon. members must remember that there is a great difference between the original clause and what I am now proposing. As the clause read originally and as Clause 33 (1) (a) read originally, I would have been able to recognize any teachers’ association and I would have been able to make regulations in respect of such a teachers’ association. I would have been free to make regulations in respect of their constitution; I would have been able to dictate to them by way of regulation how their constitution should read; I would have been able to dictate to them by way of regulation what their internal arrangements should be. That I do not want to do; it was never the intention. That is why I am altering the clause to read that I may recognize a teachers’ association and that I may only make regulations concerning their recognition; in other words, that I may only prescribe by regulation with what requirements a teachers’ association has to comply in order to be able to receive recognition. They themselves can then draw up their own constitution, but I lay down certain basic requirements. Let me first tell hon. members what basic requirements I have in mind so that we can have more clarity in discussing this matter. One of the basic requirements is that it must at least be a representative teachers’ association.

How are you going to word it?

I have promised the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society that I will draw up regulations in consultation with them. I do not know precisely how they will be worded.

Have you any idea as to the percentage of membership that you will require?

That will depend on circumstances. At this stage I cannot answer that question with any certainty. But what is of greater importance to me is the fact that it will have to be stated in the regulations that any teachers’ association which is recognized will have to abide by its constitution, that it will have to hold congresses regularly and that it will have to elect its executive committee at regular intervals as laid down in its constitution. In other words, I do not want to be placed in the position that having recognized a teachers’ association because on the face of it it seemed to be a good association and because it had a fairly large number of members, I then find that in the meantime large numbers of members have resigned and formed a different association; that the old association, with a greatly reduced membership, no longer holds congresses and that executive committee members are no longer elected. The position will then be that recognition will have been given to the old executive committee and that there will be no regulations in terms of which I could rectify the position, with the result that I would have to go on recognizing them and consulting them. Surely there must be certain provisions which are binding upon these people to ensure not only that the association is properly constituted, but that there is a guarantee that the executive committee will see to it that congresses are held regularly, that office-bearers are elected regularly and that there will be regular meetings of the executive committee. In other words, I must see to it that the association is representative and that it remains representative of the opinion of the teachers. Surely regulations and rules must be laid down in that connection. As the hon. member for Kensington has said, I could have done all these things just as easily without inserting a provision in this regard in the Bill. The only reason for inserting this provision in the Bill is to obviate any suspicion that may arise that I will no longer give recognition to an existing association which is already recognized by the Province. Because hon. members must remember that provision is made for recognition in the Natal Ordinance, which provides in Section 2, Chapter I—

Provision is made in the Ordinance for the recognition of teachers’ associations, and it is only because that provision exists in the Ordinance that I have had to insert a corresponding provision in this Bill. In addition to that, statutory recognition of a teachers’ ’society gives the society an enhanced status and the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society in particular is very jealous of the status that it enjoys at the present time. They are keen to enjoy a particular status, in this case a legal status, and it is at their request that I have inserted this wording. I discussed this whole matter with them, and here I have a letter from them in which they suggest the amendment that I have moved here. The Natal Indian Teachers’ Society have informed me that if these words are inserted it will meet with their full approval. That is the reason for the insertion of these words in the Bill.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Indian Affairs put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 31,

I hope the Committee will negative this clause and will accept the clause I have on the Order Paper. The basic idea of course is to see to it that an advisory council is set up to advise the hon. the Minister on the whole administration of Indian education. As the hon. Minister no doubt knows, when the Coloured Education Act was under discussion in 1963, a section was introduced establishing at the same time that the Bill was passed, an Education Council for Coloured Persons in order to advise the Minister of Coloured Affairs. I think this is very necessary, and I think the Minister should not just make it permissive for him to establish such a council. He should here and now establish such a council. Not only should the council obviously be an expert council, having knowledge of Indian education, but it is of the greatest importance that the personnel of that council should come from persons nominated by the Indian Teachers Societies, the recognized ones, which obviously will be the associations having the best knowledge of Indian education and of how it should be administered, and the persons best fitted to hold office on that council. Considering that the hon. Minister has now already appointed a Secretary for Indian Education, I think it is advisable here and now also to appoint the Indian Education Advisory Council.

I must point out that it would not be advisable at this stage to impose an obligation upon the Government to establish an Indian education advisory council. The main reason for that is that such a step ought to be taken only after consultation with the South African Indian Council, and the composition of the Indian advisory council also has to be considered after consultation with the S.A. Indian Council. I cannot therefore accept an amendment which binds me at this stage as far as the composition of the advisory council is concerned. May I just refer the hon. member to one important point which may not have occurred to her when she formulated her proposal: The hon. member envisages the establishment of an Indian council, all the members of whom have to be nominated by recognized Indian teachers’ associations. If that were to happen it would mean that all the members of the Indian education advisory council would be officials of my Department, because under the system that we are now going to introduce all the Indian teachers will become officials in my Department, and it would be unsound, of course, to have a council consisting of officials of my Department to advise my Department. It is possible, of course, that officials of my Department may serve on such a council but there should also be outsiders on it, not only to give professional guidance and professional assistance but to be of assistance in connection with education generally. May I just point out to the hon. member that it is absolutely essential that the Indian community should have representation on such a council; in the first place there should also be representatives of the Indian University College, for example.

They can be nominated. I did not suggest that all the members must necessarily be drawn from the teachers’ society.

Surely the hon. member would not suggest that officials of my Department should be allowed to dictate to me which persons I have to appoint to a particular council. That is something which is unknown in our legislation and it is entirely ridiculous. Representation ought to be given on such a body to the University College, to the technical colleges, people who have a knowledge of technical education, and—this is very important—the Natal Grantees Association. I cannot leave it to an Indian teachers’ society to see to it that all the various interests are represented on the Council. The hon. member must accept my assurance that the advisory council will be established as soon as possible; that it will be made as representative as possible in order to be able to cope in the best possible way with the educational interests of the Indians.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

I do not think there is very much point in making a long speech on this clause, in view of the fact that my new Clause 31 has not been agreed to. I still think that with the type of council the Minister intends setting up it will be a good idea to have an improved type of function laid down, and as far as I am concerned, the functions I suggest for the Indian Education Council are preferable to those suggested, in fact without any prescription or any real definition, by the Minister’s clause. The functions of the council are very similar to those laid down in the Coloured Education Act of 1963.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 33,

I move—

1. (a) as to teachers’ associations for the purpose of recognition in terms of Section 30;

The Minister already knows our attitude to this amendment he has just moved, which seeks to combine with Clause 30 in such a way, as we see it, as to achieve the identical object which would in any case have been achieved if Clause 30 had been left as it was and Clause 33 were not to be amended as the Minister is now amending it. I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Streicher—

1. (a) as to the constitution of the education advisory council for Indians and the calling of meetings thereof, the quorum for and the procedure at such meetings and meetings of a committee thereof, and the members and chairman of the said council, their period of office and conditions of service;
2. (b) as to the constitution, powers, duties and functions and the period of office of and allowances payable to members of boards, committees or other bodies established in terms of Section 31;

I think this is necessary in order to give the Minister the power to make certain necessary regulations in the event of him constituting an Education Advisory Council for Indian Education. It is certainly an improvement on the clause as a whole, as we see it, because by the substitution of the present sub-sec. (1) (a), it gives the Minister the power to lay down these prerequisites about which he told us earlier, of which he only mentioned two; he said there were a number of them, but he only mentioned two of them, e.g., that they must be representative, and he would not tell us what the percentage of representation had to be or what the membership had to be before he could consider them as being representative. And he said that the second prerequisite was that the recognition would depend on the organization carrying out its constitution, for example, by holding regular conferences. Well, it is as long as it is broad. As long as the Minister has the power under Clause 30 coupled with the power he would have under his present amendment of Clause 33, we have not overcome those objections, which we believe are valid, to the possible restrictions of the powers, the method of operation and the rights of such a council and so, in moving this amendment, we think that we would make the clause at least more practicable than it is now and at the same time achieve the object of eliminating the undesirable sub-sec. (1) (a).

I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, firstly because I am making adequate provision for regulations in connection with the recognition of teachers’ associations and for the establishment of an advisory council, and because Clause 31 makes quite adequate provision for other committees. Provision is already made that they can be established in the manner prescribed by regulation. In other words, we already have the position that we can promulgate whatever regulations are necessary in terms of Clause 31 and it is unnecessary to have a repetition of this provision in Clause 33.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Indian Affairs put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel put and negatived.

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

On Clause 37,

I cannot now move the amendment I wanted to move but I want to say that we will vote against the clause.

Clause 37 put and the Committee divided;

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

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

Title of the Bill accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the power of the State to expropriate land is contained in numerous Acts, some of which date from the colonial period, for example, the Natal Land Clauses Consolidation Law of 1872. The pre-Union legislation was of a general nature and did not cover the acquisition of land for modern purposes, and the procedures prescribed in them could only with difficulty, if at all, be applied when land had to be acquired, for example,. for a group area. Therefore gradually additional appropriation powers for particular purposes were provided by legislation, as e.g. the Railway Expropriation Act of 1955, the Housing Act of 1957, the Municipal Ordinance of 1951 (Cape), etc. This legislation is administered by the relevant Departments themselves. I emphasize that all those laws are administered by the relevant Departments themselves, and that will also be the position in future.

Where the State, however, requires land for general purposes like trade schools, police stations, agricultural colleges and offices, the Department of Lands buys the land, and the purchase takes place in terms of Act 16 of 1872 in Natal, Act 6 of 1882 in the Cape, Proclamation No. 5 of 1902 in the Transvaal and Ordinance No. 11 of 1905 in the Free State, as the case may be. These Acts are in many respects divergent and the procedures prescribed by them are cumbersome and they can therefore not easily be applied in modern circumstances. For an appreciable time already there has been a need for uniform legislation which will apply all over the country. Originally it was considered passing a single Expropriation Act which would replace numerous similar measures and which would possibly be administered by only one Minister. This idea, however, was not generally approved of, particularly because there may be so many divergent objects and considerations when land has to be acquired. I also want to say that this idea of having such a uniform Act was particularly with the object of making as short as possible the time factor in regard to expropriation, not only for the sake of the State but also for the sake of the people whose land is expropriated, so that a person whose land is expropriated need not wait for months and sometimes for a year before the matter can be finally disposed of, but will know immediately that his land is being expropriated, and can make his own plans.

This Bill consequently in the first place seeks to cover and to improve the legislation applied by the Department of Lands. Secondly, the legislation which contains references to the laws which are being replaced must be suitably amended. Thirdly, in cases where the Minister of Lands handles the purchase of land on behalf of other Departments, powers are granted to him directly instead of to the State President or the Ministers of those Departments. Fourthly it is provided that this Bill will serve to supplement and not to replace other legislation dealing with expropriation, except for the Railways Expropriation Act. That will result in Departments and Administrations, which want to retain their own expropriation powers, if necessary, also being able to make use of this Bill. In other words, those Departments may all still use their own Acts. They are not compelled to expropriate only in terms of this Bill, but this Bill will also be available to them if they prefer to use it. I want to point out that the Minister of Lands in many respects acts as the agent for these other Departments in regard to expropriation, and that is why he would like to have this Act.

The expropriation of land is generally regarded as a drastic measure and it is only resorted to when no other solution can be found. A basic principle, however, is that an owner must be fully compensated for his property. The Bill confirms the accepted principle that the compensation should be equal to the market price of the property if it is sold by a willing seller to a willing purchaser, plus an amount to compensate for any real pecuniary loss or inconvenience which may be caused by the expropriation.

The principle contained in the Water Act, 1956, namely to pay interest on the amount of the compensation payable from the date on which the expropriation comes into effect until the date on which the compensation is paid, is also contained in this Bill. It is an important concession which did not exist in the repealed or the amended legislation. Hitherto no interest was payable on the amount of compensation due, even though the land had already been possessed by the State and the owner possibly had no other source of income.

The existing legislation provides, as does this Bill, that land may be expropriated for public purposes. The expression “public purposes” was, however, formerly defined as, e.g. for defence, the police, roads, telephone exchanges, public buildings, water works, etc. This definition gave rise to numerous court cases and the State was repeatedly prevented from taking land for some specific purpose because that purpose was not covered by the definition. Now that expression is not being defined, so that land may be expropriated for any purpose which is at present or may in future be regarded as “public”.

In view of the fact that this Bill may also be applied by local authorities, it is provided that land containing minerals or land in rural Coloured areas cannot be acquired without the consent of the Minister concerned.

A new principle, based on the Railways Expropriation Act, is the power granted to the Minister to enter upon any land in order to ascertain whether it is suitable for the purpose for which it is required. Provision is made for compensation and the right of access to a building is subject to 24 hours’ notice. This provision is essential because otherwise land would have to be expropriated blindly if the owner refuses to negotiate, and it might later appear that the land is unsuitable. I want to give hon. members the assurance that our officials will not simply enter upon any land to expropriate it; they will first notify those people in a courteous way that they propose to enter upon the land for purposes of expropriation. There need be no fear that they will do so unnecessarily. Hon. members know that at present at least 60 days must elapse between the date of notification of expropriation and the date on which expropriation becomes effective. It may, however, be necessary, for example in time of war, or as the result of a state of emergency, that land or other property should be made available without delay. Therefore it is provided, in terms of the Railways Expropriation Act, that the Minister may give less than 60 days’ notice.

In terms of a recent court decision, it is being provided that real rights registered against the title of the expropriated land must be expropriated separately from the land itself and that compensation must be paid for that also, unless it is desired that such rights should cease to exist. As against that, it is provided that the State is not obliged to pay any compensation for unregistered rights. This distinction is essential in order that the State may have timeous knowledge of any servitudes which may attach to the land, and to determine what the expenditure in connection with the acquisition of the property will amount to. If the holders of unregistered rights are allowed to claim compensation, it may take months before these matters can be finalized. This will also obviate the possibility that after expropriation holders of rights appear on the scene who allege that they have verbal or non-notarial agreements with the owner for which they claim compensation. Any bona fide holder of rights may of course have those rights registered. We are closing this loophole so that we will not land in the position, after having offered a person a certain amount of compensation for expropriation, of finding that there are servitudes and that we have to pay compensation to those who hold those servitudes, which will also make a difference to the actual value of the land.

The Acts which are about to be repealed and the other Acts which are being amended either provide that the notice of expropriation should mention the amount of compensation or that the owner should be told to name the amount he claims. This Bill allows the Minister to follow either of the two procedures, whichever he considers most desirable. The aforementioned Acts mostly provide that the compensation to be paid for expropriated land, in the absence of agreement, must be namely the Bantu Trust and Land Act, 1936, and the Settlements Act, 1956, provide that the dispute should be decided by the Water Court in terms of the Water Act, 1956. The Forestry Act, 1941, and the Soil Conservation Act, 1946, on the other hand, provide that a board consisting of the local magistrate and two other persons, one of whom is appointed by the plaintiff and the other by the Minister, must determine the compensation.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides that all disputes concerning compensation must be referred to the local magistrate’s court or, if the compensation offer exceeds R3,000, to the Provincial or Local Division of the Supreme Court, at the request of any party concerned. Experience has shown that arbitration is an expensive process and if one of the parties is not satisfied with the award of the arbitrator the case must in any event be taken to court on appeal. It is regarded as more satisfactory, cheaper and speedier to resort to the courts directly.

A new principle embodied in the Bill concerns the awarding of court costs. The expropriation proclamation of the Transvaal provides that the State must bear all the costs of arbitration proceedings, except when the amount of compensation awarded by the arbitrators is equal to or less than the amount offered by the State, in which case each party pays its own costs and half the arbitration costs. This provision resulted in the State usually having to pay all costs in view of the fact that arbitrators are inclined, even when they are in favour of the State’s offer, to award a few rand more so that the owner need not bear any costs.

Knowing that the arbitration proceedings will probably cost him nothing, the owner usually has no scruples about demanding an excessive amount for his property, with the result that the State is not able to negotiate in view of the fact that a reasonable concession in regard to the price would not nearly satisfy the owner. In order to ensure that an owner will not go to court without having a good case, thereby unnecessarily involving the State in an expenditure of thousands of rand, it is now provided that court costs will be awarded on a more just basis. If the court decides in favour of the plaintiff, the State will still pay all the costs, but if the court decides in favour of the State the plaintiff must bear all the costs. In order to persuade an owner to make his claim more reasonable and realistic, a formula is provided to cover the cases where the compensation granted by the court is more than the amount offered but less than the amount claimed. In those cases the State pays all its own costs plus as much of the owner’s costs as the ratio which the difference between the court’s award and the offer has to the difference between the claim and the offer. For example, the State offers R 1,000, the owner claims R2,000 and the court awards R 1,100. Then the State pays only one-tenth of the owner’s costs, whereas if the claim was for R 1,200, the State would have had to pay half its costs.

Although it is compulsory to give all interested parties notice of the expropriation of land, the difficulty existed that a bondholder through negligence or through his absence may not have made provision for collecting the money owing in terms of his bond. It is now provided that no payment of compensation may be made to the owner unless the State has paid the debt owing in terms of the bond out of the compensation granted. In order to prevent the mortgagor and the mortgagee delaying the payment of this money, due to lack of agreement between them, provision is made that the Minister may, at the cost of the parties, obtain an order of court in regard to how the compensation should be dealt with.

Apart from a few new matters, this Bill streamlines the existing legislation and I trust that it will enjoy general support.

The hon. the Deputy Minister’s wishes will be fulfilled; we will support this Bill at the second reading. It contains a principle which is accepted on this side of the House as being a very desirable principle and a principle which, of course, had its precedent in an almost identical Bill which the United Party Government put before this House in 1945 but which was dropped because of lack of time in which to deal with it. It followed almost exactly the terms of the first part of this Bill. The principle which is contained here, which we support, is the principle to provide in the first place for expropriation and in the second place the use of land temporarily, for public purposes, subject, in all cases, to an obligation to pay compensation. While it may seem to be a statement of what fair, normal principles relating to the expropriation of land should reflect, unfortunately the principle is not reflected today in South Africa in all our legislation which has to do with expropriation. It is very gratifying to find in this Bill the statement that for public purposes the expropriation of any land is allowed subject in all cases to payment of compensation. I might say that the procedure for this expropriation, the criteria for determining what payment is to be made as compensation, are a great improvement on some of the laws which obtain at the moment in relation to expropriation, and we have no objection whatsoever to the principle contained in the first part of the Bill up to Clause 16. Thereafter it deals with the application of the principles contained in those clauses to other Departments. Sir, a very interesting part of the Bill is the fact that an Administrator is entitled to expropriate in terms of the principles contained in the first part of the Bill. In other words, the door is open to the Provinces. So far as the Provinces are concerned, if they wish to use this procedure they may do so. If they do not want to do so they do not have to do so. But it is quicker, as the Deputy Minister has pointed out, to use the procedure in terms of this Act; in some instances it will be very much quicker to use this procedure rather than another procedure laid down in terms of a Provincial Ordinance or in terms of some other enactment. But, of course, it has its anomaly and its difficulty. If you wish to use land temporarily then you must use the procedures provided for here, because I am not aware of a provision in any other expropriation enactment which provides for the temporary use of land. Such provision may well exist but I know that in many instances for many purposes that power does not exist. The power is merely to expropriate land completely; in other words, to expropriate the ownership in that land. If anyone wishes to use land temporarily for public purposes, either the Provinces or the Minister of Lands, then it will be necessary to use the procedure provided for in this Bill, a procedure which, I repeat, is a very good procedure, and the criteria for that determination are very good. But it would appear that a Province, for example, could use this procedure to deal with one case under a particular Ordinance and, in another case, to expropriate under the very same Ordinance it could use the procedure provided for in that Ordinance. Sir, that would seem to be the position. There is no fetter placed upon the Provincial Administration so the Provincial Administration can take its choice; it can either use the powers contained here or use the powers contained in the Ordinance. It may be that in some instances it will be quicker to use this procedure, in which case the Administrator may determine that because he wants that land more quickly he will use this procedure. It may be that that Ordinance provides that there shall be no compensation for expropriation, and as the hon. the Minister will hear, there are examples of laws which provide that expropriation for public purposes may be made without any payment whatever; so the door is open in one case or in another case for a Provincial Administration to use one procedure or to use another procedure. I do not think that this is a desirable state of affairs but I will come to that later. Sir, the real anomaly of this Bill has nothing to do with the Provinces; the door is left open to them. The real anomaly is that the principle, the procedure and the criteria for expropriation do not appear, ex facie this Bill, to be a subject which has the unanimous approval and consent of the Cabinet. We find that except for the Minister of Lands, who has the power to expropriate only in terms of the laws which give him that power, only certain Departments have decided that this procedure shall apply to them, and even then we find that certain Departments, presumably in consultation with the Minister concerned, have decided that in some instances the principles of this Bill, which as I say are very good, should apply only in respect of some of the Acts administered by them. Apparently only certain Ministers have been prepared to extend the principle which is contained in the Bill up to Clause 16 providing for the new procedure and the new criteria and the compulsory payment of compensation; that is the principle of the Bill. Only a few have been prepared to extend this to Acts administered by them under which they have power to expropriate, and even then one finds that some Ministers extend them only to some of the Acts administered by them. We find that the Minister of Lands has subjected his expropriation powers to the new principle and procedure; we find that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has in respect of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 adopted that part of it which relates to the determination of the value when expropriation takes place in terms of that Act only. We find that the Minister of Education, so far as the extension of the University Education Act is concerned, has completely accepted the principle, and in doing so he has substituted the Minister of Lands for himself for expropriation in terms of that Act. When the hon. the Minister of Lands, in place of the Minister of Education, uses his expropriation powers, then the whole of this Act is to apply, a very welcome provision. We find that this principle is completely accepted by the Minister of Defence so far as the exercise of powers relating to expropriation under the Defence Act is concerned, and we find that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has accepted part of the principle so far as it relates to the determination of the amount of compensation to be paid. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, the Railways are excluded, but we find that the hon. the Minister of Transport has accepted the principle of the application of this Bill to certain of his other Departments only. It may apply to the Aviation Act but it does not apply in respect of expropriation for the purposes of roads which fall under the Minister of Transport. Why this is so one does not know, but it is interesting that not only do some Ministers apparently accept it as a matter of policy and some Ministers do not, but some Ministers accept it only in part. Notable absentees are the Group Areas legislation and expropriation in terms of the Housing Act and expropriation in terms of the Water Act, and there are many other Acts dealing with expropriation. But one wonders, so far as the Group Areas are concerned, whether much of the hardship might not be taken out of the application of this Act if the excellent principle of compensation contained in this Bill also applied to that Act and indeed to many of the other Acts.

Let me say at once that in producing a Bill such as this, in dealing with the subject of expropriation, uniformity is desirable. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will be the first to agree with me that uniformity is desirable if you can get it in a matter of this kind. The principles of expropriation for public purposes should be the same. There should not be a more or a less favourable situation because of the nature of the public purpose for which the property is being expropriated

The interests are widely divergent.

Oh yes, the interests are widely divergent; the hon. member is quite right, but whether your property happens to be required for public purposes by the Minister of Transport or whether it is required for public purposes by another Department for a completely different purpose, it still remains a public purpose and there should be no difference to the compensation payable, to the rights that the individual owner has, in terms of the law. It should not make any difference in relation to those rights whether the land is expropriated by one Minister or another. In other words, the purpose for which your land is to be taken should not affect the principle of compensation payable to you. This is why uniformity is so desirable, and it is so desirable especially in relation to Government Departments. Because as the law stands at the moment some people whose land will be expropriated by the Minister of Lands in terms of this Bill are going to be in a more fortunate position in many respects than persons whose land is going to be expropriated by another Minister, as I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree. This is the most undesirable state of affairs; the principle is wrong. In the end it amounts to a question of luck whether the Minister of Lands is going to expropriate for public purposes or whether some other Minister is going to expropriate. I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree that uniformity is desirable. I am sure that some efforts must have been made in this direction. It is no good talking about uniformity in relation to the Provinces, for example, until the Government in its own Departments gets some sort of idea as to what it wishes to do as a Government. It seems to me that this Bill indicates that the Cabinet is not agreed, as a matter of policy, between Government Departments, as to what principles of expropriation are to be applied where land is expropriated for public purposes, because every Department expropriates land for some public purpose. I believe that it is desirable that there should be uniformity right throughout; that there should be conformity even in the Provinces; that they should also conform to this principle. But, Sir, before we get to that stage, surely we have to find ourselves a Government who can agree in the Cabinet, amongst its own Departments, what principles should be applied in relation to expropriation. While I express the hope that the Provincial Administrations will adopt this principle, it is a matter for the Provincial Administrations themselves, and while one would obviously find it desirable that Provincial Administrations and Government Departments and local authorities should have the powers of expropriation, they should all adopt one principle. I say that the principle contained in this Bill is a good principle for them to adhere to, and if they would all do so, that would be very satisfactory, but first of all the Government must put its house in order and then it must proceed, by negotiation, following the proper methods prescribed in our Constitution, to act upon a request from the Provinces. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us some indication as to what steps he is going to take in this regard and what encouragement he is going to give the Provinces to fall in line with a principle which is fair and just and, I think, a great advance in our law relating to expropriation.

This Bill which is before the House, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has already said, is really self-explanatory. It is a Bill which is designed to streamline the procedure where property is expropriated by various Departments, as has been done in the past, and where property has to be expropriated in the future, and it is also designed to introduce uniformity. Hon. members on the other side have said that in principle they agree with this Bill. There is nothing really contentious in the Bill and one therefore expects the Opposition to agree with it. What is news to me is that the United Party, according to the hon. member, was also sensible enough at one stage to think along the same lines. It is news to me and I am pleased to hear that once in a while hon. members opposite do adopt a sensible attitude. The principle contained in this measure is the generally recognized principle that where a person’s property is expropriated his rights must be respected; that the necessary notice must be given to him, that there must be the necessary lapse of time and that there must be an opportunity to place a proper valuation on the property and that the person whose property is expropriated must also be given the opportunity to take the matter on appeal if he is dissatisfied. These are generally recognized principles which I think are recognized in all countries and which have also been recognized in this country. As far as the principle is concerned, therefore, we are all agreed; we believe that it was necessary to introduce the Bill at this stage.

The hon. member who has just sat down wanted to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why certain Departments were excluded. He mentioned the Department of Railways. Well, I think it is up to the hon. the Deputy Minister himself to reply to that question. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know why there are still one or two Departments perhaps which have not yet been included here.

I referred to the Department of Transport.

Yes. The Department of Transport has been excluded. But the point is, as the hon. member has correctly said, that there are still one or two exceptions. I take it, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister will reply to him in due course.

Then I just want to say a few words with regard to the other principle which the hon. member touched upon and that is that one Department will now be able to act as agent for another Department. Sir, in the ordinary course of events one is at liberty either to appoint an agent to do certain work for one or to do that work oneself. The same principle also applies here. I do not think there can be any objection to it.

The hon. member went on to say that there were other cases as well where the principle that compensation must be paid should also apply. The impression that I gained was that the hon. member meant that Government Departments could proceed to expropriate property without paying proper compensation.

Sir, I do not know of a single case where either the Provinces or the State expropriates property without paying proper compensation. I do not know whether there has ever been such a case.

We will correct you.

I am willing to be corrected but I am not aware of a single case in which the State expropriates property without paying proper compensation. Sir, the last observation that I want to make in this regard is this: Another important reason why it is necessary to introduce this Bill at this stage is this: Our society is becoming more and more complex and the responsibility which rests on the State to administer the affairs of the country and also to render services, makes it all the more necessary for the State to interfere with the freedom of people and to require people in certain cases to give up their property so that the State can take it over with a view to rendering some sort of service on that property. That is why it was necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to come forward with this legislation with a view to co-ordination. We will probably find in the future that the State will have to intervene more often and that to an ever-increasing extent the State will have to lay claim to the properties of private individuals with a view to rendering some kind of service, and that is why it is necessary to have a measure in which the provisions governing expropriation are clearly set out. That is what is being done in this Bill and we therefore welcome it.

The Bill has been very ably dealt with by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and I hardly think it is necessary for me to cover ground which he has covered.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what so often happens when expropriation is suggested. Before any notices are given you find engineers and various investigating officers trespassing on that ground without having notified the owner. Unfortunately this is still happening notwithstanding the protestations made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) two or three years ago when we dealt with expropriations by the Railways. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to put a stop to that as far as he can. It is courtesy to which the owners of land are entitled and we regard it as an absolute act of discourtesy on the part of the Department to allow that position to continue.

I support the hon. member for Durban (North) in his protest against the lack of uniformity as far as expropriation is concerned. We have the position in the Cape Province, which is a serious position to many land-owners in the Cape Province, that the Province shelters under the protection of the proclamation of Sir John Cradock, No. 1813. That proclamation gives the local authority, under the ordinances passed in terms of that proclamation, the right to expropriate any so-called unimproved land without any compensation at all and local authorities are in fact doing so. That is happening daily. Hundreds and thousands of pounds worth of land has been expropriated by local authorities, particularly divisional councils, in that way. They have the right to pay compensation if they so wish but they don’t. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the past —it is on record—Government Departments have actually asked divisional councils to expropriate so-called unimproved land for the purpose of constructing deviating roads as far as the Railways are concerned. The Railways pay for the construction of those roads but the divisional councils do not pay any compensation for that land. I think it is extremely unfair that that state of affairs should be allowed to continue. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he makes representations to the four provinces to bring about uniformity. Why should the position continue where every Government Department concerned with this Bill should pay adequate compensation for the land they expropriate whereas the provinces are allowed to expropriate whatever land they want without paying compensation? It is distinctly unfair.

There is another anomaly here in the Cape Province. Certain land is known as grantee land, land over which there is no lien or quit-rent. The same applies to the settlements which were set aside in the various parts east of Port Elizabeth. There is no lien over those settlements either. You get a district interspersed with land of this type. The position is that in one part of the district the divisional council has no right to expropriate land without paying compensation whereas adjacent farms are subject to the John Cradock Proclamation. I think in fairness to all parties concerned the hon. the Minister has a duty to bring about that uniformity which is necessary so as to overcome most of these difficulties and the hardships which are imposed on those people, as a result of that proclamation, in that they are not entitled to any compensation whatsoever.

I think in respect of expropriation of land and the method of determining compensation we have quite considerable divergence throughout the country, not only in Government Departments, but divergence as between the various provinces and local authorities. This Bill deals in the first 16 clauses with expropriation by the State. Then there is a clause which enables the Minister to allow the Administrator to make use of the provisions of this Act, as it will be, and the Administrator in turn is allowed to permit the local authorities to make similar use of the provisions of the Act. I do not want to deal with the latter two cases because those are provincial matters and, has been rightly pointed out, it is hoped that some of the provinces, and in their wake the local authorities may well take a leaf out of this Bill, the first portion of which contains very excellent provisions.

When one looks at the remaining clauses where the method of expropriation, more particularly compensation, is applied only to specific Acts under which the State can expropriate land for public purposes, it becomes very clear indeed that a number of State Departments are not prepared to accept the provisions of this Bill and have excluded themselves from these provisions. We have Clause 17 which is a most extraordinary one. This clause states that despite the provisions of this Bill any law which already exists relating to expropriation shall remain of full force and effect. In other words, you will have a number of laws all operating concurrently with regard to expropriation by the State. This was obviously inserted in order to meet what was clearly certain divergence of thinking on the part of the various State Departments.

When we examine the basis of compensation as set out in this Bill we find, as the Deputy Minister has rightly said, that the principle is very fair. The basis is market value at the date of notice, plus the making good of any actual financial loss or inconvenience caused, plus, in the case of any right which may exist in respect of that land, the making good to the owner of that right any actual financial loss he may suffer or inconvenience caused through taking that right away. I find that an extremely fair basis of assessing compensation. But I would like to see that followed right throughout the country. Many of us feel very strongly about the question of expropriation which, in many cases, applies not only to empty land but to the home of the citizen. There is nothing so frustrating, Sir, than to find that one’s home—in many cases the family has lived there for years—being expropriated in order to meet public needs. When that takes place I believe every consideration must be extended to the owner of that home or anybody who has some right in respect of that home. It also applies in the case of businesses. I believe that compensation on this basis which is fair and reasonable should be extended to all those persons.

There are anomalies in this country. We find, for instance, that under the Housing Act an entirely different basis applies. In that case compensation is limited to cost plus 6 per cent over a certain period of time irrespective of the value of the land as at date of expropriation. An entirely different method of assessing compensation is laid down in the Slums Act. In that case compensation is limited to the valuation of the land or, alternatively, the prices obtained at public auctions over a period of three years. If no public auctions have taken place during that preceding period of three years there is no yardstick to apply. The eventual amount is also limited. It cannot exceed the municipal valuation by more than 30 per cent. We know that municipal valuations throughout the country represent, in many cities, 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the true value of the property. Over the last few years there has been a complete change in the value of property, Sir. Through certain unfortunate economic set-backs there has been a complete recession of property values but over the last two years property values have risen to heights unprecedented in the history of this country. I need not give specific examples of this because they are well known to every hon. member of this House, more particularly to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

When you look at the provisions of other Statutes with regard to the acquisition of land by the State for public purposes you find that there is such a divergence that in many cases the basis of assessing compensation is completely unfair and does not give the owner the true value of the property. It does not give him the opportunity of benefiting by the many years during which he has held that property, paid rates, maintained it and in addition entrenched himself either in his business or domestic life. So there is no question that revision was not required and I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his courage for introducing a Bill which was before this House in 1945 although one would have liked to see it applied more widely. We cannot deal with the provincial or local authority aspect because that is a different matter entirely. Nor does one want Parliament to interfere deliberately with the work of the provinces. But there is no question that the hon. the Deputy Minister did not fail to take into account and virtually encourage these other authorities to make use of the provisions of this Bill.

The position is this, that a local authority can make use either of its own powers as provided for by an Ordinance of the province concerned or of the powers under this Act. You will, therefore, find Sir, that whereas the Act may give that local authority an advantage, for example, by speeding up the procedure, it would be very much cheaper for a local authority to use the powers it has under the ordinance. You get that anomaly and one would like to see uniformity in our country particularly because the same principle is affected, namely, the ownership of property by the individual. The hon. the Deputy Minister may think it is laughable but I think it is a very serious matter.

I appreciate the new spirit.

It is not a question of a new spirit. This is a matter which was contemplated by the Government of the day in 1945. They considered some very good provisions at that time, Sir, provisions which even the present Government has not had sufficient wisdom to insert in this Bill.

The hon. member for Durban (North) has criticized the fact that there appears to be no unanimity at Cabinet level itself with regard to the application of the provisions of this Bill. That is something which I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should explain to the House and tell us that it is contemplated to improve the position. When you see, in the latter clauses, which statutory bodies will make use of these provisions, you will notice the absence of numerous statutory bodies—they stand out in relief—which play a part in the acquisition of land on behalf of the State for public purposes. There are many harsh provisions, provisions about which the public have complained, and provisions which we have opposed in this House in respect of other statutory bodies without having made any impression on the hon. the Minister in charge of the particular Bill. This should have been the way in which to have remedied those anomalies and done away with that harshness. In that case we would have had a better sweeping of the new broom which has come into this Department.

We should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether, in pursuance of this form of thinking, he will also take into account, after some negotiation, I presume, the other anomalies which exist, particularly with a view to giving relief to the public in regard to the harshness of the provisions of expropriation by bodies like the Group Areas Development Board, bodies established under the Slums Act and the provisions embodied in the Housing Act. It is in that spirit, Sir, that we are supporting, in principle, the very satisfactory provisions of the Bill before us.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister the nature of the discussions, if any, which took place between himself and the Administrators of the provinces. I am one of those who welcome an attempt to get some uniformity in expropriation procedure, particularly in the payment of adequate compensation to affected persons. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would do that, I would indeed be grateful. My reason for saying that is this: Although I am a great defender of the rights of the provinces, and also of local authorities, I think this measure is one which vitally affects owners of property and land. I think it is a good thing that we have at least got so far as to get this degree of unanimity between the hon. Deputy Minister’s Department and some Departments of State and that they will accept the system, which will flow from this Bill.

I have had long experience of expropriation of land and I do not think anything gives greater dissatisfaction to owners of land and owners of property than expropriation by public authorities for public purposes. I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a set of conditions which found favour in one province of the Republic not very long ago. In order to widen roads, owners of property literally had their land taken away from them without any compensation whatsoever, the Administrator; of that province using a method, which was much criticised at the time, whereby he refused to pass plans, unless and until, the owner of the property gave up certain pieces of land abutting on the proposed highway or road. I believe that that type of practice is unwholesome and unsatisfactory. I must say that it did come to an end. Nevertheless, I hope the hon. the Minister will take some active steps to ensure that the system of expropriation is uniform. I think—as has been explained by other hon. members—that the provinces and the local authorities may use either the one or the other. In other words, they may take action either under this Act or under some ordinance. I think that is unsatisfactory because in the Cape Province the value of land, for expropriation purposes, is the most recent municipal valuation plus 30 per cent or an agreed price. Buildings are dealt with on the basis of cost of construction less depreciation. The fact that the replacement cost of that building may be considerably higher, than any compensation paid, according to that particular formula, is generally lost sight of. Persons are put out of their homes and out of their businesses and have to find other accommodation. In parenthesis, I want to say that I am very sorry that the Group Areas Act is not one, which is being amended to give fair compensation to affected persons. In that case compensation is limited to basic value which is much below the current market value. It may not be generally known, that in respect to that particular Act, the owner of a property is faced with three values: (1) municipal valuation (usually an old one); (2) basic value which is determined by a Government valuator and (3) market value—of a willing buyer and a willing seller. This system creates confusion. In that respect alone, I think the time is long past for us to have different systems of expropriating property. There are undoubtedly good and sufficient reasons for various Departments of State and authorities to expropriate land including buildings and to pay compensation. When the Bill says “current market value”, I believe that that is a poor yardstick, because until such time as the property is actually sold by public auction, nobody knows the market value. The authorities are consequently left to rely upon the figures of sworn appraisers. I can assure you, Sir, that sworn appraisals can be as wide apart in their values as one could wish, depending on which side of the negotiations one is on. I have known appraisers, in dealing with property to be expropriated, to differ to a tremendous extent. Local authorities periodically conduct valuations. Because of the system of taxation or rating our land and buildings, nobody complains that this property has been valued too low, although facilities are available under which such persons can appeal to the valuation court and have their values increased. I can assure you, Sir, that that is the exception rather than the rule. So you get the market value where sworn appraisals are the yardstick in most cases.

I mention this, Sir, because in seeking uniformity there can only be one yardstick and that is absolute fair play and justice to the individual concerned. Therefore, there can be no question that a system applicable to one province or to one part of the country, can be more, or less, favourable, than the system applicable to another province or to another part of the country. Land is land; land has a value and the system in dealing with it, should be laid down quite clearly at parliamentary level, so that when persons find themselves in the position of having their land expropriated the formula will be there and they will know it. As the position is to-day, the individual can make an appeal to a higher authority, i.e., to an administrator or to a Minister. I believe that that procedure is wrong. He should not have to bargain. I think the individual concerned should be able to get the fair value of his property. He should get sufficient compensation to enable him, if he is in business, to establish himself elsewhere and not be put out of business altogether. I speak with knowledge, Mr. Speaker, because I have spent many years dealing with this particular aspect of public work. As I said, at the beginning of my speech, nothing has created greater dissatisfaction amongst members of the public, ratepayers and property owners, than the expropriation proceedings followed by Railway authorities, the provinces and State Departments. I therefore urge upon the Minister to take active and positive steps to ensure that the system, although it is applied by diverse authorities, is uniform throughout the Republic. It should err on the side of generosity to the owner of the land or property.

When we use the word “expropriate” we think immediately of something which causes inconvenience, distaste and misfortune. No matter how we try to sugar the pill, it remains a bitter one.

I just want to say this to the United Party: The 1945 Act was the basis on which the then Minister of Lands, Senator Conroy, resorted to expropriation more than probably any other Minister before or since. That was probably the most unhappy period of all for many people. This legislation is an attempt to improve the position. Allow me to say, Sir, that the method of application of the provisions of a law is what is important. The preamble to this Bill makes that very clear. Machinery is now being established and provision is being made for the way in which expropriation will be resorted to but anything of this nature can still be extremely unpleasant for the person affected. Let me give an example. A farmer has a farm; the national road has to cross that farm and land is expropriated; a railway line has to cross that farm and land is expropriated; the Department of Posts and Telegraphs expropriates some of the land and other land is expropriated for an oil pipeline. Have you any idea, Mr. Speaker, how much land is eventually expropriated? For how much of that land is the farmer compensated? There are various ways in which to do these things. I want to give you the assurance that we are not always as careful in our actions as we may be, and this leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I think that methods can be found by means of which action can be taken, methods which will be less distasteful and will be more satisfactory.

Mention has been made of uniformity. I simply do not believe that it is possible to obtain uniformity in this case. There is special legislation in regard to group areas; there is special legislation applicable to urban areas and in respect of provincial interests, and here the State is coming forward with an Expropriation Bill which is slightly different. We must bear that in mind. Each one of those other matters has its own particular interests or aims; we cannot cover everything under one law. I can understand therefore that provision should be made in a Bill such as this that there shall and must be certain exemptions. I simply cannot see how the interests of the Department of Transport can be the same as those of, for example, the Department of Lands. Their interests do differ. I think it is a step in the right direction that this Bill provides how expropriation shall take place. I want to emphasize once again that it is the way in which the State can apply a law that can cause all the inconvenience and misfortune in the world for the person affected.

Because of the great industrial development in the Transvaal, the people there are far more exposed to the misfortune which a measure of this nature can cause. It is necessary for the State to provide certain public services and in order to do so it is sometimes necessary for the State to resort to expropriation. If this is done wisely and sensibly and sympathetically, far less offence will be given and there will be far less misfortune. I can give many examples to show how misfortune and dissatisfaction have been caused, in my opinion quite unnecessarily. It depends on the approach of the Department to this matter and that of the official who has to apply the provisions of the measure. If one approaches this matter in the right way, one can go a long way without giving offence. I want to conclude by making an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to ensure that this legislation is applied in a sympathetic manner and not as, I could almost say, barbarically, as has sometimes been the case in the past. I can mention numbers of examples and produce proof to show how bitterness has been caused in the hearts of those who have been affected by these provisions. Cases of this nature in which expropriation has to be resorted to occur daily in the Transvaal. I ask that these provisions be applied sympathetically and with due regard to the other man’s rights.

Various hon. members have said that they would like to see uniformity for all departments and that to achieve this, this legislation and this legislation only should be used for expropriation purposes. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) also asked whether I could tell the House what had resulted from the discussions between the Administrators and the other Departments. Let me tell hon. members that the discussions which took place laid down a definite uniformity of action in connection with one matter and that is that the State—it makes no difference which Department it is—will under no circumstances enrich itself at the cost of the individual: in other words, that the individual will receive the full compensation to which he is entitled. That was accepted as a basic principle at the discussions. It was also agreed that the State and the Government and the various departments also have the responsible duty of protecting public funds. It is from public funds that these amounts have to be paid. It was emphasized that public funds should be guarded carefully to prevent money being spent injudiciously or wrongly. Hon. members have referred to the hon. the Minister of Transport and his method of expropriation and I want to say that this is actually a sound concept on which our legislation is partly based. But the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) expressed the hope that the departments and the Provincial Administrations would make use of the procedure outlined in this Bill only. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) said that I was laughing. I was laughing, Mr. Speaker, because this is the first time in my experience that hon. members are not afraid that we are going to deprive provincial councils of some of their powers and have actually asked us to walk right over provincial councils. In the past, if a Bill was introduced which gave the slightest indication of its being possible for us to interfere with the powers of Provincial Administrations, thereby there was always a great deal of opposition to such measure from hon. members opposite.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he does not remember that it was stated emphatically that in order to achieve that purpose, the constitutional …

Order! The hon. member is making a speech and giving an explanation.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who it was on this side suggested that provincial councils should be deprived of their rights?

It was not proposed that rights should be taken away from them but it was stated most emphatically by hon. members that they were looking forward to the day when Provincial Administrations and public bodies, including local authorities and divisional councils, would only be able to resort to expropriation in terms of a measure of this nature.

We were discussing compensation.

That is why I mention it. As motivation for his argument the hon. member actually said that the compensation which people receive and the way they are treated would be fair if such compensation were paid or treatment meted out in terms of this law and not in terms of one of the other laws. That was a fine testimonial to the effect that this Bill is one of the best. I want once again to refer hon. members to my introductory speech in which I said that we originally considered drawing up the Expropriation Bill to provide that one Minister should be responsible for the expropriation resorted to on behalf of all departments. There are certain problems in this regard, and I want to mention one of them—the Group Areas Act. There are particular circumstances existing in connection with the acquisition of land as far as certain departments are concerned. In connection with group areas, for example, we find that an increase or decrease in land values depends upon whether that land is going to be used as a White area and be deproclaimed as a White area, or whether it is going to be used as a Coloured area. So in this case the principles of application are completely different. The aims of certain departments are so diverse in certain respects that the legislation cannot make provision for every circumstance without cutting through their legislation. It is actually our intention as far as the Department of Lands is concerned so to modernize the legislation that we shall have one law. It must be remembered that the Department of Lands does to a very large extent take action in all respects as far as expropriation for certain departments is concerned, and where the Department acts as the agent in expropriating, we have amended their laws in such a way as to enable us to do this work by means of this legislation. I want therefore to give hon. members the assurance that this legislation will be used when the Department of Lands does the expropriating.

The hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) mentioned an important matter. In the first instance, he spoke about a courtesy gesture. He mentioned a case in which land was summarily taken and cut off without previously consulting the owners. I want to give hon. members the assurance that where the Department of Lands does the expropriating, whether it is for the Department of Water Affairs or for one of the other Departments, our officials will always have that gesture of courtesy in mind so that before there is an inspection or a valuation they will at least notify the owners and tell them what they intend doing. Hon. members need have no fears in this connection.

The hon. member pointed out that local I authorities still have the right to expropriate without compensation. I want to point out again that the primary aim of this legislation is to streamline our own expropriation procedure and I hope that this legislation will condition the other Departments to such an extent that the day will come when they will come to ask us to do all their expropriation for them as well. We shall then be able to rectify all those things without summarily depriving provincial councils, local authorities or divisional councils of their powers. The hon. member for Florida said that there are anomalies in this Bill from Clause 17 onwards which will affect the operation of the Bill. He also asked that we should do the expropriation for the provinces in terms of this legislation. We are aware of those problems but I repeat that once we have streamlined the whole matter I foresee that the day will come when the Department of Lands will be called upon to do the expropriation in all cases, and then these matters will sort themselves out.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name—

It is evident from the reading of this clause that whereas the hon. Minister is quite right in saying, as he did in his second reading speech, that the onus of proof that a lottery was being conducted, or arranged on certain premises, rests on the State, the position changes completely in terms of sub-paragraph (3) of Clause 2, which lays down—

That is the one dealing with the management, conduct or assistance in managing or conducting a lottery or sports pool—

The onus therefore is put on the person who is the occupier of such a place. And, Sir, “place” is very widely defined in Clause 1, where it says—

I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: The man who is the occupier of an hotel with, say, 100 bedrooms, cannot in any way prevent any person who has some reason to enter that hotel and to go up to a particular floor, in the course of calling on a resident of that hotel, perhaps at his request, from doing so; and if it should turn out that in this particular room of that particular hotel, without the knowledge of the occupier, let us say the licensee or the manager of the hotel, a lottery had been organized or was being conducted, despite the fact that the occupier can reasonably be held to be in ignorance of what may be going on in that particular room at a particular time, he, as the occupier, immediately becomes susceptible to a prosecution —and he carries the onus, unlike the position where a lottery is alleged to have been conducted under the same clause, where the State carries the onus of proof. He, the occupier, carries the onus of proving that he was innocent. Similarly, whether it is an unlicensed hotel, or hotel (you can call it a boardinghouse in the case of an unlicensed hotel), the occupier may be totally unaware of the fact that in one of the rooms in his hotel a lottery had been or was being conducted. You can take a further example, and that is the reason why in my amendment a block of flats is included, and that is that the superintendent of a building which may have 60 flats in it, can hardly know what goes on in every flat at any particular moment. He should not be in a position to know, because it would be an invasion of the privacy of the flat-dweller for the superintendent to know everything that goes on in that flat, as long as nothing goes on that creates a nuisance. Yet, again, if the superintendent or the manager of that building, being the occupier in terms of the law, is not aware of a lottery being conducted in the building, he is all the same held to be responsible for the conduct of a lottery in, say, Flat 370. He then carries the onus of proving that he did not know anything about it. Since the Minister went out of his way to place the onus on the State for the greater part of the responsibility for establishing that a lottery was being conducted, I would ask him to accept this amendment so that, firstly, an innocent person, such as the person who is the occupier in the case of a licensed hotel, unlicensed hotel or boarding-house, or the superintendent or manager of a block of flats, need not be charged under this clause; and further more, that the State will not be wasting the time of its officers in order to try and pin such a charge on a person who is not aware of any contravention of the law, and who should not be held answerable.

I want to move an amendment to Clause 2 (1) (d). The clause reads, as follows—

I want to move the deletion of the words in line 22 “or have in his possession” and in line 23 “or have”. The paragraph will then read—

As it stands now, it will mean that if anybody gives me a ticket in the Rhodesian Sweep for instance, or any other sweep, and I accept that ticket as a present, a lottery ticket from abroad, I commit an offence by merely having it in my possession. What I would have to do if somebody sent me a ticket, would be that I would have to tear the ticket up.

Give it to another friend.

Yes, and get him into trouble. I do not cause trouble for other people like the Minister does. But the point is that if I had a ticket in my possession and the police did not find out that I had it in my possession and I did win a prize, when I came to collect it I might be in trouble, because the clause says that I shall not have any interest in a ticket. I suggest that the words “or have any interest” go too far. If I sell a ticket or I buy a ticket, then I know that I am committing an offence by acquiring that ticket, but when the ticket is given to me as a present, as often happens, then I can get into trouble. Only recently I had a ticket given to me from Rhodesia by people whom I befriended down here, and they sent me a ticket, wishing me luck that I would win something.

Did you send them a donation?

No, I have not sent them a donation, but the mere fact that I have got a ticket in my possession, is an offence. And even if I did not know that I have an interest in a ticket, as happened to a lady who a while ago did not know that someone had taken a ticket for her and she won a prize. I would be guilty of an offence. I ask the hon. the Minister therefore to accept my amendment. I know the difficulty would be to prove if a person is found with a ticket in his possession, to prove that he had bought the ticket in an illegal way. But merely because the State may have some difficulty in defining the offence, it would be quite wrong to put an offence in general terms like this and to create an offence to be committed by innocent people. Therefore I move as an amendment—

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) has, notwithstanding the repeated explanations I have given, once again stated: “The Minister has gone out of his way to create the onus.”

What I said was that the Minister has gone out of his way to place the onus on the State as far as lotteries are concerned.

I stated emphatically that there is scarcely one principle contained in the Bill which does not already exist in the old legislation. All that I am doing in this Bill is to make the law clear to the public because the law in this regard is divided up among 22 laws. Everyone will now know what the law is at the moment in respect of these matters. The hon. member quoted the definition of “place” which reads as follows—

If the hon. member’s argument is valid, and supposing it is true that he is afraid that innocent people will become involved, he should not exclude only a hotel and a flat but he should also exclude a ship (a vessel) and he should also exclude an aircraft because people travelling from Jan Smuts to D. F. Malan can be guilty of this offence at the back of an aircraft while the hon. member who is in the front of the aircraft and has nothing to do with what is happening, can also be involved. Therefore, his argument in this connection does not hold water.

Are the passengers not under the control of the captain of an aircraft or the captain of a ship?

Yes.

So the position is not the same as in the case of an hotel.

When one analyses the law and considers the judgments which have been given over the years and which still exist in respect of similar legislation, it is clear that no innocent person has ever become involved in a prosecution under this law. The same principle which was followed when the old laws were operative will from the nature of the case continue to be followed. The same decisions which were used as precedents under the old legislation will still be operative as precedents under this Bill. I cannot therefore share the hon. member’s objections and fear in this connection.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has moved an amendment to omit the words “had in his possession”. But these words appear in the old legislation. If we omit these words we will emasculate this whole Bill. That is what the hon. member wants. But I do not want to emasculate it. I want the law to be as it was and that is why these words have been inserted. One will simply never be able to obtain a conviction against a person if one omits these words. It was precisely for this reason that previous Governments, whether National or United Party, retained these words because without them it is impossible in practice to obtain a conviction. If I were to accept this amendment I would be leaving a loophole as big as a barn door. If it is the intention of the hon. member to try and circumvent this Bill as it were …

Not completely.

If that is his purpose, I must accept it, but if our intention is still to maintain the old law in this connection—and that is what I very much want to do—then I am sorry but I cannot accept his amendment.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

In his second-reading speech the Minister made it clear that he had introduced this clause into the Bill in order, as he put it, to root out the evil of lotteries and pools, and this is proposed to do by clamping down on all publicity which concerned a lottery or a pool. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in the definition, if there is one in terms of the law, of the word “notice” in this clause, in line 45, which reads—

Here is an example of the problem which I see in regard to this particular word “notice”: I have here a clipping from a publication, a South African publication, which deals with the Sydney Opera House. Now, by no stretch of the imagination can this be called a notice of a lottery, but it does refer to the lottery which has been conducted in Sydney for the past seven or eight years. It says, for example—

This is by any reasonable interpretation a news report and not a notice or an advertisement of a lottery, but it does draw to the notice of the reader the fact that this lottery in Sydney has raised enormous sums of money for an opera house, and unless I have misdirected myself, which no doubt the Minister is already beginning to think I have done, then the interpretation that could be attached to the word “notice” would be such that this publication and its publishers could be brought before a court to answer for the fact that they had in some way given “notice”, as it were, of a lottery. If the hon. Minister would accept an amendment which would make this particular clause read: “or in any printed document, any notice other than a news report or advertisement …”, then he would clarify this position beyond anybody’s doubts and not place the publishers of any publication of this nature in the position where they would have to think twice before they discussed a cultural and architectural product-—because this is the tenor of this article —but which at the same time certainly arouses my enthusiasm about ways and means of raising funds for opera houses. I wish that in the case of Johannesburg, where I, personally, beat my brains out for 15 years or more, and finally succeeded with the help of others, in getting a theatre (not an opera house), built, we could have had a lottery. We could have had that opera house 25 years ago. And we could build an opera house in Johannesburg or Cape Town or anywhere else to-morrow if the Minister was not so determined to bring in this legislation.

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the clause now.

I ask the hon. Minister therefore whether he will accept my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is another typical case. If hon. members opposite had only taken the elementary trouble to look at the Schedule to the Bill and, as a result of what they had seen there, had perused a few of the laws which refer to this matter, the hon. member would never have brought up the point which he has just dealt with. The question which he has raised here is nothing new because it has been dealt with repeatedly by the courts. The position is that a news report dealing with a lottery constitutes no offence at all in terms of this Bill. It has never been an offence nor will it ever be one. Let me mention one example to the hon. member. I can mention many examples but I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. I have here the Natal Ordinance of 1902. This Ordinance has on countless occasions been interpreted by the Natal lower and higher courts, and offenders under this Ordinance have been charged on countless occasions in Natal. Ordinance No. 3 of 1902, reads, inter alia, as follows—

This precise wording appears in this Bill, wording to which the hon. member now objects. He has never hear of anyone in Natal being charged or convicted for having read a news report about a lottery in a newspaper, and there have been countless news reports on lotteries in newspapers. He has never heard of any newspaper that has been charged and he has never heard of any uncertainty existing in regard to the words “advertisement or notice”. What I quoted from the Natal Ordinance has been inserted word for word in this Bill. There has been no problem at all in the past in regard to these words so why should there be any problem in this regard in the future? I simply cannot understand the hon. member’s objection and because the portion concerned is very clear and because the judgments in this connection exist, I do not think it is necessary for any amendment to be moved in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I do not for a moment claim that I have read all the decided cases on the subject of lotteries or the publication of the details of lotteries. I did not claim that. But I understood the hon. the Minister to say in the course of his speech during the second-reading stage of this Bill that, whereas this was a consolidating measure, a measure which contained nothing new—and he said so again this evening—it would, in the first place, eliminate the confusion which resulted from the fact that every province had its own gambling laws, as he has again just pointed out. He went on to say that this Bill would enable everybody to know precisely where he stood in regard to gambling or anything connected therewith. The hon. the Minister may remember that he said so.

Yes, I said so, and that is exactly what this Bill will do.

What I am trying to say to the hon. the Minister is that, while this legislation is being considered by this Committee, surely there is no evil or harm done in making this particular clause, or any other clause, as precise as possible? No harm will be done, Sir. The hon. the Minister may well say that that is not necessary by virtue of the fact that the consideration of any matter covered by the Bill will be the same as has been the case in the past. But we are well aware, Mr. Chairman, that in the recent past there has been a decided change in the atmosphere, as it were, as far as gambling and lotteries in this country are concerned. The Minister has himself said that he is determined to stamp out this “evil”. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to say whether in the future the same degree of indulgence or leniency will be shown to the publishers or printers or owners of publications containing a reference or what can be called a notice of a lottery. I am not in a position to know. On the other hand, the hon. the Minister is in a position to know. Therefore, Sir, when I ask the Minister to accept the amendment which I have proposed, I have in mind precisely the same reason which the Minister said had caused him to introduce this Bill, namely to consolidate, and to ensure that there would be no confusion, but that everybody would know precisely where he stood.

Do you know exactly where you are standing now?

At the moment?

Yes. [Laughter.]

Yes, yes, indeed I do, Mr. Chairman. I maintain that if it is correct that an interpretation of the word “notice” in this clause as it now reads—whether it has been good in Natal for 50 or 60 years is beside the point—if a legal interpretation of this word can be the interpretation which can, in my view, be placed on it or be attached to it, then I submit it is desirable that clarity should be established by the insertion of the words “or news report”. Obviously I cannot compel the hon. the Minister to see this matter in the same way as I see it, but I do say that if he wants precision, this is the way to obtain it. I am opposed to many of the clauses in this Bill, but I am not arguing the principle involved any more. In my submission this clause would be improved if it were to read so that any printer, publisher, proprietor of a newspaper or publication were to know that by printing anything that remotely concerned a lottery for instance, by printing a story about the excitement that reigned in Madrid on the day the big lottery was drawn there, by printing a news report about this he would not be falling foul of this provision in so far as the word “notice” is concerned. I feel that my amendment would result in such clarity being obtained, and I again ask the hon. the Minister to consider the amendment which I now move—

Mr. Chairman, with regard to this particular clause under discussion, what is the position regarding newspapers and periodicals published overseas and sold in this country containing particulars of a lottery and its result? Will the distributors of those newspapers and periodicals be liable under this Bill?

I know that this measure is a consolidation of the various gambling laws, but my reading of this Bill leads me to wonder what would be the position if one purchased a newspaper, for instance the Sunday Times, a paper printed in London, carrying advertisements concerning a football pool and the results thereof. Would the sale of that newspaper be prohibited in this country unless that information was deleted?

No.

I ask this question because, as I read the clause, it would appear that that would in fact be the position.

No, you read the clause wrongly.

Amendment put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mr. Gorshel) having supported the demand for a division, amendment declared negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name as printed:

The hon. the Minister is well aware of the social practice or habit of playing cards for greater or lesser amounts of money, for stakes, a practice which is indulged in very widely in this country, as is also the case elsewhere. In that situation where the personal friends of a person fore gather in a place, which is his private home, they can still be charged and brought before a Court and the onus is on them to prove that such place, being the house, is not “habitually” used for playing any game of chance for stakes. The question arises what the hon. the Minister means by “habitually.” There are any number of places, private homes, especially in the larger cities in South Africa where, for example you will find every Thursday night or every Tuesday night there is a poker game. Seven people foregather there in order to play a friendly game of cards for stakes, and sometimes fairly large sums of money change hands, but it is on the basis that it circulates; one week one loses, and the next week one wins, and so on. Sir, that is in a sense the “habitual” use of a place for gambling, because if it can be shown that the standing poker game does take place regularly every week. on a Tuesday or Thursday or Saturday night, it can be argued that the place is habitually used for gambling. If the hon. the Minister wants to carry his desire to stamp out the evil, as he calls it, of gambling. to the nth degree—and, I, for one, am by no means convinced about its virtue—then surely he is going further than the needs of the case demand. For that reason, I suggest in the first place that the word “exclusively” be substituted for “habitually” in this clause, so that a place which was used for that purpose only would make the owner or occupier of that place susceptible to the activities of the police.

What about the people drinking there?

The hon. the Minister cited brothels; he said that such things were “habitual” too, but he does not deal with them in this Bill. Where gambling is concerned, if the place were used exclusively for gambling, then surely the position would be perfectly clear and the police would take the necessary action on receipt of a report or information. But “habitually” is a very dangerous word here, because habits which one person regards as normal are regarded by another person as evil. The hon. member for East London North (Mr. Field) regards smoking as an evil habit. The hon. the Minister smokes, I believe, heavily; he does not think it is evil. They are both, probably, estimable citizens, but there you have the difference between the one interpretation of a habit and its evil or virtue, and the other man’s interpretation. Sir, I leave it at that until the hon. the Minister gives us his view about the use of “exclusively” rather than “habitually.”

Turning to sub-clause (iii), this is a very wide clause. It says that when any cards, dice, balls, counters, tables or other instruments or requisites used or capable of being used for playing any game of chance are found at any place or on the person of anyone found at any place, it shall be prima facie evidence in any prosecution for a contravention of subsection (1), etc. etc. It is not any use the hon. the Minister saying that I am seeing “spoke”; this is what the clause says. In other words, if you happen to entertain a visitor in your home who happens to carry poker dice in his pocket, and some people do —they play poker dice for drinks in a bar; it goes on every day …

Bring out yours.

Sir, here I play with loaded dice—and you know who does the loading: I am not going to play, with that hon. member. We know that these things go on, and I say therefore that if you should be entertaining a man who carries a set of poker dice and for some reason or other there should be a raid on the place, the occupier of that place or house, according to this clause, is then prima facie guilty of having run a gambling place. Why? How is he supposed to know that the man who visits him and who is there quite fortuitously, carries poker dice or carries a pack of cards? He likes to have a pack of cards handy; he may be the kind of man who wants to play with marked cards; that is not unknown either. I think it goes too far to say that if any person who happens to be on the premises or at that place has cards or dice in his possession, he then makes the occupier of the place guilty of an offence prima facie. It is a different thing where there are counters, tables, or other instruments or requisites used for playing any game of chance. I have not moved an amendment here, but I would like to hear whether the hon. the Minister has any views about the desirability of, at least, excluding cards and dice from this particular clause.

I just want to say a few words about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) which is: In line 73, to omit “habitually” and to insert “exclusively”. I feel that the wording as it is here is correct. If the word “exclusively” is used such person can simply say: “We shall not gamble for a period of five minutes; we are going to sell tea”, and that will frustrate the whole purpose of the clause. The owner of the place can then say that he did not use it exclusively for gambling. But if the word “habitually” is used, such person will still have a defence if there is no regular gambling, if there is no gambling for one day. I want to point out that a game of bridge or poker in a house is not for members of the public, and so the whole argument of the hon. member falls away. I hope that the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member because it will frustrate the whole purpose of the clause.

The argument I advanced in the past in regard to principles also holds good here. This is not a new principle which we are inserting in the Bill; it is an old existing principle and there has never ever been any problem or difficulty in practice in this connection. We are not dealing here with what private people do in their own homes. I take it that the hon. member accepts the fact that private people can do as they please in their own homes. Nobody is concerned in that regard; it is for each person individually to decide. If I accept the amendment of the hon. member and insert the word “exclusively” the clause will have no meaning. What one will then have to prove is that that place is used exclusively for gambling purposes and for no other purposes. If there is dancing or if refreshments are sold there, it will simply not be possible to obtain a conviction because that place will then not be used exclusively as a gambling place but also as a place for dancing and as a café. The hon. member will therefore realize that we may as well negative the clause as to accept his amendment. Because there is a misunderstanding in regard to this matter and because insinuations have again been made, I find it necessary to state emphatically once again that, as is provided in this Bill, what people do in their exclusive clubs, what people do in the privacy of their homes …

Even though it is done regularly?

Yes, one does not want people to use their club which they consider to be exclusive, and their home, Which they consider to be their private residence, as a public gambling place. It is only when the house is not used by the personal friends of the occupiers or the occupiers or when it is made out to be a private home but the public have access to it for gambling purposes that the provisions of this Bill will come into operation, and only then will we be concerned in this regard.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move the amendment in my name—

Before I deal with that, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the reference in 7 (1) to a “contrivance” includes those contrivances which require a coin in the slot in order to show pictures, for example; the peep-show kind of thing—“what the butler saw”! Is that the kind of contrivance which comes within the ambit of 7 (1)?

That is not a gambling machine.

I say it is not a gambling machine. You know what you are going to see—you are going to see “what the butler saw”! The Minister talks about contrivances in this Bill and some contrivances show all kinds of scenes, some less virtuous than others. In certain parts of the world they actually show some very interesting panorama of scenery—the Alps, for example—not just nude girls. I want to know whether that type of contrivance is a gambling machine, because surely you know exactly what you are going to see especially if you have already put a coin in the slot before that particular occasion.

Clause 7 (2) (a) reads:

For the purposes of Section 6—

1. (a) the person in control or in charge of any place specified in any notice under sub-section (1) at which any pintable, machine, contrivance or instrument contemplated in such notice is found, shall be presumed to have permitted the playing of games of chance for stakes at such place …

Fair enough, Sir; the Minister has made his purpose very clear and I, for one, have no objection to this once the principle of the Bill has been accepted. But then it goes on—

I want to give the hon. the Minister a very obvious example. Before he eliminates all these pin-tables, as is his object in this Bill, there will be an interim period in which they will still be available at certain places. Take the café on the corner. It is usually a shop with a room at the back where these machines are kept. Supposing I come in off the street to buy a packet of cigarettes and a policeman comes in because he has had a report that the café proprietor still has machines and that people are gambling in the back room. According to a literal interpretation of this subsection, I will be that person “found at any such place” and I will be presumed, until I prove the contrary, to have gone there in order to gamble. I do not think that is the object of the Minister in this particular clause. So, for the sake of clarity, I ask for the deletion of all the words after the word “place” in order to make it quite clear that the person who happens to be there inadvertently, for a purpose other than gambling, is not charged and then has to prove that he is innocent. He cannot be expected to know that these machines or contrivances are still there in another room.

Clause 6 has just been agreed to by the whole Committee. without a single dissentient voice, and so I take it that it also has the approval of the hon. member for Hospital because otherwise he would have aired his objections. The hon. member speaks with little provocation. But if he looks at Clause 6 (7), he will see that there is precisely the same presumption in respect of the same circumstances. The hon. member did not object to it, and quite correctly. It reads precisely the same as the “presumption” which he now wishes to omit. Clause 6 (7) states: “Any person found at any place where any game of chance is played, shall be deemed, until the contrary is proved, to be playing such game for stakes at such place and to be visiting such place with the object of playing such game for stakes”. Once again, this is a provision from the old laws. The hon. member knows from experience that this has nothing to do with a man who goes there to buy a packet of cigarettes, and that it has nothing to do with a man who buys a bottle of milk from a café if gambling is going on in a back room. The hon. member also knows that in 1939 the United Party inserted this type of presumption in its legislation because experience had taught them that it was virtually impossible to obtain a conviction against such people unless there was a presumption of this nature. Because this is so, I am sorry but I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I would like to say to the hon. Minister that I did pay regard to subsection (7) of Clause 6. It seems to me that there it appears in a somewhat different context. The Minister says, I speak with little provocation, but he has provoked me this time, and who am I to say to him nay! Sir, sub-section (7) of Clause 6 comes into a context which in my view is somewhat different…

It is exactly the same.

No, Sir; for example, in sub-section (6) of Clause 6 it says “any person supervising or directing or assisting at or acting as banker, dealer, croupier …” These things deal with games of cards and roulette or faro, etc. But in this clause, we come to something which deals specifically with the pin-table and the contrivance which the Minister wants to stamp out in cafés. I raised the point in that context.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.