I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

After the Admission of Advocates Act, 1964, had been passed, the provisions of the Act were discussed at a conference of the law faculties of the various universities. Members of the Bar and of the Department of Justice were also present at the conference. At the discussion divergent views, particularly in regard to the language requirements set by section 3 (2) (a) of the Act, were held. Some expressed the opinion that the language requirements laid down by this section should not be included in the study courses for the degrees indicated therein, but that aptitude in Afrikaans, English and Latin should only be fixed as a requirement for admission as an advocate. This would mean that the degrees of B.A., LL.B. could be obtained without complying with the language requirements but that in order to be admitted as an advocate the aspirant advocate would, besides complying with the requirements for the degree, also have to prove his prescribed aptitude in the languages concerned. Others again considered that postschool training in the official language in which a candidate had passed matriculation in the higher grade was not necessary. A third group held the view that the language requirements should form part of the study courses for the degrees concerned. Apart from this difference of opinion, however, everyone agreed that if the language requirements were prescribed as part of the study courses for the degrees concerned, the student who, for example, was studying for the degrees B.A., LL.B. should be permitted to comply with the language requirements during either of the study courses concerned. That is to say, it would not be necessary for him to comply with this language requirement in the first three years of his course, or for the first degree of that course, but that he could comply with those requirements during the period of five years.

It appears to be necessary for the language qualifications to be prescribed as part of the study courses for the degrees concerned in order to ensure as far as possible that the standard of education in the languages will be the same throughout. If the language requirements are not prescribed as part of the study courses concerned but simply as requirements for admission as an advocate, it will have the effect of increasing the requirements for admission as advocates because aspirant advocates will have to follow the normal study courses for the degree or degrees concerned, plus three additional language courses. A course in Latin and in one of the official languages is already included in the study courses concerned at most of the universities. The language requirements which are now being set ought therefore not to present an insurmountable problem. There is also a strong feeling in some quarters that the requirements in this specific case should not be relaxed. Hon. members will remember that it has become an acceptable principle to all of us that advocates should be bilingual because of the profession which they are to practise. I also discussed this matter with the chairman of the General Bar Council at a later stage and he was in full agreement in this regard. While on this point may I say that the chairman of the General Bar Council raised other matters which he wanted inserted in this Bill. As hon. members know, we had a conference in this connection. I thought initially that there was agreement in regard to all these matters at the conference—it was a conference during the short recess—but it appears now that there are still some matters or misunderstandings which I shall have to clear up with the General Bar Council during the recess and give effect to any agreements at a later stage. Unfortunately, it is not practicable to do so now.

Proficiency in the official languages is of just as much real importance, for the advocate at any rate, as knowledge of law and no good reason can be advanced as to why different requirements should be fixed in respect of his language and legal knowledge.

The argument which is sometimes raised— that some students who are for example, taking the B.A., LL.B. study course, do not do so with a view to being admitted as advocates and ought accordingly not to be compelled to comply with the language requirements— affects the question whether the language requirement for the study courses for the degrees concerned ought not to be prescribed at all because in any event the language requirements only hold good for those who wish to qualify with a view to being admitted as advocates. In other words, a person who wishes to take the usual B.A., LL.B. courses simply in order to obtain those degrees but not with the view of being admitted to the Bar at a later stage, will not be compelled to take those language courses. It is only the person who wants eventually to be admitted to the Bar who must have these courses before he can apply for admission to the Bar. But there can be no objection to students who are, for example, taking the B.A., LL.B. courses being permitted to comply with the language requirements during either of the particular courses. Actually, the Bill goes somewhat further in that it also makes it possible to comply with the language requirements partly during the one study course and partly during the other study course, as I have already explained. This need not be done during the B.A. degree portion only; it can be done later by the student concerned.

The universities have also been consulted in regard to the Bill and from the comments that have been received it appears that some of the universities which did not do so previously have now indicated their agreement that the language requirement should be prescribed as part of the study courses for the degrees concerned.

We are also doing away with the existing provision in terms of which a person who has a bachelor’s degree in law cannot take the LL.B. course while a person who has, for example, a bachelor’s degree in music, can do so. The universities have no objection to this. We have the anomaly, in terms of the existing provisions, that a B.A. in law cannot give rise to the taking of an LL.B. degree thereafter. Even though one were to have a B.A. degree in law, one could not proceed with the LL.B. degree. But if one has a B.A. degree in music or a B.A. degree in science or in literature, one can proceed with the LL.B. The students at the universities which concentrate on giving a purely legal degree as a B.A. degree, are penalized, even though they have a better knowledge of law than the student who has obtained a B.A. degree in any other faculty. The provision concerning admission to the status of an LL.B. degree, contained in Section 3 (2) (a) (iii) of the Act, is being dropped because it has now been ascertained that universities only admit a person to the status of a degree with a view to further study and in any case already have the power, where feasible, to grant exemption from examination in prescribed subjects. The amendments contained in Clause 2 are necessitated by the amendments effected by Clause 1.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of this Bill, and I move.

While we are not going to oppose this Bill at this stage I think it is necessary to say that I have a feeling that the matter has not been properly thrashed out. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he has had several conferences with the universities and with the Bar Council, conferences at which several suggestions were made. The hon. the Minister has also indicated that he will again go into the matter during the recess and that he will consider introducing other legislation. When the principal Act was passed in 1964 the question was raised, for example, of persons who went to Great Britain and read in the inns of court there and were admitted to the English Bar. In terms of the law at the moment they are entitled to practise in South Africa on their return provided they satisfy certain statutory requirements in South Africa and it was suggested that they should be given a period of grace within which to finish. At that time the hon. Minister said he would deal with this matter, that he would discuss the matter with the Bar and with others. I would have hoped that during the past recess that opportunity will have been accorded to the hon. the Minister. Indeed, as I understand the position, this has been one of the subjects which has been raised at the conferences the hon. Minister and his Department had . . .

We discussed it at least three times.

Yes. In that case, I am very surprised that there is nothing to that effect in this Bill. When I saw this Bill I rather thought the hon. the Minister would say there was another Bill coming. Then I was going to suggest that this Bill could perhaps be dropped and dealt with when the other Bill came. But the hon. the Minister has indicated that that is not to be until after the recess. That means, I think, that the 1964 Act which has not yet been promulgated will obviously not be promulgated until such time as the discussions which the hon. the Minister will have this recess are enacted into law. If I am right about that then is there really any point in going on with this Bill at this stage if the Minister has in mind amending the principal Act to provide for the other matters which are under discussion at the moment? It would seem that it would be better to discuss this matter in the light of all the other amendments which are to come to the Act.

So far as this amending Bill is concerned it is not a matter which has all the clarity one would like in respect of such a matter as the admission of advocates. One of the difficulties in the wording is, that while it is agreed on all sides by the universities, by the Bar and by this House, that persons who take degrees for admission to the Bar should be bilingual as far as possible—the modus for this, as accepted by this House, being a university first course for advocates in English and Afrikaans and matriculation English and Afrikaans for attorneys—that it somewhat ties the hands of the universities as far as their courses are concerned. As the Minister pointed out, when he introduced the Bill, it was only when you wanted to go to the Bar that you in fact had to take these courses in English and Afrikaans. If you don’t want to go to the Bar you don’t have to take them. What happens to that person the Minister has mentioned who, having taken his degree with a view of not going to the Bar but merely to get the degree, then decides to go to the Bar? He must then have a course in English and Afrikaans. He may only have had one in Afrikaans and not in English or vice versa. In terms of this amendment it would seem that the only way in which he can be admitted to the Bar is to take another degree because the course of English and the course of Afrikaans which is required in terms of the Act before he can be admitted to the Bar has to be taken as part of a degree. This could cause some difficulty and I hope the hon. the Minister has considered it. It says the requirements for the degree of any such university, “after pursuing courses of study for such degrees, of not less than five years in the aggregate, which include either jointly or severally English or Afrikaans”. This is a matter which I hope the hon. the Minister has considered and if he has not or if it is a matter which is the cause of some doubt—and I submit it is—then I want to suggest to the hon. Minister that, in view of forthcoming probable amendments to the principal Act, the Minister need not perhaps at this stage proceed with this Bill.

There is, for example, the person who wants to go from the Side-Bar to the Bar. It may be an attorney with his B.A. LL.B. degree; he did not require English or Afrikaans in order to get those degrees. He now wishes to go and practise as an advocate. The only way in which he can qualify, insofar as languages are concerned, it would seem—and this is an interpretation which can easily and properly be placed upon this—is that he cannot just take an examination at a university in English or Afrikaans or in both; he has to take a degree in order to qualify in those languages. Because the way it is worded is that he must take a course in English or Afrikaans which is part of a degree. That being the case this will debar, in many cases, many persons who wish to switch from one side of the profession to the other side. Apart from the difficulty in wording there is no objection to the principle contained in this Bill. I would ask the hon. Minister whether he has considered this, whether it is not something which is worthy of further consideration, not necessarily across the floor of the House where we do not really have the facilities for thrashing this matter out properly, when the other amendments which are necessary come up for discussion.

I am not quite sure whether I heard the hon. the Minister correctly but I did understand him to say that these particular amendments had the full support of the General Bar Council.

These particular amendments yes; but others are still outstanding.

Yes. The hon. Minister has indicated that he is going to do his best to try to reach agreement on those during the recess, and that as far as these are concerned they have the full support of the General Bar Council. I must say that they seem unobjectionable to me. Indeed they seem to me to help the position in certain cases.

When the Minister was speaking, I must confess, I did not catch fully the propositions which this Bill apparently covers, and which he discussed with the universities. But ones which did occur to me were the following. There seems to me to be a clearing up of two points relating to the qualifications required for admission as an advocate. In the first place I think there must have been an unintentional omission in the Advocates’ Admission Act of last year, when the requirement of English, Afrikaans and Latin was not written into the Bill—as far as the qualification obtained party by an overseas course was concerned. If I am right in that respect this House certainly would not have intended that a person who had obtained his qualification party by an overseas course should be exempted from such qualification. As far as this Bill places that matter where we wish it to be it must have our unqualified support. This side accepted the principle last year that a university course in Afrikaans. English and Latin was a requisite for admission to the Bar and we have had no reason whatsoever, in the meantime, to change our attitude in that regard. It hardly requires repetition that all those languages are essential for the proper exercise of one’s profession or for proper assistance to the court, a proper understanding of the law; and they are therefore a proper qualification for the person concerned. As far as that one aspect is concerned, therefore, it seems to me that Clause 1 (a) now puts it beyond doubt that a person who has partly gained a qualification by means of overseas study must have this qualification in Afrikaans, English and Latin. If one reads Section 3 (2) (a) (ii) of the 1964 Act it would appear that that was not included in that Act.

The other point relating to qualifications, with which this Bill seems to deal, is that now it is specifically stipulated that, when a qualification is obtained partly by an overseas course, the total period of that course must be five years. I think that is written clearly into the Bill. It is found in line 18. That, too, seems to me to be unobjectionable. The normal period during which one can obtain a LL.B. degree is five years in South Africa, although some universities, I think, have a period of six years. Certainly I think some universities have a period of six years in which a student can obtain the B.Com LL.B. degree. But for the relevant provision in this Bill I think it would be possible for a person to obtain a bachelor’s degree at, for example, an overseas university, within a period of even perhaps two years. He could then obtain recognition from one of our universities and thereafter perhaps obtain full qualification admission to the Bar in less than five years. This side of the House has no quarrel with the fact that five years’ total study is required, and that a person with an overseas qualification would not be preferred.

I am very glad that the Minister accepts that a course of study overseas, if it could receive recognition from our universities, might count towards qualification. I think the unquestioned advantage and experience of study in other climes does contribute towards the competence of a legal practitioner. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the true test comes when one is in practice, because it then transpires whether one can stay the pace. A practitioner can have many degrees, doctorates, etc., but the true test is undergone and the man’s ability is weighed when he is in practice. I feel, Sir, that one need not fear that a person who had taken part of his degree overseas will start at a disadvantage. Or even if he does so start at a disadvantage, that he will be able to stay the pace unless originally he was not quite up to scratch.

With regard to this position too this side finds no fault with the change which this measure brings about. We agree with the viewpoint expressed by the Bar and accordingly we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to oppose this Bill; on the contrary. Because the universities have already given this Bill their blessing, far be it for me to find fault with it. But I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to one or two points. As I read this clause it means that a person who, for example, has a bachelor’s degree in medicine, cannot obtain a bachelor’s degree in law unless he takes English, Afrikaans and Latin as part of the qualifying course. The position at our universities is that a Faculty of Law does not offer courses in English, Afrikaans or Latin. The Faculty of Literature offers these courses. On the other hand, the Faculty of Literature does not offer courses in law. It will mean, therefore, that our universities will be compelled to institute a qualifying course in English, Afrikaans and Latin in the Faculty of Law. When such courses are offered in this particular faculty it can in my opinion mean that these courses will find their way into the hands of people in whose hands they ought not to be. It appears to me in this regard—and I say this to the hon. the Minister with very great respect, Mr. Speaker—that the wording leaves much to be desired. There is a difference between a course for a degree and a degree course. A course in Afrikaans taken in the Faculty of Literature and which is the same course as that taken for the B.A. degree, is of the same standard. It is a degree course, a qualifying course for a degree. But the degree course and the qualifying course need not necessarily be used for the same purpose. If someone has already obtained a bachelor’s degree we must compel him to take a degree course in Latin, English and Afrikaans before he tackles the LL.B. degree or while pursuing his studies in this regard. The only danger which exists is that the standard of these particular courses will not be the same as that of qualifying courses for a degree. Nevertheless I think that the guarantee of a Faculty of Literature ought to be sufficient to ensure that a good standard is maintained. We must simply not allow special courses in English, Afrikaans and Latin to be taken. The usual courses must be taken. I do not know whether we shall have to institute courses in these three languages in the Faculty of Law at our various universities.

No, they will be the courses of the Faculty of Literature.

I understand. Well, if the courses will be set by the Faculty of Literature I see no reason why we should provide that the courses should be part of the LL.B. course. This course is a full one as it is and there is no reason why a Faculty of Law should not compel its students to take a course in the Faculty of Literature, a course which is of the same standard as the degree courses of the Faculty of Literature.

But it is obvious. The course will be the same as that taken by the ordinary B.A. student.

It is quite possible that I am adopting the wrong view in this regard. What I want is that a person who has obtained the LL.B. degree and becomes an advocate should take courses in Afrikaans, English and Latin which are equal to these three courses offered in the Faculty of Law. When such a person takes these courses makes no difference. It makes no difference whether he takes them before he obtains the LL.B. degree or afterwards. It may well be that a person has obtained the LL.B. degree without taking any of the three courses concerned. Why should such a person be prevented from taking the three courses and then becoming an advocate? I am sure it is not the intention that this person should repeat his LL.B. course from scratch. After all, we cannot say that because he does not know Afrikaans, English and Latin he should start from scratch with the legal course. If he has to start the course from scratch, it will take him either three or five years because, Mr. Speaker, the joint statute provides that this degree cannot be obtained in less than three years.

These are problems which I have noticed in passing and I should like the assurance of the hon. the Minister as far as these aspects are concerned.

As far as the argument advanced by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) and the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is concerned, I should like to point out that this matter was discussed in detail with the university authorities concerned. The hon. member for Durban (North) asked whether, as the measure reads at present, a person has to complete his language courses within the five years or whether he can do so at a later stage. This matter was also mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton. In other words, the question therefore is whether a person who takes his LL.B. degree without at the same time completing a language course but changes his mind at a later stage and decides to become an advocate will in such a case only have to complete a course in the prescribed languages. This is an aspect which was discussed in detail with the university authorities concerned. Their interpretation of the measure as it reads at present is that a person must complete his prescribed language courses within the period of five years. In other words, the hon. member for Durban (North) is correct in this respect. Their attitude is that if a person does not do so during the course of five years—I was unfortunately not able to attend the discussions personally— there will be a tendency—not simply a theoretical one but a definite one—for standards to drop to make it easy for the persons concerned to dispose of the languages and to do what is required of them by that means. The universities feel on the other hand that it ought to be an integral part of the course . . .

Even before the time?

What do you mean?

I can imagine that a person . . .

Order, the hon. member can only ask a question.

Is it not possible for such a student to complete the three courses in the Faculty of Literature before he starts his LL.B. studies?

If the hon. member means that such student has in any case taken a language course and decides later to take a course in law, then it is of course possible. In any case, he can do so under present circumstances. A B.A. degree does of course give rise to the taking of an LL.B. degree. That is the position at the moment. In practice therefore this ought to present no difficulty, because, as I have already said, a B.A. degree is the qualifying degree for an LL.B. and if he has already obtained a B.A. degree he will in any event have complied with the requirements of the Act. Therefore, this will not present any problems.

As I have already said I was not present personally at the discussions on this measure but I have been informed that the majority of universities feel that if this is done in some other way it will lead to a lowering of the standard. If one brings this into line with the argument of the hon. member for Standerton that this is not simply a small special course in Latin or a small special course in English or Afrikaans but that it is the usual, recognized course of the Faculty of Literature, then one can argue whether this will give rise to a lowering of the standard or not. Another argument which was advanced during the discussions was that an engineering student, for example, has to take all those subjects in order to qualify eventually as an engineer. That is why, so it is contended, it is fair to expect the student taking an LL.B course to take alt those subjects as well because he will then become a well-qualified advocate. But this is a matter which can be discussed further at the committee stage.

The hon. member also referred to the “Inns of Court” students. This aspect of the matter has not as yet been finalized. I told the hon. member that we would discuss it again. I just want to mention the objections which were raised and which resulted in our not having been able to reach agreement. As far as the Public Service is concerned hon. members know of course that there is a lower and a senior law examination. I do not know whether hon. members have already had the opportunity of investigating the course for the senior law examination. As far as I am concerned I want to say that this course is for all practical purposes the equivalent of an LL.B course, the standard which is set is extremely high having regard to the requirements which have to be met, the subjects which have to be taken and so forth. It has been argued, and quite correctly too, that if one compares the standard of this course with those of the various Inns, it will be found that the standard which is set for the senior law examination is far higher. Therefore it is contended that one should not only recognize the one.

What bothers me personally in this connection is those people who obtain vested rights in terms of the old act. This aspect of the matter bothers me personally. I may point out here that the Department is not in agreement with me as far as this matter is concerned and that is why I am keeping the door open in this connection, not because I believe that the standard as such justifies my doing so, or for any other reason. These are the only grounds which compel me to keep the door open for further discussions.

The hon. member also asked whether it would not be possible for this measure as a whole to stand over until all these outstanding matters had been finalized. If this were the only consideration one would like to do so, but, unfortunately, it is not the only consideration in this regard. I have been informed that there is an urgent necessity for this legislation to be promulgated as soon as possible, that is to say, irrespective of the fact that some matters have as yet not been finalized. I have not as yet had the opportunity of going into the matter thoroughly. That I have still to do. For the moment I want us to understand one another and I want it to be realized that I cannot give an undertaking that this legislation will not be put into operation until all the outstanding matters have been finalized. This is something which depends upon circumstances which I do not wish to deal with now.

As far as this legislation is concerned our specific intentions are clear. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) put it in so many words, namely, that we have two things in mind with this Bill. Firstly, there is the fact that one can now obtain a preliminary degree in the Faculty of Law, something which was not possible previously because one had to obtain it in a Faculty other than the Faculty of Law, and secondly, that a course in languages is being made compulsory.

I want to say in conclusion that I readily admit that worthwhile arguments have been advanced by hon. members opposite. For this reason I should like to discuss the matters which have been raised in more detail at the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains only two clauses and I shall deal with Clause 2 first. This deals with the exemption of the State from liability in respect of a person who is injured while being conveyed unofficially in a police vehicle. It is of course obvious that the State is liable and must accept liability in respect of persons who are transported officially, such as witnesses, for example. But in respect of persons who are in State vehicles unofficially, the Defence Act, among others, provides that the State is not liable for any injuries and so forth which such persons may suffer. Accordingly, it follows that the exemption must also hold good for police vehicles. It was purely because of an oversight that this provision was not inserted in the Police Act from the start. I shall therefore say nothing further in regard to this clause.

Clause 1 of this measure gives a policeman the right to—

Mr. Speaker, we have to deal here with the searching of a person or a vehicle within a distance of one mile from the border between the Republic and a foreign State or territory. This provision is being inserted in the Police Act for very good reasons. Let me say in passing that the power to search does of course exist in terms of the Customs Act and other laws but the police have never had the power summarily to search a person, vehicle and so forth. The police do have such powers in many other countries but during the course of the years in which I have had to deal with security legislation I have never had very much recourse to the precedents in other countries because, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in it. I believe that one must deal with one’s own situation according to one’s own requirements and without regard to existing precedents.

I want to mention two particular reasons to justify this provision. In the first place we find that our country’s borders are not specifically defined at certain places. If therefore one takes a matter to court one is not able to swear that the border is precisely here or precisely there. One may perhaps say that it runs within half a mile or a mile of a certain point, but one simply cannot indicate it precisely. Hon. members who know the outlying areas along our borders will admit that this is so. But this is not the reason why I have introduced this Bill. The reason why I have introduced this Bill is to strengthen our existing security measures even more. As I have said on previous occasions we will eventually have to deal with the infiltration of well-trained saboteurs. This is the third phase which we shall have to face to an increasing extent. These saboteurs are sent to South Africa to do the work for which they have been trained in other territories and so it is absolutely necessary that our police should have this power in order to protect the lives and safety of our people. In the first instance this measure is a deterrent but in the second instance it also has a practical effect. Any person entering our country either by slipping across the border or by crossing the border in the normal way will know that the police have the power to search him. The purpose of the search is to ascertain whether the person is a danger to the State; whether he is a person who has been trained elsewhere for subversive purposes; whether he—and this is more important—has anything on his person or in a vehicle by means of which harm or damage can be caused to the inhabitants of the Republic or their property.

The problem which is experienced in this regard—and I readily admit it—is that there are people living in these specific areas. It is of course not the intention to subject such persons to these investigations day in and day out. But it is not practicable to provide that such people be excluded from the application of this clause and indeed for obvious reasons to which I need not refer. Officers who will enforce the provisions of this measure will, however, have regard to the fact that there are people living within the area in question and they will ensure that they trouble these persons as little as possible, if ever. The idea of this measure is not to bother people living in these areas. The exclusive purpose of this measure is to give the police the power to combat as effectively as possible the danger of the infiltration of well-trained professional saboteurs who have received their training in the various training camps of Africa. If hon. members consider the latest happenings in Tanzania and if they peruse the statements of certain Black leaders they will realize only too well that this power, a power which already exists indirectly in other laws, must be given to our police so that they can exercise better control along our borders.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. The first of the two clauses enables the police to search without warrant certain vehicles, premises and persons within a mile of a boundary of the Republic, that is to say between the Republic and a foreign State. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that powers of search of this kind are already contained in the Customs Act. The powers of search in that Act, however, are limited to the search of persons and places where a contravention of the Customs law is suspected. That is to say, where an evasion of payment of customs duty is suspected.

Well, if such power exists in that Act, where all that is involved is mere injury to the Fiscus, then it is all the more necessary for such power to be given to the police where contraventions of our laws might injure the country. Where there is the possibility that ill disposed persons, be they saboteurs or otherwise, may infiltrate into this country from neighbouring independent territories, it is necessary to grant such powers as may be necessary to prevent them from getting further than the border.

It is well known that in certain areas there has been a certain measure of, and trouble from, gun-running from territories adjacent to, and within, the borders of South Africa. I am thinking here of Basutoland, for instance, where latitude has resulted in an evil. With the gradual implementation of Government policy as regards the establishing of independent States taking place day after day, so the powers contained in this Bill become even more necessary. Because, Sir, if gun-running and the infilration of ill disposed persons can take place from outside the geographical borders of the country, so much the easier it will be for such gun-running and infiltration to take place from States to be established within our borders.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister when he says, that in certain places our boundaries are not precisely defined. The difficulty is, of course, that if the boundary cannot be exactly defined, and you have an ill disposed person in the vicinity of where you think the boundary is, then as the law stands at present such a person cannot be dealt with unless you are absolutely certain that he has actually crossed the boundary and entered the territory of the Republic. The Bill overcomes this difficulty because the boundary will in effect be a mile wide. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, this is a difficulty which will become more and more acute as the Government implements its policy in regard to independent States within our borders, because we do not know the present boundaries of the self-governing State already established in the Republic.

As regards the first clause, Sir, this side of the House welcomes this measure, not only to meet the existing situation but also to meet a situation which is assuming larger proportions as a result of the policies of this Government.

I come now to the second clause of the Bill. This clause deals with the liability of the State under the present law in respect of persons who travel in a Government vehicle and who are injured as a result of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle.

I can quite understand the Minister’s desire to limit that liability to persons who are on that vehicle in which they are travelling on business, and that there should be no liability in respect of a casual traveller. I would ask the Minister whether his legal advisers are satisfied that the proviso which reads “unless such person is so conveyed or makes use thereof in or in the interests of, the performance of the functions of the State” covers all the situations which might arise. One thinks, e.g., of a prisoner being conveyed in a police or a prison vehicle. If the man is injured, is he covered by these words?

Oh yes.

What about an accused person who has not yet been convicted and is merely being picked up as a suspect?

Then he is covered. I went into that.

What about a police vehicle which is sent out to collect witnesses to give evidence for the State?

I have discussed that. It is also covered.

Very often it happens in the country areas that the police van goes to collect witnesses for the defence, or rather persons whom it is thought will give evidence for the defence.

They are also covered.

And those whom it is thought will be witnesses for the defence, but when you get them and bring them to court you find they know nothing about the incident?

They are covered.

Then what about the case which also often happens in the country areas, where you have a stranded motorist . . .

I discussed that, too, and it is also covered.

Let us discuss that. The wording is “unless such person is so conveyed or makes use thereof in or in the interests of, the performance of the functions of the State”. Now where a policeman as an act of charity helps a stranded motorist and takes him to the nearest garage, how can that be said to be in the interests of the functions of the State? I do not believe it is covered and that is one of the difficulties I have, because that is one of the human functions of the police and they perform it very well, i.e. to assist stranded motorists in remote places. I think that should probably be considered one of their normal functions, but I have great doubt as to whether that is included in the terminology of this clause, which is clumsy, if I may say so, because, to read it again, it says “such person is so conveyed or makes use thereof in or in the interests of, the performance of the functions of the State”. There are three criteria you have to fulfil before you fall within these terms, or rather which the passenger in a police vehicle has to fulfil. It is really because of the clumsy wording used that one has difficulty in deciding which legitimate passsengers do fall (within the clause and which do not. We can go into this further in the Committee Stage, but in the meantime the Minister’s advisers might give attention to this so that we may be clear in the Committee Stage just which passengers in these vehicles are included and could recover damages if they were injured as the result of the negligence of the driver, and which are excluded.

My hon. colleague has indicated our position on this side of the House in regard to this Bill, but I want to deal with a different aspect of the matter. I do so not so much to get clarity as to what the law is as to get clarity as to where the law is to be found. I want to ask the Minister whether consideration should not be given to incorporating the provisions of Clause 1 in the Criminal Procedure Act in preference to the Police Act. I am quite aware that Section 6 of the Police Act deals with the powers and duties of members of the force. That has been the position ever since the Police Act came on to the Statute Book, and it is necessary there merely to round off the statutory code applicable to the Police Force. It is for that reason that it is given in broad lines only and leaves the details of what police activities should be to other legislation. The question of search, seizure and disposal of property is very carefully dealt with in the Criminal Procedure Act itself and I should have thought that that was the appropriate place for a provision of this nature.

As I say, it is becoming extremely difficult to know where to find the law, apart from what it is. From a drafting point of view alone, it would have been easier to insert this clause in the Criminal Procedure Act, because it would have removed Clauses (b) and (c) from this provision. But to show how complicated the matter becomes, you cannot really deal with this clause in the Police Act without a further reference to the Criminal Procedure Act. [Interjections.] Those provisions dealing with the search of women and the disposal of property are already in the Criminal Procedure Act. I am fully aware that no amendment from this side of the House could be moved to deal with this, but I would ask the Minister whether consideration should not be given to adjusting the matter along the lines I have suggested, by making provision in the Criminal Procedure Act, if not now then when the Criminal Procedure Act is amended again. I make this request because, as I say, it is growing more and more difficult to find the law.

In regard to Clause 2, I associate myself with the remarks of my colleague as to the difficulty of interpretation. We have had the assurance of the Minister on the matters raised by my colleague, that in the view of the law advisers they are already covered, but I feel it is the duty of the Minister and of this House itself to get clarity in regard to the law here. It is not what can be read into these provisions that we should rely on; it is what the provisions specifically say. I must say that I have read this clause many times and I certainly find it difficult to have that complete satisfaction which the Minister says the law advisers have. I do think it warrants further consideration from the drafting aspect and I would ask the Minister to see whether the wording cannot be so amplified as to make completely certain that that is what it means. After all, we have to satisfy not only the public, but we have to frame these provisions in such a way that the courts can interpret it without doubt, and that is the function of this House. Therefore I associate myself with the suggestion made that this provision be looked at again.

I rise on a rather special point. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has already indicated that we will support this Bill because we feel it is justifiable in the circumstances. But I want to ask the Minister, that when he comes to ask for powers of this kind, he should try to give us as much information as he can as to the circumstances which require these extra powers, so that we shall be in the same position he is in to judge whether we should support the measure or not. In these particular circumstances to-day we feel that they are justified. But these matters are so much a matter of degree. It is well known, for example, that in time of war legislators have been prepared to give much greater powers than they are prepared to give in peacetime. It is also well known that since the last war there have been various states of cold war which have required special treatment. Likewise other situations have existed which have required special treatment. The Minister is in the position of having a lot of facts, one assumes; and this House is one of the few places where we can obtain those facts so that we can form an enlightened judgment as to whether we should support legislation or amend it in some way. In introducing the Bill, the Minister referred to Tanzania and to possibilities of various kinds. We are aware that those possibilities cannot be ignored, but equally, we do not know how serious they are. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many people have left this country to the Minister’s knowledge for that purpose, how many have come back, and how many of those who came back have been arrested.

I have given those figures time and again. It is well known to everyone.

Well, I suggest that this is the critical moment to recapitulate those facts, so that perhaps to doubting people in the world it will be clear that this decision is taken on good and adequate facts. One realizes that there may be certain limitations on what the Minister may do, but I suggest that he should go very far in trying to take this House into his confidence. He is asking the House to support these measures, and this House should also be considered, and he should weigh that up in the balance against any prejudice which could result from disclosing the information. I hope he will attempt to go as far as he can. It is certainly essential to have as many facts as possible when we are attempting to form an opinion on matters of this kind.

There is just one small matter I want to raise in regard to clause 2. The Minister has quite properly put a proviso to Clause 2 that the provisions of the section shall not affect the liability of a member of the force who wilfully causes any loss or damage. Quite obviously if someone does something wilfully, he cannot rely on any protection given to members of a group such as the Police Force in respect of certain activities which it is their duty to do. What I want to ask the Minister is whether it is the intention that the State likewise should not be exempt from liability where a member of the force wilfully causes any loss or damage. The State of course should not be exempt. A member of the force is not exempted in terms of this. Is it the intention of the Bill only to include the member of the force as being a person to whom someone injured can look for damages if the act is deliberate, or is it intended also to include the State? On the normal basis of the law, any act done within the course and scope of someone’s employment the employer is liable for—the State, in this case. But there being no reference to the State, will the Minister indicate whether it is his intention that the State should be liable? It is very cold comfort to someone to whom damage has been caused as the result of a wilful act on the part of a member of the force to know that he may claim from that person only. He would obviously want redress from the State, which can pay whereas the policeman in most cases is not in a position to pay if the damages are reasonably high. If it is the Minister’s intention to include the State, I hope he will give us some indication as to whether he has considered it, or whether he should consider amending the proviso to provide that the State shall be liable for any damages wilfully caused by a member of the force.

I am pleased that hon. members support this Bill. As far as the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is concerned, one cannot of course provide in this Bill, and thereby overthrow the old existing principle to which he referred, that the State will accept liability for a deliberate action of one of its officials when that action has not been performed in the course of his duties. The State cannot be held responsible for a deliberate action on the part of an official who acts beyond the scope of his duties. That official is and remains liable and the State is not bound. Nor is this the intention. Let me illustrate this by an example. Let us imagine that a policeman is travelling in a police vehicle in the ordinary course of his duty and he sees a friend of his standing on a corner and who wishes to go to town. He gives that friend a lift and that person is injured as a result of negligence. That person boarded the vehicle at his own risk and he cannot make a claim against the State. He can only make a claim against the official if what happened was done deliberately. He is therefore in the same position as an insurance company would be. He cannot bind his company if he did not do it in the ordinary course of his duty or, for that matter, the employee of any other person. It must happen in the course of his duties.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) complained that I did not give details. With all respect, I have in various debates given the locations of these training camps in the various Africa states. From time to time I have given hon. members statistics in regard to the number of people who have crossed the border and been prosecuted. The hon. member knows that there are cases before the Cape Court at the moment in connection with persons who were recruited here and, so it is alleged, tried to cross the border in order to receive training.

[Inaudible.]

I am sorry but I do not have that information with me. I can give that information at any time, as far as it can be given. In some cases it will not be in the interests of security to do so but as far as such information can be supplied, I can give it to the hon. member. The fact is simply that the hon. member knows from the court cases and from what I have already said here that people have already returned and many of them have been caught. We have also caught many of them who were in the process of leaving in order to be trained. There were long reports in the Press in this regard. We are therefore not dealing here with an academic danger but with a very real danger. The numbers are not important. The fact is simply that this is done and we are taking the necessary steps to prevent a repetition of this sort of thing.

As far as the argument of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is concerned—that this provision would be more appropriate in another law and not in this Act—I have to deal here with the police in the first place, to tell them what their powers and duties are, and it follows logically that I must provide in the Police Act how far a police officer may or may not go. This requires a reference to the Criminal Procedure Act. If I had inserted this provision in the Criminal Procedure Act I should have had to refer to the Police Act. The deciding factor is that it is the police officer who makes a study of the Police Act and he must know what his powers and duties are. That is why I have thought fit to insert this provision in the Police Act.

As far as the questions of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) are concerned, I replied to most of them by way of interjection. The Bill as it is here is in wide terms and I am pleased that this is so because one wants to protect people as far as possible and include them in that protection. That is why I feel that it is better to go too far than to give too little protection to persons boarding police vehicles. Obviously, if a man has a puncture along the road and a police vehicle picks him up in order to help him, the State will not be liable if an accident occurs. If people are picked up in order to make statements or to identify deceased persons and there is an accident along the road, the State will be liable. From the nature of the case there are bound to be borderline cases. One is never able to make a hard and fast rule in this regard. But as far as I am concerned, the wider its interpretation the greater assurance there is to the public boarding police vehicles that they are protected. But cases will arise in which one will have to decide ad hoc as to whether they fall within the provisions of the Act or not. For what it may be worth, however, I shall have the matter investigated by the law advisers in order to see whether it cannot be more closely defined and we can discuss the matter again at the Committee Stage. To my mind, however, the fact that it is a trifle vague is not an insurmountable obstacle because this fact may provide greater protection in borderline cases.

May I ask a question in regard to the last few lines of the proviso to Clause 2? It appears to me as though it exempts the official from liability . . .

Order! The hon. member may only ask a question.

My question is whether this proviso is intended to exclude this liability.

I do not want to say now what the position is. I must first consult the law advisers.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

In terms of the Government Service Pension Act, 1965, the retiring age in respect of members of the Prisons Service is increased from 58 to 60 years, and the Prisons Act, 1959, must therefore be amended accordingly. This occasion is also taken to make some consequential and other amendments which will be dealt with.

Clause 1: Since the coming into operation of the principal Act in 1959, there has been uncertainty in regard to the definition of the words “prisoner” and “prison”, particularly in so far as the implementation of Section 44 is concerned. In terms of the present wording and the interpretation given to it by the courts and the law advisers, sketches and photographs of certain categories of prisoners, although it may be contrary to the intention of the section concerned, may be made or taken and published without consent.

In terms of the proposed amendment, there will now be a prohibition on the taking or making and publishing without consent of photographs or sketches of any persons who—

1. (i) have been arrested and are in lawful custody;
2. (ii) is a fugitive after he has escaped from lawful custody; or
3. (iii) was executed or died while he was being detained in custody in a prison or while he was being transferred from one prison to another.

It is a basic principle of our legal system that an arrested person is deemed to be not guilty until he has been found guilty by a court of law. It is therefore in the interest of innocent persons and their relatives that their photographs should not be published.

In the case of convicted prisoners, this prohibition is not intended solely for the protection of the prisoner but rather more for that of his family. Because the prisoner is in custody, it is his family which is affected by such publicity.

Furthermore it is quite clear that the unlimited publication of such photographs and the favourable manner in which particularly serious crimes are sometimes depicted to the public are deleterious to the prevention of crime and the rehabilitation of criminals.

It is realized that publicity is essential but the fact cannot be denied that the results flowing from exaggerated emphasis are utterly undesirable and in fact are against the interests of the law-abiding citizen whose peaceful life is the main object of the criminal system.

There will not be a complete prohibition of the publication of photographs, and consent for it will be granted if it is in the public interest.

In the definition of “prison”, provision is made that the seashore and the sea within a distance of one nautical mile from low-water mark which adjoins a prison and is used in connection with it also forms part of the prison, and that a police cell or lock-up will, for the purposes of an offence in terms of the Prisons Act, 1959, or any contravention of or failure to comply with any provision of the Act, will be considered to be a prison.

In 1964 already regulations were published in terms of the Seashore Act, 1935, in terms of which no person, vessel or vehicle was allowed to approach within one nautical mile around Robben Island without the consent of the Commissioner of Prisons, with certain exceptions.

Clause 3: In terms of Section 94 of the principal Act, all changes in salaries, wages and allowances are notified by regulation. It is impracticable, and provision is now being made for this to be paid on the coming into operation of this amending Act and in the future in terms of the Public Service Act, 1957.

Is the position that really no change in the wage scales is being brought about?

No. The salaries of all public servants, except those of officials of the Prisons Department, are determined in terms of the Public Service Act and everybody is treated on an equal footing, whereas in the case of Prisons it must be done by way of regulation, and there is no reason why an exception should be made in their case.

Clause 12: As in the case of the definition of “prisoner”, the position was not clear in regard to the publication of a photograph or sketch of a prisoner taken or made before his arrest. The proposed amendment prohibits the publication, without the consent of the Commissioner, of a photograph or sketch of a prisoner or group of prisoners, whether such photo or sketch was taken or made before or after the arrest of the prisoner or group or prisoners.

Clause 18: It will be noted that an amendment of this clause has been placed on the Order Paper in my name. In terms of the existing provisions of Section 54, an officer has the legal right, on conviction of a prisoner of a contravention of a regulation, to impose one or more of six punishments including corporal punishment. As against that, Section 94 (2) (b) provides that regulations issued by the State President may determine punishments, but no such punishment may exceed any one of the punishments mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 54.

In view of the established practice that solitary confinement with spare diet should not be combined with corporal punishment and the ambiguity in Section _N 94, the Supreme Court in 1964 came to the conclusion that it was not the intention of the legislator that a sentence of solitary confinement with spare diet for a maximum of six days, together with a sentence of solitary confinement for a maximum period of 5 days, of which ten days will on instructions be on reduced rations, should be imposed.

Since then officers may impose only one punishment, either corporal punishment, solitary confinement for a maximum of six days, or solitary confinement for a maximum period of 15 days. Hence the provisions in the proposed Clause 18 of the amending Bill, to provide for this in the legislation.

It has, however, since the introduction of the Bill, come to light that single punishments do not have the desired effect and that officers consequently now impose corporal punishment much more often and sooner. Whereas different charges were formerly regarded as one for purposes of punishment, they are now being separated in order to be able to impose a more severe punishment. It is because we want to avoid corporal punishment being unnecessarily applied and charges which would otherwise have been regarded as one charge being split up unnecessarily, that this amendment is being introduced.

Consequently, I have decided to insert this amendment in the Bill so that an officer, as before, will have the legal right to impose one or more of the six punishments, but corporal punishment may not be imposed if one of the dietary punishments is imposed.

Clauses 19 and 20: In terms of the existing provisions it appears that the Commissioner before the expiration of the period of probation or parole had to be satisfied that the conditions imposed were broken, whereas it was the intention that the Commissioner should be convinced that the prisoner on probation or parole broke the conditions set before the expiration of the period of probation or parole. The proposed amendment remedies the position.

Clause 23: The Minister may delegate certain powers to the Commissioner, who in turn may delegate them only to the Deputy-Commissioner. As the result of the tremendous expansion in the work, it is desirable that the Commissioner should be able to delegate certain administrative powers also to assistant commissioners.

Clause 24:

1. (a)

   1. (i) In view of the provisions of the proposed Clause 3, the power to issue regulations in regard to salaries, wages and allowances, is now being withdrawn;
   2. (ii) members already enjoy certain privileges in regard to medical, dental and hospital treatment. Provision is now being made only for regulations to be issued in that respect.
2. (b) This is simply a change in the wording.
3. (c) In respect of Clause 24 (c) there is also an amendment stading in my name on the Order Paper. It flows from the proposed amendments in Clause 18 and will result in removing the ambiguity which existed.
4. (d) As in various other Acts, provision is being made in Clause 24 (d) that regulations prescribing improved conditions of service may be issued with retrospective force.

Although this Bill has 25 clauses, I think all but six or seven are of a formal or entirely unobjectionable nature and do not require any comment. I want to refer however, to three matters affecting the pay and conditions of service of those who serve in the Prisons Service; then there are about two clauses which in their wider implications affect the dignity of prisoners; and there is one which affects the Press and there are two which have a bearing on the question of escaping from prison.

We can certainly give our wholehearted support to those clauses which relate to the pay and service conditions of those employed in the Prisons Service. We support the clauses which extend the definition of “prison” and “prisoners”, although I do not think anybody can be glad that it is apparently necessary to effect those extensions.

So far as the clauses affecting the pay and conditions of service of those in the Prisons Service are concerned, the hon. the Minister indicated in reply to me that the Prisons Service will now come under the Public Service Act in so far as pay matters are concerned. This is being provided for formally in the Act because that was the position before; so there is no big point there. The next aspect is that improved conditions can be made retrospective. One is aware that in cases where increases are contemplated or are being negotiated in the private sector of our economy, and presumably also in the case of public servants, it does take some time before these matters can be finalized, and I think it is only fair to the men concerned that there should be this power to make the increases retrospective when ultimately agreement is reached. So that provision too will have our support.

The third aspect under this head is the raising of the retiring age. The retiring age was raised in 1959 from 55 to 58 and it is now being raised from 58 to 60, and in certain cases the power is taken that the retiring age may be even higher. At the same time the existing rights are preserved for those who have already got their terms of service settled. Sir, we support this. We imagine that those in the service themselves will support this higher retiring age. It is well known that people live longer nowadays, what with the various possibilities of keeping fit being drawn to our attention constantly. We know that many people who leave the service do in fact find useful work afterwards in other walks of life. Presumably it is felt that this willingness on their part to continue to work should be used in the interests of the service itself. I think an added important reason is the undoubted manpower shortage and the need to cope with the fast-growing prison population. In addition, there is, of course, the more varied treatment of prisoners. So far as the prison population is concerned, one finds that the daily average of prisoners in 1948 was 25,000: ten years later it had gone up 19,000 to 44,000, and a further six years later it had gone up a further 26,000 to 70,000. Those figures speak volumes and indicate the growing task of those whose duty it is to take care of the prisoners, to attempt to rehabilitate them and to guard them in the meanwhile. One cannot but notice the fact that the numbers of escapes have also increased at a considerable rate. In 1948 the figure was 283; ten years later it was up 487 to 770, and six years thereafter, in 1964, it was up 702 to 1,472. The hon. the Minister explained in the debate on his Vote that that was partly due to the fact that prisoners were being usefully employed on farming undertakings and in other spheres where it was less easy to watch them than it is when they are confined more closely in a gaol. So far as it goes, one is glad to hear that that is the explanation, but one wonders to what extent that does provide the answer. In any event, whether they escape from a maximum security gaol or while working on a farm, clearly it would be less easy to get away if there were more warders present to prevent this.

This measure should therefore be of some assistance in combating escapes. We know that some of these people who get away—and it is impossible to prevent escapes completely—are highly wanted people. It requires a great effort on the part of the police to recapture them, and therefore one is glad to support a measure which we understand will help in that respect.

Just on this aspect, it comes to mind that now that the retiring age is being raised, promotion may be slightly more difficult for younger members of the service, which in turn may reduce the inducement to enlist. However, I do not think one need dwell very greatly on that in this case because I think it is true to say that there has been a great extension of opportunities through the creation of extra posts. That is certainly so in the police, as the hon. the Minister pointed out in the debate on his Vote, and I am sure the same probably applies to the Prisons Department. I do not think that that is a serious point therefore. Consideration might be given to what is being done increasingly in business to-day, and that is to give young men an opportunity earlier to reach the top posts, while retaining the services of the older men in lesser capacities. For example, we find in the Supreme Court here that experienced officials who have given very good service in the top positions have gone back to the service in lesser capacities after their retirement. I am not advocating this; I am just drawing this to the Minister’s attention so that he can bear it in mind.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the change introduced by Clause 18. This provision, as explained, appears to operate in favour of the prisoner. The Minister has explained that he hopes that this will obviate unnecessary corporal punishment. There certainly was the apparent possibility under the earlier provisions of the Act to give one or more punishments. There appeared to be a slight contradiction in Section 94 of the Act, and that is now being ironed out in a way which the authorities and, I am sure, the prisoners themselves will find satisfactory. Who are we to object when persons placed in such opposite positions think alike! We certainly do not object.

Sir, an important section of the Bill deals with the enlargement of the definition of “prisons” and “prisoners”. It is Clauses 12 and 1 which extend the present restrictions on the publication of photographs of prisoners and extend the area deemed to be a prison. In 1959 a section was first introduced into the prisons legislation when the Act was amended and consolidated, placing certain limitations on the publication of the photographs of prisoners and prisons. That provision in 1959 received much support in principle and no lasting opposition in Parliament. Where this limitation on the publication of photographs applies the Commissioner of Prisons could give authority to publish photographs, and that discretion is being retained here. I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us in his reply how that has worked out in practice; in how many cases authority has been sought from the Commissioner of Prisons to publish photographs and in how many cases it has been refused, and in how many cases it has been granted. I can imagine that in quite a few cases the Commissioner will appreciate the cooperation of the Press through the publication of photographs with a view to the apprehension of criminals. But it would be interesting to know what in fact the experience has been in this regard. Sir, I would say that this discretion has been retained and consequently the possibility of publishing the photographs of prisoners in certain circumstances still remains.

I think the old provision related to the publication of photographs taken of a prisoner after his arrest. As the hon. the Minister has said, this provision has been generally accepted as being in the interests of and for the protection of the prisoner and his family in the first place. I think the courts have actually said that in certain cases, and one can concede that that is so. The new limitation now also prevents the publication of a photograph of a prisoner while he is a prisoner, taken before his arrest. We feel that that is a reasonable extension in the interests of the prisoner himself. I think it is true to say as the hon. the Minister did that it affects his rehabilitation. It gives the man a bettter chance to restart afterwards, and it prevents his family being injured unnecessarily by being held up to contempt for his misdoings. I should imagine also that it would help in the matter of identification parades. I should imagine that where a witness is called upon to identify an accused person, the matter will be complicated if there have been photographs of that person in the Press a short time before. One can well understand that a court would be more impressed by an identification where there is no possibility of confusion as a result of the publication of photographs in the Press. On that ground also therefore one can accept this extension as a reasonable one. The other restrictions on the use of photographs and other related means of communication seem to be in conformity with a decision of the Transvaal Court in 1962. These are anomalies which needed to be eliminated.

Then there is the extension of the definition of “prison” which, of course, has certain side’ effects. The definition is being extended to include the sea-shore and the sea up to one mile from the low-water mark, adjacent to a prison, and used in connection therewith. This extension naturally extends the area that ranks in terms of the Act as a prison. I think perhaps the more important effect of it, as it strikes me, is that it increases the area in which people could be apprehended and convicted of loitering in the vicinity of a prison. A person can only be convicted of loitering, of course, if he has been asked to leave by a member of the S.A. Prisons Service or the S.A. Police and has failed to do so. One can imagine that if a person wished to assist a prisoner in an escape, he would need to loiter in the vicinity of a prison so that he could be of assistance at the critical moment. In so far as these provisions help to thwart such attempts they have our support; they do not seem to go excessively far, particularly since, as the Minister has pointed out, we have a prison fringing on the sea. One thinks particularly of Robben Island. We know, of course, that gaol-breaks from island prisons are by no means unknown. Escape from prison, of course, should not be easy anyway. We feel that this provision too deserves our support, particularly having regard to the number of gaol-breaks to which I have already referred.

This Bill also extends the area around the prison of which photographs may be taken and published only with the permission of the Commissioner of Police. The absence of the wider definition contained in this Bill may in the past have made it easier for prisoners to escape, although the Minister did not say so in the course of his speech, possibly because he did not want to make his speech too long. This amendment is possibly being introduced because photographs of prisons may assist people in planning escapes. I do not know whether that is what the hon. the Minister and his Department have in mind. In any event, this seems to be an extension that we can support. Indeed, as I said at the outset, some of the provisions of this Bill are such that we can welcome them wholeheartedly. In the case of other provisions, although it could have afforded the Minister no pleasure to incorporate them in the Bill, they appear to be necessary and we appreciate the necessity to introduce them.

There is one aspect of this Bill that I would like to deal with briefly and that is the question of the restriction on the publication of photographs of prisoners, and ex-prisoners who have become ex-prisoners by virtue of the fact that either they have died or have been executed. This obviously is a matter in respect of which certain persons connected with the Press will have some misgivings. The hon. the Minister has not indicated whether he has had any representations or not, but I have no doubt that it is a matter which would give the Press some concern. It will give them some concern because their particular trade is to produce news and to present it in as interesting a way as they possibly can. I have no doubt whatever that the appearance of a photograph of someone who is the subject of court proceedings, does lend a little more interest in the proceedings to the average reader, and I have no doubt that it also helps the typesetters of the newspapers because they do not have a page consisting just of print; it is broken up with photographs.

One can see the point of view of the Press and one can see the point of view of the hon. the Minister. He has to see, amongst other things, that the person concerned and particularly his family are not subjected unnecessarily to an invasion of their privacy or to speculation on the part of the public which might be heightened by the publication of a photograph. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some indication as to just how far he is going to apply this. In relation to persons who are executed one experiences a sense of disgust at times as to the rather sensational, morbid presentation of photographs of a person who has been executed, photographs of him either holding hands with someone or looking miserable or looking happy. I can understand the necessity for this prohibition in the protection of the person’s family. But this is an absolute prohibition for all times, subject, of course, to the permission in writing of the Commissioner of Prisons being obtained. Clauses 1 and 12, read together, have the effect of preventing the publication of a photograph of a man whether taken before his arrest or afterwards, where that person has in fact been executed.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not seriously consider the advisability of amending the definition contained in Clause 1. He has dealt with the definition of a prison; I will deal with that later, but I refer particularly to the definition of what is a prisoner. Clause 12 says that you may not publish the photograph of a prisoner and it then defines “prisoner” as being a person, whether convicted or not, who is detained in custody in any prison or is being transferred in custody or en route in custody from one prison to another, and includes any person who was executed or died while he was being detained in custody in a prison or while he was being transferred in custody or was en route in custody from one prison to another. Sir, this is an abomination of the English language. It is a most inept description. When one reads it one is tempted to ask, were it not so obviously badly drafted, how many people have been executed while being transferred in custody from one prison to another or while en route from one prison to another, because this is just how it reads. It is badly drafted and I hope the hon. the Minister will be prepared to consider amending this provision in the Committee Stage.

Sir, we are going to support this Bill because we cannot find any good reason why the prohibition in respect of the publication of photographs of prisoners and executed persons should not be there. We hope, however, that the Minister will give us some indication as to the policy that the Commissioner of Prisons will adopt in giving his consent to publication. I think that publication of photographs of murderers such as Daisy de Melker, for example, where the murder was committed a long time ago, may be a matter of interest to criminologists and to the public, and in cases of that kind I take it that permission will not be refused.

A photograph in relation to a story which is really a matter of history does not affect the family at this stage any more; it is a matter of general public interest in respect of which permission should probably be granted. One hopes that the policy of the Commissioner of Prisons is going to be liberal in that regard.

The next matter I want to deal with briefly is the question of Robben Island. When the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill he indicated that the new definition was necessary in respect of Robben Island. It is a definition of an island prison. It does not specifically say it is Robben Island. Having regard to the definition one is tempted to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has any other islands in mind . . .

No.

... or whether he has in mind putting up prisons on the seashore. One would think that that would be a most undesirable place to have a prison. The hon. Minister says no, then one wonders whether the prisons in Durban, for example, are meant to be included here. We have one at the Point which might encompass part of the shore or part of the bay. One wonders whether this is intended to apply anywhere else but Robben Island.

It applies to no other place but Robben Island.

May I then ask the hon. Minister why he does not say just Robben Island. Then we shall know exactly what the position is.

We do not intend erecting any other prisons adjoining the sea.

That is fine, that is all that we want to know.

My hon. friend from Pinelands has dealt with all the other aspects of the Bill to which we give our support subject to the examination of the wording of Clauses 1 and 12 in the Committee Stage, inasmuch as they are so badly drafted as to give an impression which, I hope, does not exist in relation to our prisons.

I am glad that the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) made the point which he did in connection with Clause 1 (a). When you read from line 18 to line 20 and delete certain words you find that the reference is to a prisoner “who was executed . . . while he . . . was being transferred in custody or was en route in custody . . .” The Minister clearly did not intend the conditions which could apply when a man had died while in custody or while being transferred, to apply in the event of his being executed—because if an execution should take place while the man is being transferred, that would be a summary execution, and that is surely not contemplated by this or any other law. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Durban (North) that the hon. Minister himself will want to make it perfectly clear that this sub-section in no way contemplates such a state of affairs as to suggest a summary execution of a prisoner while en route from one place to another! I do not want to strain the point, Sir, I think it is perfectly clear.

In respect of sub-section (b) the Minister has explained that it is only Robben Island he has in mind when he seeks to amend the legislation in this way. I want to ask him whether he has had any regard to the annual swim, as it used to be, between Cape Town and Robben Island. It is our equivalent of the Channel swim, as the Minister knows. I am not an authority on this annual event, Sir, but I can recall that such a swim took place quite recently. The organizers of these events take them very seriously; they are well publicized and are of interest to the public. In terms of this amendment to the law, it may well be impossible to organize, since there is reference to the sea-shore, “the sea within a distance of one nautical mile from the low-water mark and all land, outbuildings . . that this may preclude the organization of this event which used to be an annual sporting event until quite recently; I do not know whether it still is so.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the words “and used in connection therewith” in line 33 create the situation he has in mind, in terms of this substitution for the definition of a prison. What kind of place has the Minister in mind in using the words “any such place” and “used in connection therewith and all land, branches, outstations, etc.” I do not understand the word “place” to mean buildings, necessarily. A place could be an area of land with buildings on it, or without buildings. What kind of place, used in connection with a prison, would not actually be within the environs of the prison? I believe it is commonly called the prison preserve; the area which is restricted as far as the public is concerned. What kind of an area has the Minister in mind when he refers to “any place used in connection therewith” which has not already been referred to in the fairly detailed definition of a prison? What kind of institution, for example, could be a place which would fall within the ambit of this phrase in the new definition “used in connection therewith”? One could speculate about this, but I do not want to speculate. I would prefer the hon. the Minister to tell the House quite explicitly what other place used in connection with a prison would come within the definition of a prison as not yet defined in terms of this clause?

Finally, I want to deal briefly with Clause 12. My hon. friend from Durban (North) has stated the position very clearly. There is one aspect which puzzles me—I may have misunderstood the wording here—and that is the reference to a prisoner or a group of prisoners. Does it mean, for example, that if a newspaper were to publish a photograph of the Western Province rugby team of 1947 on its sports page, and that photograph included the picture of a person who, at the time of publication, is a prisoner, that newspaper would be committing an offence?

No.

But is that quite clear, Sir? I do not wish to look for any ambiguity in this Clause, but it does seem to me that when the Minister says “publishes or causes to be published in any manner whatsoever any sketch or photograph, etc., ... of any prison or group of prisoners whether such sketch or photograph was made or taken before or after the arrest of the prisoner or group of prisoners, etc.,” ... his intention is not stated clearly. As I have said—suppose, before the arrest of the prisoner, who may be a person arrested in 1963, this photograph of the rugby team—I make this reference to a rugby team merely for purposes of illustration—was taken—in 1947—and published in 1965 while this person, who was a member of the team in 1947, is a prisoner? Can the Minister say categorically that this clause cannot be construed in such a way as to make it an offence for the publication of that photograph in 1965? I say it would be rendering a service to this House if the Minister would clarify what appears to be a difficulty which could well arise, if the Minister of the day wishes to be unreasonable in his attitude towards a newspaper, although they had done something perfectly innocuous.

The amendments, by and large, certainly do not seem to deal unreasonably with the police as such, or with the prison officials as such, but it would be valuable for the House to obtain the clarification of the very few, but important points, which have been raised by this side.

I want to start by replying firstly to the matters raised by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). We have received no application from persons wanting to swim to Robben Island. If such an application is received, there is no reason why it should not be favourably considered. There has been nothing practicable up to the present because no applications have as yet been received. I may just tell the hon. member that members of a sailing club are given facilities at the harbour there—they applied for them timeously—and one finds them there over week-ends and on holidays. We are co-operating with the public in this regard.

The word “place” to which the hon. member referred has of course no other meaning than that it replaces the word “daaraan” in Afrikaans and the word “thereto” in English. For the rest, it has no meaning other than to link up the two sentences.

As far as the taking of a photograph is concerned, if a person played in a football team in 1947 and a photograph was taken of the team, it is of course very clear that even if one of the players or all 15 of them are in gaol, one can publish that photograph as a rugby photograph in any periodical at any time. The only thing one may not do is to take out the photograph of the person concerned, if he is in trouble, and bring it into relation with the court case or with his difficulty. But if, for example, he marries, one can use that photograph because my contention is that this has nothing to do with the fact that he is or was in prison.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Why then the words “publish in any manner whatsoever”?

Yes, “publish in any manner whatsoever”, provided it refers to the fact that he was concerned in a court case or that he is in prison. But one does not make oneself liable if it is otherwise in one’s possession or otherwise published. It would make the whole thing ridiculous if one were to give that interpretation to it. The whole idea is to protect that person because it is not promotive of his rehabilitation if his photograph is published. One must not embarrass his family by publishing his photograph. The idea is to prevent identification of the person with the crime.

May I ask a question? Does it not mean that the Press can publish the photograph of a person who is out on bail but not the photograph of a person to whom bail has been refused? Is that not the effect of it?

Do hon. members not realize what the position is? What are we trying to prevent? We are trying to prevent the families of these persons being placed in an embarrassing position. Forget about the person who is behind bars; we are not concerned about him for the moment. If his photograph is published in another context, this fact does not bring embarrassment to his family. But if it is published in connection with the crime for which he is either being tried or is awaiting trial or is out on bail, it causes embarrassment. His photograph in another context will not cause embarrassment.

The hon. member for Durban (North) asked on what basis these applications are dealt with. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) asked the same question. The Commissioner informs me that he receives very few, if any, applications to publish photographs of crimes committed long ago. What the Press wants is a photograph of the person while the crime is still fresh in the minds of the public and while the trial is in progress. It is then that it excites the interest of readers. It is true that in this connection we have on the one hand to deal with the interests of the Press and on the other hand with the interests of the person and his family. From time to time the Press make representations for the lifting of this provision. From the nature of the case one does not resent this fact. That is their profession; they would like to be free from any restriction and to be able to publish any photograph under any circumstances at any time. But what we have to weigh up in this connection—one does not want to argue the case again because, as the hon. member for Pinelands has said, we did so years ago when the Act was originally introduced—is the advantage to the Press on the one hand against the disadvantage to the family and the individual concerned on the other hand. I think we have felt correctly that the advantage to the Press does not measure up to the disadvantage which the children and the next of kin of such person particularly have to suffer by continually having to see the publicity given to the photographs of such a person in the newspapers. One can give many examples of which one has heard over the years about the pain and suffering which the children particularly of such people have had to endure. But I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily at this stage.

In reply to the question of the hon. member for Pinelands in regard to the number of cases I can only say that one does not of course keep statistics because every case is dealt with on its merits. Let me mention an example. There was, for example, the case of Willem Goosen, a hardened criminal over the years. This was a sensational case and there were many photographs of him in all the newspapers at the time because one felt that in his specific case it could do no harm, only good. That was why the Commissioner gave his permission. I have received no complaints from any newspaper to the effect that the Commissioner acted unfairly in this connection. From this I must conclude that the Commissioner used his discretion in such a way that all the newspapers were satisfied. No specific case has ever been brought to my attention in which a newspaper has complained that it has been treated unfairly by the Commissioner. If this was the case, it was content to let it go at that because in any event it did not complain to me. I know that the Commissioner goes out of his way to be as helpful as possible, that he considers all the circumstances and that he gives a decision in this regard with a view to the interests of the person and his family.

The hon. member for Pinelands also dealt with the question of the escape of prisoners. I do not think that this is the time and the place to say any more than I said when my Vote was being discussed.

I thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. We can discuss the outstanding matters at the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It has long been felt that something should be done to improve the pension benefits payable to the widows of judges. Hon. members will recall that we discussed this when we judged the questions of judges’ salaries and later on when we discussed the question of judges’ pension as apart from judges’ widows’ pensions. As is generally known the widow of a judge is at present entitled to a pension of R600 per annum plus a further R60 per annum in respect of each completed year of the pensionable service of her deceased husband, subject to a maximum of R1200 per annum. These benefits have been fixed as far back as 1956 and are entirely inadequate in present-day circumstances.

It will also be recollected that during the debate last year on the Judges’ Salaries and Pensions Amendment Act which provided for increased pension benefits for retired judges, it was generally felt that the position in regard to the pensions payable to their widows should be reviewed as well. The matter has been fully investigated during the recess and it would appear that an increase of 50 per cent in the pension benefits of judges’ widows is fully warranted.

I may add here that there are a few judges who are in favour of a greater increase whereas there are others who would have us leave the position as it is, but the majority of the judges agreed to the figure as contained in this Bill. Such an increase naturally raises the question of a corresponding increase in the contributions made by the judges. The matter was accordingly taken up with all the judges who, it is a pleasure to say, readily agreed to a commensurate increase in their contributions.

The Bill now before the House makes provision for the increase of the contributions to be made by judges from R8 to R12 per month while the maximum amount payable by a judge is raised from R1,920 to R2,880. The pension payable to the widow of a judge is increased from R600 to R900 per annum. In addition she will be entitled to R90 instead of R60 per annum in respect of each completed year of the pensionable service of her deceased husband. The maximum pension payable to such a widow is also increased from R 1,200 to R 1,800 per annum. The Bill accordingly provides, as will be observed, a 50 per cent increase in the benefits and contributions payable under the Act.

The effect of the proposed Section 10 (2) contained in Clause 3, would, in the case of each judge, be to make the increased contributions payable with effect from the date of the commencement of his pensionable service. Provision is contained in the Bill for the payment of any arrear contributions occasioned by the retrospective effect of the Bill, in monthly installments of R6.00. The increased benefits would, however, not be payable to the widow of a judge who retired or died before the 1st of July, 1965 as such a judge would naturally not have had an opportunity of making contributions at the increased rate. In conclusion it may be mentioned that the Bill has been submitted to all the judges and that they are satisfied with the provisions contained therein.

There is very little to add to what the hon. the Minister has said except to say that we whole-heartedly support this Bill. As the hon. Minister has pointed out the time is overdue for an increase in the pensions which the widows of judges get. I don’t believe—I don’t know, perhaps the Minister could indicate—that the contributions made by the judges to this Fund for their and their widows’ pensions, are, in any event, actuarially sound.

That has never been the basis.

No one would desire it to be so. It is a matter of a contribution. The State should in any event provide such pension. The difficulty, of course, is that if a judge retires before the 1st of July he will not be able to opt into this scheme. In the circumstances his widow will be worse off than she would have been had he stayed on and retired after the 1st of July.

No one will be affected.

There are widows to-day who are going to be subject to the same difficulty, for which this Bill is to provide, as widows to come hereafter. The fund is unsound actuarially anyway; it is the duty of the State to provide for these people and it is a pity that the general increase could not be extended to those few persons who are today judges’ widows.

We give the Bill our wholehearted support and we are pleased that this aspect has now caught up with judges’ pension.

My brief remarks are merely explanatory to a question I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. As the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) has said, we do support this Bill. I am thinking of the case of widows of deceased Judges, widows who will not come under this scheme, widows who do not receive a pension. One has in mind the case of a widow who has applied to the ordinary pensions committee of the House . . .

Order! I don’t think the hon. member should raise that.

I appreciate that, Sir. The question I wish to put to the hon. Minister is this: Has he given consideration to the case of those widows who do not come under the scheme which is now superseded by the present scheme?

In reply to the question of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) I can only say that I did think of it; I considered it and I also had a long discussion in this connection with a retired Judge. Unfortunately I am not in a position to do anything about it. The hon. member will recall that I was faced with a similar problem when I increased Judges’ pensions. It was thought at the time—I strongly shared that feeling—that we should treat retired Judges on the same basis because they form a very small group. But the position was not quite so easy; there were other principles at stake, principles which would affect other public servants and other retired people. The most I could do in this connection was to give retired Judges an increase in their pensions. Hon. members will recall that we added R500 to their pensions because we realized that they would be in a worse position.

As far as the widows of deceased Judges are concerned, the only help that we can give in that connection is through the Select Committee of this House. If there are any problems and difficulties in this connection I shall be glad if hon. members will bring them to my notice. The Select Committee, having regard to the services rendered to the State by the persons concerned, can then consider the question of granting benefits to his surviving spouse. I personally would like to help in that particular case, and, as I said to the retired Judge in question, I should like to help in any other similar case, because I am aware of the services rendered by these people.

I do not know whether there is any point raised by the hon. member for Durban (North) which I have omitted to deal with in my hurried reply.

I did raise a certain matter but it was out of order.

In any event I shall discuss it privately with the hon. member if you, Mr. Speaker, are not prepared to allow a discussion on it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Removal or Modification of Restrictions on Immovable Property Act, 1916, is one of the Acts which, in terms of a resolution of the House of Assembly, still has to be consolidated and the Netherlands text translated into Afrikaans. This Act provides that a beneficiary who has an interest in immovable property, which is subject to a restriction imposed by any will or other instrument, may apply to the court for the removal or modification of the restriction if it will be to the advantage of interested parties who are or will become entitled to such property. The court may grant such an application if it is satisfied—

1. (a) that the share or shares of one or more of the beneficiaries in being are so small that they cannot be beneficially occupied or enjoyed;
2. (b) that the immovable property cannot be beneficially used by the beneficiaries in being because of a prohibition in the will or other instrument against the sub-division of that property; or
3. (c) that since the taking effect of the will or other instrument circumstances materially affecting the value of the property have arisen which, in the opinion of the court, were not contemplated or foreseen by the person who made and executed the will or instrument.

It is provided further that in cases where the court orders immovable property which is subject to a restriction to be sold, it may also order that the proceeds of the property be invested in securities or immovable property subject to all the terms, conditions and trusts contained in the relevant will or other instrument, or that the proceeds be divided amongst the beneficiaries in being to be enjoyed by them absolutely.

For the rest the procedure which applies to applications for the removal or modification of restrictions on immovable property and the powers of the court with reference to the hearing of evidence are prescribed and the right is granted to appeal direct to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

As is well known, restrictions on immovable property which are imposed by way of a will or other instrument often cause considerable hardship. It has become more and more apparent in recent times that the existing legal provisions in this connection are inadequate in certain respects. In addition to that, it is a well-known fact to-day that a perpetual fideicommissum over immovable property (even though this is normally interpreted in this country as extending up to and including the first generation) is not only detrimental to interested parties but often promotes the uneconomic sub-division of agricultural land in particular and in general harms the economy of the country. I do not think there is a single member of this House who is not aware of such circumstances in his own constituency as a result of such testamentary or other disposition.

In the circumstances this whole matter was reviewed by the Law Revision Committee which, after thorough investigations and consultations, recommended that the existing Act be adapted and supplemented in certain respects.

In the main the Bill which is before the House, in so far as Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, re-enacts the existing legal provisions in this connection.

Paragraph (d) of Clause 3 (1) and paragraph (c) of Clause 3 (2) contain new provisions, however. The Law Revision Committee is of the opinion that the court should also be empowered to remove or modify restrictions imposed upon immovable property by will or other instrument if it is in the public interest or in the interests of an interested beneficiary. In this way it will be possible in many cases to obviate unnecessary hardship as far as beneficiaries are concerned and to promote the public interest. It is also essential that the court’s discretion with regard to the disposal of the proceeds derived from immovable property sold in terms of a court order be extended, as is being done in Clause 3 (2) (c). The requirement in Section 7 of the existing Act, i.e. that the court which hears an application in terms of the Act must consist of at least two Judges, has been done away with in view of the fact that applications for the removal or modification of restrictions on immovable property, which are made in terms of the common law, may be heard by a court consisting of only one Judge and in view of the fact that uniformity in this connection is desirable. The Judge-President of a Division of the Supreme Court may in any event direct, in terms of Section 13 (1) of the Supreme Court Act, 1959, that the court shall consist of as many Judges as he may determine.

The provisions of Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 are entirely new and represent the fruits of the mature deliberations of the Law Revision Committee. As will be observed from Clause 6 (1), the number of fideicommissary substitutions in terms of a fideicommissum in respect of immovable property, which are created by will or other instrument after the commencement of the proposed Act, is limited to no more than two successive fideicommissaries, that is to say, to two substitutions. It is perhaps desirable that I should point out in passing that a fideicommissum is only created by will or other instrument when the provisions of the will or other instrument come into operation, that is to say, in the case of a will, for example, when the testator dies. When property is disposed of by will, the disposal also takes place when the will comes into operation.

Clause 6 (2) provides that when immovable property, which is subject to a fideicommissum which was created after the commencement of the Act, or any undivided share in such property becomes vested in a second successive fideicommissary, it shall vest in him and be transferred to him free of the fideicommissum. The clause only really ensures the practical implementation of the removal of the restriction brought about by Clause 6 ( 1 ).

Clause 7 (1) limits the number of fideicommissary substitutions in terms of an existing fideicommissum in respect of immovable property which was created by will or other instrument before the commencement of the proposed Act and which at the time of the commencement of this Act is in favour or more than two successive fideicommissaries to no more than two substitutions after the commencement of the Act. The fact that the property in question has already vested in one or more fideicommissaries at the commencement of the Act is not taken into account in such cases.

Hon. members will notice that I have put an amendment on the Order Paper which will make it possible, if the House agrees to it, for immovable property, instead of continuing to be subject to the restrictions placed on it before the commencement of this measure to be transferred to the fideicommissary free of such restrictions where there have already been two substitutions. I have done this because I have received many representations, since the publication of the Bill and since it was dealt with in the Other Place, from persons who have pointed out that it is not desirable in the circumstances that in respect of fideicommissums of the past there must be two further substitutions before the immovable property can be transferred to the beneficiary free of restrictions. I shall be glad therefore if hon. members will look at that amendment. I personally feel strongly in favour of it and I know that there are many hon. members who also feel strongly in favour of the amendment. We can have a fruitful discussion in this regard. Cases have come to our notice where in respect of a certain tract of land of 4,000 morgen there are no fewer than 979 heirs already. Hon. members will realize how small the share of each heir is, and they will realize what problems and difficulties arise when it comes to levying divisional council rates, etc. I have reason to believe that the amendment that we have placed on the Order Paper will be generally welcome. If it is accepted then in practice it simply amounts to this—I say this for the information of hon. members who may not have made a study of this Bill—that if A was the testator and he left the land to B, to go to C thereafter and then to D and so on, then, if the provisions of this Bill are accepted, the immovable property, the moment it is transferred to D (that is to say, the third generation from the testator A, or after the second fideicommissary substitution), will be transferred to him free from the fideicommissum. If hon. members look at the amendment they will see that it gives effect to this. If therefore the testator is A and B is the first generation, then the second fideicommissary is D to whom it is then transferred free from the fideicommissum.

The provisions of Clause 7 (2) are similar to the provisions of Clause 6 (2) and are necessary in order to give practical effect to the removal of the restrictions brought about in terms of Clause 7 (1).

Hon. members will observe that the provisions of Clauses 6 and 7 do not affect the restrictions on property which is subject to a trust. The Law Revision Committee, however, is of the opinion that a perpetual restriction against the alienation of immovable property which is subject to a trust, just as in the case of a fideicommissum, may lead to uneconomic conditions and hardships and the provision should therefore also be made for relief in this connection. Accordingly it is now provided in Clause 8 (1) that no restriction against the alienation of any immovable property imposed before or after the commencement of the proposed Act otherwise than by way of a fideicommissum by any will or other instrument shall be effectual to prohibit or restrict the alienation of such immovable property after a right to enjoy any benefit in connection with or derived from such immovable property or a fund of which such immovable property forms a part, has, in terms of the will or other instrument, vested in the third successive beneficiary. In other words, the principles in respect of the trust are precisely the same as those followed in respect of the fideicommissum. Effect is given to those principles in the remaining clauses.

I trust that this Bill, together with the amendment, will be welcomed by hon. members on both sides of the House.

This is a Bill of very great importance, and I think all of us in this House will agree that under the uncontrolled position as it has previously existed, circumstances have led to most undesirable results in a number of cases. We therefore believe that it is right that this matter should be dealt with legislatively, and in general we are in support of the measure which is before the House. Unquestionably in the modern world, it is considered undesirable that land should foe tied up, as was done in the past, over very long periods, and the hon. Minister has given an example of what the consequences of such a position can be. Sir, I think the provisions of the Bill can be dealt with in Committee, but I would like to refer to some of them.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When business was suspended, I had indicated our general support of this Bill, but of course there has come a change in the position since the Bill was published in that there is the second amendment of the hon. Minister on the Order Paper. I am very glad that the amendment has been placed on the Order Paper to give us an opportunity to study it at this early stage. I do not want to deal with any details. I believe that an overwhelming case has been made out for dealing legislatively with a situation which has unquestionably developed, an undesirable situation when, as in the one case mentioned by the hon. the Minister a piece of immovable property is now one in which now almost 1,000 persons have an interest. I would like to say in relation to the question of how long these limitations should endure on full ownership, in other words, how many times a fideicommissum could pass on, this House will have to give very serious consideration to the matter before amending the provisions of Clause 7 along the lines which have been suggested. Sir, one can well imagine cases where persons may expect in a relatively short time to be vested of certain property and then find that through legislation in this Chamber that has been swept away. However, that is a matter which can better be debated at a later stage of the Bill when the amendment has been proposed and is before this Chamber.

Sir, the fact that this Bill will now foe available not only in English, but also in Afrikaans is something which we welcome. Unquestionably. it is desirable, and this has been stressed previously, that where the principal legislation is in the Netherlands language, the earliest opportunity should be taken of consolidating such an Act and making it available in the two languages commonly used in this country, namely Afrikaans and English. We welcome the Bill from that point of view too. The other points of detail will be dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Together with hon. members who have expressed themselves as being in favour of the Bill, particularly the last speaker, I also want to give my support to this Bill and I want to welcome it. But before I do so you will permit me, Sir, to make a few remarks by way of introduction, and I do so to the hon. the Minister as a person who studied at the feet of a man who also taught me, who was not only a language purist but also a legal purist, a person who wanted to see that our Roman-Dutch law developed as purely as possible in South Africa. Having said that, I want to pass a few remarks in regard to Clause 1 of the Bill, which is certainly not satisfactory in so far as the Afrikaans is concerned. Sir, permit me to say again, as I have done in the past, that it is a great pity that our legal draftsmen in South Africa continually draw up all Bills in English first and then they are translated into Afrikaans, and the translation is in anything but pure, legal Afrikaans. Here we have another example of it in Clause 1. It says—

It is a literal translation of the English text which reads—

Sir, “beneficial interest” cannot by far be translated by “voordelige reg”, because an “interest” is certainly not a “right”. “Beneficial interest” is in fact a legal term in the English law, which adheres to the idea of a trust in the English law. Now it is simply being translated here by “’n voordelige reg”. Let me show how impossible that translation in fact is. Unfortunately I must now use legal terms which are not so dear to the layman, but “voordelige reg” is certainly not “a beneficial interest”. Let us take a person who is a fideicommissarius. A fideicommissarius does not have a right. He has an expectation. But we know that according to decided cases the fideicommissarius in our law is described as a person who has a “beneficial interest”, but the courts have not yet decided that he has obtained a right and therefore I do not know why it is translated here by “’n voordelige reg”.

Surely he has more than a hope.

He has more than a hope, but he has no right. The translation should really be “’n voordelige belang”. That would foe a much better translation. I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider using purer language than is being used at the moment when Acts are translated into Afrikaans. In addition, I have a further objection. “Beneficial interest” is a term, as I have said, which is derived from the English law, and all the persons described here surely do not have a beneficial interest as such. A beneficial interest is something which clings to the idea of a trust in the English law. It would perhaps be much bettter if it was provided who all the people are who are really benefited, like the heir, the fideicommissarius, the fiduciarius, the usufructuary and the cestui que trust. If these persons can be mentioned by name, it will perhaps afford a better definition than to describe them all as persons who have a “voordelige reg op onroerende goed”.

But apart from that, I am very glad that in this definition a fideicommissum is now clearly defined as not also being a trust; in other words, that in future there will be a clear distinction in the South African law between a fideicommissum and a trust, and not as in the past, particularly in certain decisions, where the fideicommissum and the trust were regarded as the same legal concept. Therefore I am glad that this Bill is a step in the right direction in our law in so far as that is concerned.

I now come to the further provisions. There are, in fact, four principles concerned in this Bill. The first is that a beneficiary can apply for certain limitations to be lifted. There the existing law is expanded a bit, and we have no objection to it. It is a great improvement in the existing law. Then I come to the second principle which refers to the fideicommissum which will be established after this measure is adopted. Also in this regard nobody will object, particularly because it is limited to the second substitution and does not go further. It is highly essential for this legislation to be introduced, as the former speaker also indicated. I may mention in this regard that in so far as the next clause is concerned, which deals with fideicommissa established before the coming into operation of this legislation, I have had cases where there was a fideicommissum which already extended to the seventh generation, and in terms of this Bill two further substitutions in future will really complicate the problem instead of alleviating it, because it will be very difficult, after there have already been five substitutions now to determine who the persons are who are affected by the sixth and the seventh. That would have made the position more complicated and therefore I am glad that the Minister has given notice of his amendments which will have the result that if there were two or more substitutions in the past, it will now immediately come to an end. I particularly welcome it because I believe that if land has already been subdivided so uneconomically that position will certainly not be improved by providing for two further substitutions.

Clause 8 deals with the fourth principle, viz. where the prohibition on alienation is removed. I may say that I regard this as being a little broader than merely the prohibition on alienation which is perhaps concerned in a trust. We also have in the Roman-Dutch law a prohibition of the alienation of land which is not bound up in a trust. This provision surely refers to that also and I am glad that these restrictions can be removed by this clause.

In regard to the persons who can apply for the removal of restrictions as prescribed in Section 2, I just want the Minister, to consider this, that I wonder whether in addition to the beneficiary he should not perhaps also insert the trustee, who should be enabled to make such an application, because it is the trustee who often has to deal with it—a trustee under a trust and not under a fideicommissum—and who knows whether those restrictions are detrimental, because he is the person who deals with the matter. I wonder whether the trustee should not also be given the right under certain circumstances to be able to make application for the removal of the restrictions to which he is subjected. At the moment only the beneficiary has this right. That is all I have to say.

In reply to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), I must say that I do not agree with two of the contentions he has just put forward. Firstly, and I say this with some hesitation because he is a greater master of the Afrikaans language than I am, he takes objection to the translation of the phrase “beneficial interest” by the phrase “voordelige reg”, and he does so because he says that a beneficial interest is something less than a right. Surely that is wrong. A beneficial interest is certainly a right. It may be less than a right of ownership. It may be a right which has limitations, but it is nevertheless a right, and it seems to me that the only way to translate it, so as to give a proper meaning to it, is to use the term “right”, or “reg” in Afrikaans.

Then why do they not use the word “right” in English?

Because of the common usage in the English language. The English usage, in dealing with the right of someone who benefits under a trust or a fideicommissum, is called a beneficial interest. That is accepted in English usage. So I disagree with the hon. member there.

Then he draws a distinction between the position of the trust and the trustee and a fiduciary under a fideicommissum. I do not think that any such distinction exists, because I have always understood, since about 1958 when this matter was decided in a case from Natal, that the Appellate Division has held that the English notion of a trust, or rather the organization set up which we now call a trust in South African law, is to be administered in the Roman-Dutch law along the principles of a fideicommissum. So although we use the word “trust”, it is interpreted in the law according to the principles of a fideicommissum. So the distinction drawn by the hon. member for Heilbron between a fideicommissum as governed by this Bill and a trust, which is not, does not exist at all.

Now, coming to the merits of the Bill itself, I think we are all agreed that the principle here, a limitation of the entailment of land, is desirable because of what we know has taken place in South Africa. The position will be that under this Bill A can leave his property to B on condition that B leaves it to C and that C leaves .it to D, but there the limitation must end. But I think one should bear in mind that it was this very principle against which we are now legislating which has to a large extent built up the vast estates of the landowners in Europe in bygone generations. Of course, with modern usage and taxation, the effect has been different in modern times. One knows that this Bill deals only with immovable property, i.e. land. It does not touch, as I read it, the case of a man leaving R 1,000,000 in shares with a trustee and tying it up so that the money is held in trust for a number of generations. That case is not covered by this Bill. I am worried about the amendments which the Minister has introduced here, in so far as this Bill differs from. the Bill originally published. My difficulty arises in the form outlined by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). You might have a trust, if I may use that term, in respect of a landed estate, whereby it has already gone through the hands of two beneficiaries and is tied up for two further generations, or beneficiaries.

You might have a case, when this Bill becomes law, of a middle-aged person who is due to inherit as the third generation of beneficiaries under the law as it stands, and if this law goes through that person may not inherit at all. That is to say, the basic holder who under the law as it stands holds merely for his life with an obligation after him to pass the property on to old Mrs. X, who is now a woman of 60. She has so ordered her affairs during her lifetime, knowing that this large legacy would come to her eventually, that she has now very little left, because shortly she will inherit in terms of the trust set up by her great-grandfather. But if we pass the Bill with the amendments in its present form, it will mean that the basic holder of that property, possibly an uncle of old Mrs. X, will get that land in freehold and he will be able to will it to anybody he likes, who may be somebody quite different. So it may be that people have ordered their lives under the existing state of the law on the basis that they would come into an inheritance by virtue of the entailment presently existing on their property, and that we cut it off immediately because it has already gone through the two generations of fideicommissia, and that may well bring about hardship in respect of people who have no control over the matter at all. So I would say to the Minister that whilst the principle of doing away with limitations of this kind or controlling them is something we support, I would ask him to give further consideration to the amendments he has on the Order Paper in this regard. I would ask him to give consideration to reverting to the Bill as it stood . . .

Order! That is irrelevant.

I am about to conclude, by saying whereby he would revert to the situation where even under a trust which has already run for two generations he will still allow it to run for another two generations as from the date of this Bill coming into effect before you chop it off.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I quite agree with him that a good translation for “beneficial interest” is a “voordelige belang”, and the reason is a very simple one if we look at the law itself. A “beneficial interest” is an English legal term used to describe the interest of a beneficiary under a trust, and he has a right, but he has no right to the property; he has a right against the trustee; that is a personal right, which is quite a different thing. We should not, when we have a large number of legal concepts, minimize them by using the wrong terms.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member for Heilbron to make the point. It is a matter for the Committee Stage.

I do not wish to go against your ruling, Sir. I just want to remark that there was more substance in the argument of the hon. member for Heilbron than the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) thought.

Then I want to cross swords with the hon. member for Zululand where he makes the statement that there is no difference between a fideicommissum and a trust. There is a very great difference, and the hon. member will forgive me if I mention some of these differences to him. In a fideicommissum the rights of the fiduciarius and those of the fideicommissarius are not simultaneous, but successive, but the rights of the trustee to the trust property, i.e. the rights of the trustee and of the beneficiary, are simultaneous and not successive, the one after the other. Secondly, the fiduciarius holds a right exclusively for himself. He possesses the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of anybody else. But the trustee, although he is also the owner, never owns it for himself, but always owns it on behalf of somebody else. That is a very great difference. Then the right of a fiduciarius is subject to a resolutive condition, and if the condition is complied with his right ends, whereas the right of a trustee exists in regard to property which is designed for a particular object, which makes a very great difference. Fourthly, as long as the right of the fiduciarius has not ended yet, the fideicommissarius merely has an expectation, a spes, as the hon. member for Heilbron has said, whereas the beneficiary under a trust in fact has a right, because he has that right against the trustee, but not a right to the property. But it is not a right which lies in the future; it exists presently.

Furthermore, the fideicommissum rests on the property which has been left. We have that in wills and also in donations; a fideicommissum is a real encumbrance on the property. If somebody alienates that property, contrary to the provisions of the fideicommissum, the fideicommissarius can recover it because the person who takes it takes it subject to that encumbrance. But when a trustee sells the trust property and it gets into the hands of a holder in good faith who has paid value for it, he has a good title to that trust property and the beneficiary under the trust cannot recover the property; he only has a right to claim damages against the trustee who has broken his trust. I just mention this with reference to the hon. member’s remark that we should also include in this Bill the power of a trustee to apply to put an end to the trust. I will be very sorry if the Minister does that because a trust is a legal figure which in our country is still in its infancy although it has a very long history in England. It is one of the good things we got from our English brethren and which was implanted in our Roman-Dutch law by the courts. This is the only legal system in the world, except for the English common law which could introduce a trust; we could do so because we had people who developed it bit by bit. It may perhaps be strange to the hon. member for Zululand that I plead for a bit of Anglo-Saxon law which has been inserted in our law, but I do so because I think this is a very sound legal figure. I say that there is a great difference between the two and that the Minister should not consider the suggestion of the hon. member for Zululand and in that way perhaps make the development of the trust difficult in our law. I want to add— if this is again something which should be discussed in Committee, Sir, you must forgive me—that if we study the law in regard to trusts we will find that a trustee already has all the powers which the hon. member for Zululand now wants us to insert, except when the settlor prohibits him from doing so. The hon. member for Zululand wanted the Minister to give the power to the trustee also, who considered himself bound by the provisions of the trust, when there have already been a few successive cestuis que trusts, to terminate the trust. If that was not his intention it does not matter.

I want to welcome the Bill, but for quite a different reason. It will put an end to the position that property is not now really collected in the dead hand but due to the change in its destination is inclined to be collected in the dead hand. The fact is that in a young country a possibility exists so to restrict the destination of property that it cannot easily be changed. That is what can be done by the fideicommissum with its strict provision— a very safe but nevertheless strict provision. The economic laws must apply also to immovable property, just as they apply to movable property.

I do not think this is the time to join in the argument in regard to a trust and a fideicommissum. I just want to tell the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) I am glad he made those remarks about the Roman-Dutch law. I cannot, however, agree with him in regard to the use of the word “reg”. If he looks at the 1916 Act he will see that it was used there already in Dutch. I am told by the law advisers that that is the correct word to use. I may also say that this Bill comes from the Law Revision Committee, on which Roman-Dutch lawyers sit. It does not come in the first place from the law advisers, and they saw fit to put it that way. I shall, however, go into the matter for my own satisfaction, as well as into the other matters raised by the hon. member.

To come back to the essence of the Bill, what the hon. member for Zululand said is quite true. If we are to accept this amendment then what he foreshadows may take place. But on the other hand we shall have to decide in this Committee what has most weight. I must honestly admit, after having discussed the matter with members of this House, particularly farmers, that it appears to me that the overwhelming standpoint is that we should put an end to old fideicommissa which have already come to an end, but we dare not lose out of sight what the hon. member for Zululand has mentioned. Therefore I shall be glad if hon. members on both sides Off the House will express their thoughts freely in the Committee Stage, so that we can make sure of doing the right thing. To me at the moment it seems to be the correct thing to follow the amendment, but one would like to discuss thoroughly the merits and demerits before adopting a standpoint, because in fact the rights of people may be affected here.

Has this latest amendment the approval of the Law Revision Committee?

No, this matter was submitted to the Committee and they in fact made the recommendation that there should still be two substitutions, but for the rest they left it open to this House to express its opinion because they felt that there was much to be said for both standpoints, and therefore this amendment appears here, and that is why they originally made the recommendation that it should be treated on an equal basis with new cases. But they are not wedded to the idea as embodied in the original Bill.

I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill and I look forward to discussing it in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Sir, it is not necessary for me to deal with this matter at length. This Bill gives effect to an old promise made by my predecessor and also by myself and that is a development corporation would be established in due course for each of the Bantu homelands in terms of the policy of the Government with a view to the effective economic development of these areas. That is all that is being done here. The Bill, which is not a long one, is perfectly clear, and it follows more or less the same lines as the measures in terms of which the other corporations were established, so it presents no intricate problems.

As I have said, the Government is giving effect by means of this Bill to its policy of making provision for the general development of the Bantu homelands. However, I want to deal for a few moments with the background to this Bill because I think it is necessary for hon. members to know something about it. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that this Bill is really the outcome of a planned process which is being followed In the Republic of South Africa in respect of the development of the Bantu national groups and of their homelands. The two things cannot be divorced; in other words, human development and soil development must go hand in hand as the basis of the whole process. The necessary attention must be given to both these aspects and we have done this in such a way that we have succeeded, in the first place, in gaining the confidence of the Bantu in the whole of this developmental process. I have pointed out on previous occasions that one of the problems with which we have had to struggle is the fact that to a large extent the Bantu have always viewed the Government’s actions with suspicion, not only here but throughout the whole of Africa. We have succeeded, to a greater extent than has been done in any other part of Africa—and I think this is one of our great achievements—in gaining the confidence of the Bantu in South Africa in respect of his developmental process. I say that without any fear of contradiction. There is no other part of Africa where the Bantu are co-operating to the extent that they are co-operating in the Republic in promoting their own development.

There is a very good reason for this. One of the most important reasons is that we have always drawn the Bantu actively into this process of development, with the result that he has felt that his achievements are really due to his own efforts. As a matter of fact, we have gone further. We have often done things in such a way that the Bantu has felt that he himself is doing those things. Sir, that is the best method, the best approach, to achieve success. In addition to that we have rejected in principle the method which is followed in so many other states in Africa, where the attitude is adopted that all the Government has to do really is to act as an almoner, handing out presents to the Bantu and that then the development will follow automatically. That is not what we do. We have insisted not only that the Bantu must co-operate actively but that they themselves must also make financial contributions. I am convinced that therein lies the secret of the success that we have achieved, so much so I want to say here to-day that no other country in Africa has achieved as much success as we have achieved in this country in leading the undeveloped Bantu on the road towards development. I think even hon. members on the other side will agree with that statement when they compare the development which has taken place in recent times in the various states of Africa with the development that has taken place in South Africa. We have made more progress here than any other state in Africa.

But the second reason for our success is that we have systematically inculcated a sense of responsibility in the Bantu. One of the great writers on Africa affairs has emphasized that what is lacking in Africa is a sense of responsibility on the part of its peoples and has predicted that it will take generations to cultivate that sense of responsibility. Sir, I can say here to-day with a great deal of gratitude that we in this country have inculcated in our Bantu a surprisingly high sense of responsibility in comparison with what has been achieved in other states of Africa, and it is because we have followed this method that we have succeeded in doing so. As a result of this we have also created a greater measure of stability than obtains in other parts of Africa.

But I want to advance a further proposition here. The accusation has often been made against us in this country and especially overseas that in following these methods we are leading the Bantu back to primitive conditions. That is by no means the case. We have succeeded by means of our methods in placing the Bantu on the road towards progress, and in achieving this we have not made use of foreign methods. On the contrary, as far as the development of the Bantu is concerned, we have followed the same methods as those followed throughout the world for the successful development of peoples and nations. Sir, it has been proved that that is the only pattern which really produces results. In other words, we have adopted the attitude that the Bantu areas must be developed and that that development must be a diversified development. The emphasis cannot be placed on one aspect of development only. The pattern that we have followed is this: In the first place, of course, we gave our attention to soil reclamation and conservation, the development of agriculture, stock-breeding, etc. Sir, it entailed a great deal of work to bring these areas to the stage of development that they have reached to-day, and now that we have reached that stage we want to go further, but we are faced with one difficulty and that is the fact that no attention was formerly given to urban development in the Bantu areas. We must not forget that there is only a small percentage of people who concentrate on agriculture, that is so in every country of the world. In most cases it is no more than 20 per cent and in certain cases it is even considerably less than 20 per cent. The idea prevailed far too long in South Africa that every Bantu is a farmer, an agriculturist and a stock-breeder, with the result that there was no proper urban development in the Bantu areas. Hon. members must not overlook the fact that urban development is one of the bases of general development, which in the first place presupposes tertiary development, but coupled with tertiary development, of course, there must be secondary development in due course. Sir, that is the pattern that we have followed in connection with the development of the Bantu homelands and that is why we have achieved such a great measure of success. We have succeeded in recent times in building up quite a number of Bantu towns over the length and breadth of the Republic of South Africa. There were certain people who prophesied that these towns would become ghost towns but I want to say here to-day that the same people who made that prophesy are to-day hailing these towns as growth points in the process of developing these areas.

Then I want to mention a second fact and that is the role played by the Bantu Authorities in this development. We were often reproached for having introduced the Bantu Authorities, but in practice this has proved to be one of our successful experiments because not only have the people learned the principles of good government, not only have they learned to build up a public service, but at the same time they have learned that they must not expected to be spoon-fed continually. I think in this respect we have rendered the country a very great service. We have now reached the position where the, Bantu population is ripe for accelerated economic development in the various spheres. Sir, it is against this general background that this Bill must be viewed. The time has come now to give our attention to the intensive development of all the Bantu homelands. Hon. members may want to know from me whether the Bantu Development Corporation is not enough. I want to say here perfectly clearly that the Bantu Development Corporation has so far done brilliant work in South Africa. But we have this interesting phenomenon that more and more the different national units in the Bantu homelands are taking pride in their own homeland and are anxious to co-operate more and more to ensure the development of their homeland. Every national unit would like to have its own development corporation. The Bantu will have their own Bantu development corporations in each of the Bantu homelands in due course but at this stage it is still necessary for the Whites to guide them. The Transkeian Government, for example, established its own Development Corporation last year. We welcomed it. It is our intention to place the necessary knowledge and the necessary skills at the disposal of this corporation and to give it the necessary financial support, and precisely the same process will be followed in due course in the other Bantu homelands. I say again that the Bantu themselves are very proud of their development. We have this phenomenon that as soon as we tackle a developmental project in the area of one national unit, we are immediately approached by the other national units and asked whether they too cannot have the same development and our reply is always, “Yes, provided you co-operate in the same way as the other national unit.” We have now reached a stage where we are getting a great measure of co-operation and a large degree of development in the Bantu areas. Mr. Speaker, I could go on mentioning various examples to demonstrate our approach to this developmental programme which is being carried out with very great success. But there is another important matter and that is by establishing these corporations we are making it possible to tackle a variety of projects immediately in the various areas. It is not my intention to establish development corporations immediately for every national unit; that will be done as and when they are able to cooperate. That day, however, will come much sooner perhaps than most people think. The first corporation, of course, will be established for the Transkei, and as soon as we have a development corporation there we will be able to tackle a variety of projects, and in due course we can then take steps to provide the necessary capital for each national unit. Hon. members may want to know from me why White capital is not being permitted in the Bantu areas. Unfortunately, however, this is a matter of principle as far as we are concerned. This Government adopts the attitude that the land of the Bantu, with all its potentialities, is the inalienable property of the Bantu. We are not prepared to follow the method that is being followed in other Africa countries, and that is to go into the Bantu areas just for the sake of seeing how much we can take out for ourselves without trying to see how much we can plough back in the interests of the Bantu themselves. That is why the first task of this Development Corporation will be to help the Bantu with his development; it will have no rights in these areas; it will be there as a non-profitmaking body to help the Bantu to develop his natural resources, and to take care of the Bantu’s general development. Where profits are made, the Corporation will not appropriate those profits for itself; the money will be ploughed back into the Bantu areas. Sir, experience throughout the world has taught us that that is the sound approach. The Bantu realize to-day that we are being honest and sincere towards them. We have often said that what we demand for ourselves in our own areas we are prepared to concede to the Bantu in their areas, and we can prove that no better than in the economic sphere. It so happens that some time ago there was a report in the Cape Argus to the effect that I had departed from Government policy in that I was allowing White capital to be used in the Bantu areas because it is alleged in this article that Whites, if they wish to do so, may invest their capital in this development corporation. Sir, what is stated in that article is not correct. There is only one body which will have shares in the Corporation and that is the Native Trust, of course. White money may be borrowed, however. I know that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is anxious to create the impression that he has very great sympathy with the Bantu; I think he would very much like to invest money in this Corporation. Here an opportunity is now being afforded to people like the hon. member for Hospital to invest their money! The establishment of this Development Corporation represents no departure from Government policy. Sir, this very same section is contained word for word in the Bantu Development Corporation Act which this House passed four or five years ago.

How much White money did the other corporations get?

Order! That question is not in order.

I want to make it perfectly clear that the Whites are being given no share in this Corporation. The Corporation may, of course, decide to appoint an agent to undertake the development in the Bantu areas. I have in mind the development of mining, for instance. The Development Corporation can always employ an agent to develop a particular mine for it, but it will have to be done in accordance with our rules and principles.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? I want to know whether the directors and alternate directors of these companies will be Whites or Bantu or both.

Our policy in this connection has always been perfectly clear. We do not believe in mixed boards. The directors of this corporation will all be Whites, but at the same time we also believe that we must help the Bantu to develop their own corporations. This corporation will give them the necessary guidance. In the first place the corporation will help them with money and, in the second place, with knowledge and technical skill, etc. They will be assisted in all these directions until they themselves are able in due course to take over the whole thing and will no longer need the assistance of the White man. We have precisely the same position at our Bantu universities. The pattern which is being followed there is the same as the pattern which is being followed here. Sir, that is the only sound policy because, as soon as one starts throwing the races together, it leads to string-pulling and difficulties.

The hon. the Minister has said that an agent may be appointed to undertake developmental work on behalf of the corporation. May I ask whether the same principle will apply, and that is that such an agent will not be able to retain the profits for himself, but will have to hand it over to the corporation?

We are not going to allow such an agent to keep all the profits for himself. We already have a few agents working there, and they have to pay over to the Bantu a considerable portion of their profits. It is a question of mutual arrangements; we always consult the Bantu. The agents are allowed a reasonable return on their capital, but they are not allowed to pocket all the profits. This is a matter of principle as far as we are concerned.

I want to deal briefly now with the provisions of the Bill. There are the usual provisions in regard to the appointment of a board of directors and their liability for loss or damage, etc. In this connection I refer hon. members to Clauses 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Then there are the usual provisions in connection with financial matters such as the safeguarding of investments (Clause 7), expenditure (Clause 17), accounts and audit (Clause 19), information which has to be furnished to the Minister and to Parliament (Clause 20) and the power to make regulations (Clause 22). I want to deal just briefly with the following important provisions: A development corporation may be established in respect of the Bantu homeland of each national unit. Ultimately, therefore, eight such corporations may be established. As hon. members know, there are the North-Sothos, the South-Sothos, the Swazis, the Tsongas, the Tswanas, the Vendas, the Xhosas and the Zulus. But, as I have said, it is not my intention to establish those corporations simultaneously. They will be established as it becomes necessary from time to time. Our ideal is to allow the Bantu areas to develop as rapidly as possible within the limits of the absorptive capacity of the Bantu, particularly where we have their cooperation.

In Clause 6 the general powers of the corporations are laid down. Hon. members will notice that they have fairly wide powers. We are allowing them a fairly free hand to develop these areas. Furthermore, the corporations have the power to establish industrial and financial undertakings, to provide capital or other means to the Bantu, to help Bantu enterprise to establish such undertakings, and to transfer such undertakings from outside the homelands to the homelands. Proper provision is made to ensure that there will be no overlapping with the activities of the Bantu Investment Corporation. Hon. members will notice that the amount of the share capital of the corporations is not mentioned in the Bill. The amount in respect of each corporation will be determined according to the particular needs of each corporation. In the case of the Transkeian corporation it has been decided to invest R 1,000,000 in that corporation immediately. We must bear in mind that the territory of virtually every national unit differs from that of every other national unit. Hon. members will be surprised to know, for example, how much the territory of the Transkei differs from that of the Tswana, and how the territory of the Tswana differs from that of the Venda. Each particular homeland has its own particular problems; it has its own particular population groups with its own practices and customs and its own method of approach. It is obvious that some of these corporations may require more assistance than others. We should like to see the development in the Bantu homelands taking place on an equal basis so that one national unit will not feel aggrieved when benefits are granted to another. The eventual establishment of a development corporation for each homeland is therefore a logical step which will have to be taken in due course.

Mr. Speaker, I conscientiously believe that there are very large potentialities in the Bantu homelands, and where it is the task of the Bantu Investment Corporation to pay particular attention to the development of trade and industry, it will be the task of these development corporations to pay particular attention to research work in connection with the potentialities of those territories; in other words, to apply all their energies to the development of those territories. Sir, I say that there are great possibilities in the Bantu homelands. There are greater possibilities in the field of mining than people realize. In one of the territories, for example, phosphate deposits which are possibly among the richest in South Africa were recently discovered. I do not want to say any more about that at this stage. Similarly there are good signs of mining possibilities in other territories as well. At the moment I am in touch with a person who, in this field, is considered to be an expert on nickel deposits in the Transkei. Once that corporation has been established, we shall get into touch with this person again. He is very optimistic that, with the necessary financial support, the nickel deposits in the Transkei could be fully discovered and exploited. That is the type of work which these corporations can tackle immediately. In the same way the forestry industry is being developed in the Bantu territories to-day. I just want to mention here that in 1963 the forestry industry in the Bantu territories already brought in an amount of more than R 16,000,000.

In conclusion, I just want to express these few thoughts: I know that in many quarters I have been criticized because we are not making much more rapid progress with this development process in the Bantu territories. We have even been criticized on that account by persons in our own ranks. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that one can only go ahead as fast as the Bantu are prepared to do. and no faster. People who ignore that fact do not know what they are talking about. In other African states we have had evidence of how development works were established at a cost of millions before the people were ripe for it, with the result that those development works simply came to be neglected after the colonial powers had left. It was simply a waste of the taxpayers’ money. In South Africa we can to-day point to a dynamic process of development which has taken place in every field. There are no cases where our development works have collapsed. In many cases it is no longer the White man who is carrying out the development work and taking the lead; the development work is being carried out by the Bantu themselves. That is proof of the dynamic and sound character of our policy. I want to say at once that, unfortunately, we still have a few cases where certain people are refusing to co-operate. They are doing so because they have been misled by Whites, by persons who are more interested in creating chaotic conditions than in developing the Bantu territories. We still have a few such cases, but on the whole I am once again in a position to say here to-day that the development in the Bantu areas during the past few years has been phenomenal. As a dynamic process, it has gone from strength to strength. It is a process in which the Bantu are exerting themselves more and more. Hon. members should go and take a look at what has already been done in the field of forestry, in the field of agriculture, in the field of soil conservation and soil improvement, and in connection with the building of roads. As far as the construction of roads in the Bantu areas is concerned, I may tell hon. members that we have probably saved the State hundreds of thousands of rand, perhaps more than R 1,000,000, as a result of the fact that the Bantu are today co-operating in building their roads themselves. Consequently, we have more or less reached the stage of development in the homelands where we think that it is in the interests of the Bantu homelands to establish a development corporation for each of the separate Bantu homelands. I know that there are many hon. members on the other side who have often said that they are also in earnest as far as the development of the Bantu areas is concerned; I have in mind, for example, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He has said that he would very much like to co-operate in this connection. Here is now an opportunity to cooperate. I am convinced that from now on the rate of development can be accelerated without there being any danger of collapse, and that the development can be placed on a stable basis, but for that purpose it is necessary that these development corporations should be established. Lastly, I want to give hon. members the assurance that the persons who will serve on these corporations will be experts in their own particular fields. We have the necessary brain-power for that in South Africa. I have no hesitation in moving the second reading of this Bill. I am convinced that it is in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of the Bantu; it is in the interests of our entire economic structure in South Africa, and I hope that this Bill will be supported, and that it will bear fruit for South Africa.

The Minister has made a very interesting second reading speech. He has pointed out that this measure that we have before us now is one further step in carrying out the Government’s ideological policy of separate development, and that it is a measure too which will contribute towards the development of the separate economies of the different population groups of the country. Sir, we have opposed measures of this nature in the past. We opposed the establishment of the Bantu Investment Corporation and we also opposed the establishment of the Coloured Investment Corporation. We opposed them on the ground that in our opinion matters of this nature should be undertaken by national bodies. We have at the moment the Industrial Development Corporation which we feel should work for everybody, not only for one section of the population. We feel that the services of the I.D.C. should be rendered to all groups and that it should seek to promote the interests of the country as a whole, not merely the interests of different groups in different sections of the country. However, the pattern has been accepted by the House that there will be the separate financial and other development corporations for the different groups. We feel that the position with regard to the Reserves especially is so desperate that we must support any step taken by the Government with a view to developing these areas. The Minister has appealed to our Leader in this connection. He says that he hopes that we will support the Bill because we have said that we stand for the development of the Reserves. That is quite true. We have always contended that the Reserves must be developed, and we have attacked this Government for not doing enough to develop the Reserves. Sir, we live on promises from this Government, just as the people in the Transkei have lived on promises ever since this Government came into power, as to what was going to be done for them. I do not want to go into that question now because I can deal with it on another occasion. But this Government dilly-dallies, makes promises and does nothing. I would like to remind the Minister that when the Bantu Investment Corporation Bill was introduced he said the following—

The hon. the Deputy Minister said—

I want to ask him what dynamic development has taken place? Recently the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) asked him a question as to what had happened in the Transkei in regard to the development there from the year 1948 to the end of 1964. The Minister in reply said that existing industries had been taken over and I think that three new industries had been established. Most of the industries taken over were timber concerns. Even with the industries that were taken over, employment was only providede to 1,089 additional Bantu from 1948 to the end of 1964!

As far as the Transkei is concerned there is one new industry. The initial stages have been prepared; it is a deboning and cooling factory to be established at Umtata and it is hoped to employ between 200 and 300 Africans. With all this talk about the Bantu having to be encouraged to help themselves and the development that has taken place there all the Minister’s own figures can show of the number of additional Africans employed in the Transkei through the efforts of this Government in taking over existing industries and establishing new ones is 1.089. The Minister has told us that the development amongst the Africans in South Africa is greater than that which has taken place in any other part in Africa. The Minister does not give us any justification for that; he just makes the statement. I have reason to believe that that is not quite correct but I hope somebody else will deal with that aspect. I did not think the Minister was going to make a statement of that nature. I can hardly believe it is true when I think of the development which has taken place in South Africa.

The Minister has said the Bantu must make their own financial contributions and that the Government must not hand out alms. I say that unless the Government makes the money available to the Bantu they cannot develop any industries on their own. When one considers what development must take place, what they have managed to do on their own, without getting any financial assistance from the Government, is negligible. The Minister has said that White people will be encouraged to lend money to these corporations which can now be formed. I would like to know how much money White people lent to the Investment Corporation. I don’t know whether they were very successful in getting White capital but I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister can tell us.

I would remind the hon. the Minister that he was a member of the Tomlinson Commission and that he signed the report. Where he now encourages the Bantu to develop amongst themselves and where he wishes to discourage White capital from playing a part in the reserves I would remind the Minister that, as a member of the Tomlinson Commission, he found that it was very necessary and essential for White entrepreneurs to play their part in the development of the reserves. I would also like to remind him that the commission recommended that R208 million (£104 million) should be spent in the first ten years in developing the Reserves and of that amount they set aside between £25 million and £30 million for industrial development. That recommendation was made many years ago by this Minister and what has been spent? Because we despair of anything useful being done we are prepared to support any measure the Government introduces which we hope will bring about some development.

I cannot understand why we have to have these Bantu development corporations when we already have the Bantu Investment Corporation. The Minister said we might ask why? The reason he gave was that the Bantu were so proud of their homelands that they did not want other national bodies investing money in them; that was how proud each one was of his own homeland! The Minister also assures us that experts will serve on the boards of these corporations. Where are all these experts to come from? We have the Industrial Development Corporation which should, after all, look after the whole country. That body should have all the experts working for it. We have the Bantu Investment Corporation which also have experts. The Minister assured us that experts would also serve on this Corporation. Then we have the Coloured Development Corporation with its experts. Where are all these experts going to come from? Surely it is much better for one body alone to interest itself in the development of the whole country and that body should use experts of the best.

To show how dilatory this Government is I want to refer the Minister to a reply given by the Minister of Mines to a question asked on 4 June. He was asked whether the report on the mineral resources in and near the Bantu areas of the Republic had been prepared by the Geological Survey Division of the Department. The Secretary of the Department said the report was made in 1960 and submitted to the Minister. What has happened about that report? I also want to know from the Minister what has been done about the water resources of the different Reserves? In 1947 the Secretary for Irrigation recommended that a survey should be carried out. Several times after that the question was raised in this House as to what had been done.

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far.

The point I am making is this that we keep on getting measures of this nature which provide for this type of thing. . . .

The hon. member may mention these things in passing but he cannot go into too much detail.

What I am trying to point out, Sir, is this—I shall not go into detail about those reports—that in terms of this Bill the task of this corporation will be to determine the nature and extent of the natural resources which, in addition to the ordinary meaning thereof, shall include labour, land, minerals, metals, precious stones, water, wood, agriculture, fishing and sea products, methods of transport and communication and methods for the development of power. When we look at the objects of the Bantu Investment Corporation we find that they are something similar. Its object is to provide the capital means, technical and other assistance in furnishing expert and specialized advice, information and guidance. All these different bodies which we are bringing into being have these powers but nothing is being done. My complaint is that all the Minister does is to pass legislation.

The Minister has said that the Transkeian Government made provision last year for its own Corporation. If they have their own Corporation why must there be another Corporation? In introducing this legislation the Minister said the first homeland that would get a corporation would be the Transkei. I don’t know how many corporations are going to operate in the Transkei. The Minister has told us something very interesting. In dealing with the tasks of this body he has said that it will be able to appoint agents and that those agents can be White. This is obviously a method the Minister has thought of of again changing the policy of the Government. They have realized that without White capital and White entrepreneurs there can be no development in the Reserves. That has been the point we have made continually. So the Minister is now making provision for allowing White entrepreneurs in for the simple reason that he has now realized that he was quite right when he put it in the report of the Tomlinson Commission that there should be White capital and White entrepreneurs. This Bill justifies the attitude he adopted then and it proves that the Prime Minister was wrong.

Under his vote at an earlier stage I asked the Minister whether there was going to be any new development in the Transkei, whether the Government was changing its policy in regard to White capital and White entrepreneurs. I mentioned specifically the case of Volkskas. The Minister did not answer me. I asked him to let us know if White capital and White entrepreneurs were going to be encouraged to go into the Transkei so that everybody would know about it and not only a few. I pointed out that Volkskas had bought two properties in Umtata and that they were going to erect a seven-storey building. We wondered what Volkskas was going to do in Umtata. It is quite clear now, from what the Minister has said, that some encouragement must already have been given to some White concerns to go into the Transkei. We would like to know who they are and what is planned.

The Minister has referred to the nickel mines. I take it he was referring to the one near Mount Ayliff. I do not know what other nickel there is. He said he was already busy with an expert who had great hopes and confidence of finding nickel in payable quantities. I hope the Minister will tell us in his reply how this Government sets about in giving out these contracts or in getting entrepreneurs interested in the Transkei. Is it generally known amongst White capitalists that they can also now take a hand in the development of the reserves? The Minister says they will act as agents, that they will put up the money, that they will get a return on their money as interest and also a share of the profits. Is that going to be on the same basis on which the United Party Government encouraged the Good Hope Textile Industry to start near King William’s Town, where they gave them a 99-year lease—the English company put up half of the capital and the I.D.C. the balance? Is that the sort of thing which is being considered when the Minister says that White industrialists will be encouraged to go there as agents? How does he intend encouraging them? What facilities is he going to give them? What rights is he going to give them? How is he going to protect their capital? After all, Sir, we must remember this: that the Prime Minister once warned White capitalists not to put money into the reserves and into the protectorates because, he said, if they were ever nationalized by the Native governments he would not protect the Whites concerned. I want to know how the Minister intends protecting any White capital that does go into the Transkei, for instance. Has he made any arrangements with the Transkeian Government as to what is to happen? Is land to be given on long lease?

In the Transkei you have White villages at the moment where White capital can put up their own industries, but there is no encouragement to do that, of course, because of the danger that they may be zoned Black. We are told that all the villages must eventually become Black. Of course, once they are zoned Black, they become Native reserves. It is interesting to note that the field of operation of a corporation shall be confined to the Bantu homeland in respect of which it has been established and to the Bantu persons belonging to the national unit concerned and to industrial business and financial undertakings of such Bantu persons in their said homelands. It specifically refers to Bantu persons within their own homelands. That is Clause 3 (1). Sub-section (2), however, reads—

Apparently the corporation is going to be allowed to decide whether an undertaking is a Bantu undertaking or not. And in terms of Clause 3 (1) it should be in a Bantu homeland. Clause 6 (3), however, reads—

The definition of an urban area in that Act is the following—

It cannot be any urban area, but only an urban area “which is surrounded or adjoins the Bantu homeland for which such corporation has been established, in all respects as if such urban area falls within the boundaries of the said homeland”. It means therefore that this corporation should only interest itself in the Bantu homeland, but Clause 6 (3) allows the corporation to treat any urban area as a homeland provided that urban area adjoins or is surrounded by a Native area. We can understand this being applied to the Transkei, where all the villages are surrounded by Native areas. There is a place like Port St. John’s, which is not completely surrounded, but it adjoins a Native area. There are certain places in the Ciskei, too, which can fall within this description. But I want to know from the Minister whether it is intended to give this corporation power to establish industries in urban areas outside the Ciskei and the Transkei? I think of urban areas, which adjoin a Bantu homeland, which could be covered by this clause, such as Rustenburg.

Rosslyn.

No, I do not think Rosslyn adjoins a Native area. I am not certain though. I want the Minister to tell us whether any other towns can be affected? King William’s Town falls in the Ciskei; I have already referred to that. That is important. We want to know why the area of operation has been defined in this way. Is it the intention to establish industries in White areas or is it only meant for the Transkei? If it is only meant for the Transkei, why is the Transkei not specifically mentioned, instead of this general definition which covers the whole country. I shall be pleased if the hon. Minister would explain in his reply exactly why this clause has been worded as it has been.

The Minister has eulogized the efforts of the Bantu, as I have said. He has spoken about the wonderful progress which has been made. He is very optimistic. We have become used to these sentiments being expressed by the Minister. Every time he mentions development, he talks in this manner when his own figures show that nothing has in fact been done. What has been done is negligible when one considers what is necessary to be done. But we will support this measure because we feel that development must take place. If we can give the Government any encouragement, we will do so. We will not stand in the way of the Government as far as the development of the reserves is concerned. We want to make that clear. We would prefer to see a body like the I.D.C. play its full part in the development of the reserves with the assistance of White capital and White initiative, but if we are not allowed to do that, Sir, we must take the next best thing, namely, the measure which is now proposed by the Minister. All I want to say to the hon. the Minister is this: We did have some hope that the Investment Corporation would do big things, that it would carry out the optimistic hopes of the Minister when that Bill was passed. That has not happened. Let us hope that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will have a better future and fulfil higher hopes than did the Bantu Investment Corporation Bill.

We are making progress in this House and also in the country because we have now got so far as to get the United Party to support this measure. It is not an unconditional support; it is the sort of support one gets from a woman who says. Yes, but still. I now want to reply to this “Yes, but still” argument of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes). He asked why this legislation was necessary seeing that we have the Bantu Investment Corporation. That corporation was established in 1959, about six years ago. During that time experience has taught us that the Bantu Invesment Corporation mainly operates in the sphere of financing. In fact, the Bantu Investment Corporation has its counterpart in the White economy in the form of the National Finance Corporation. Just as in the White economy we have the National Finance Corporation and in addition the Industrial Development Corporation, we have learnt during the past six years that the Bantu Investment Corporation holds itself aloof and operates more in the financial sphere. It has proved an excellent means of mobilizing the capital of the Bantu and to make the necessary advances particularly for the tertiary activities, like commerce. The B.I.C. has already attracted numerous Bantu to commerce. Experience has shown that where the B.I.C. acts as the financing organization it finds it impossible also to act as an entrepreneur for secondary industries. It is really to fill this gap that the present measure is being proposed. The B.I.C. fully associates itself with this measure. In fact, the Bantu Investment Corporation gave many useful suggestions when this Bill was drafted. It is because they themselves also felt the lack, viz. that they could not participate actively in the development of industries, but move more in the financial sphere, that they welcomed this measure. There is in fact no idea of a duplication of the activities of the B.I.C. by the corporations which will be established in terms of this Bill, just as little as there is duplication between the activities of the Finance Corporation on the one hand and the I.D.C. on the other in the White economy.

With reference to the “Yes, but still” arguments of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, I want to deal with a few of the basic principles of this measure, because that in fact emphasizes the difference in approach between the United Party and ourselves in regard to the whole Coloured question in South Africa. The United Party regards the population groups of South Africa as all belonging to one nation and one State—one multi-racial people and one multi-racial State. That is the standpoint of the United Party. Hence the fact that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories again asked this afternoon: What is wrong with the National Finance Corporation; why cannot it act for the whole country, and why cannot the I.D.C. act for the whole country? He asks that because their standpoint is that of one multiracial people in South Africa. As against that, the approach of the National Party is that South Africa does not consist of one nation but of many and that every one of these nations is entitled, within the borders of Southern Africa, to its own homeland, its own state. Consequently every homeland must be developed for its own particular population group. Because that is the approach of the Government and of the National Party, this measure provides for the establishment of a development corporation for every Bantu nation in its own homeland. Here I also want to point out that the approach of the National Party is not a racial one, but really a national approach. If it had been a racial approach, we would only have distinguished between a White race and a Black race, but that is not our approach. Our standpoint is that we distinguish between nations—a White nation and different Black nations in South Africa. Our approach is that we should give the Xhosas in their homeland a development corporation; one for the Venda in Vendaland and so also for the Tswanas in the Tswana homeland, and one for the homelands of the North and South Sothos. On the principle that there must be an I.D.C. for the White homeland, there must be an industrial development corporation for every Black group in its own homeland.

The United Party does not grant this separate development to every nation in South Africa in its own homeland. They want to eliminate the existence of separate nations in South Africa and make them all equal. The United Party wants to take them up in a single economy in a single South Africa. But the hon. member for Transkeian Territories supports this Bill to-day. The excuse he advances is that they welcome any sort of development as long as it is development, even the development in terms of our own policy of separate development. I also want to express the opinion that the nearer the United Party gets to the election, the more they will favour the policy of separate development.

Yes, but that is not relevant now.

Very well, Sir. The second principle with which we are dealing in this Bill is the basic one that White private intiative and capital should not be utilized in the Bantu homelands. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories had quite a lot to say about that. Our standpoint is that the natural resources of the Bantu homelands should be developed and used for building up the particular Bantu nation in that homeland. As soon as White initiative is allowed there, as soon as White capital is pumped in there, the natural resources and raw materials will again be used for the benefit of the White entrepreneur and that will be nothing else than a new type of economic colonialism to which the under-developed nations in Africa object. White initiative and private capital in the Bantu homelands will result in the first place in White spots, by which we understand the settlement of Whites in the Bantu area, spots which will become increasingly larger and will eventually result in the whole of the Bantu homeland being owned by Whites with plenty of capital. It will mean the elimination of the existence of the Bantu homeland. If Whites, e.g., are to develop the minerals in the Bantu homelands, they will have to obtain the mineral rights; then they will get the surface rights for mining activities. When once they have obtained surface rights it will go further and further. Then the Whites will also get surface rights for housing and other purposes. In that way private White capital will swallow the whole of the Bantu homelands. Where would there still have been Bantu homelands in South Africa if we had allowed White capital to buy land in those homelands? Because if White capital were allowed to buy land in the homelands, we would not have had any more Bantu areas in South Africa now.

Who recommended that?

It makes no difference who recommended it. It may have been our forefathers, even the forefathers of the United Party who had more intelligence than the present members of the United Party. Again I want to emphasize the diffence in approach between the United Party and this party. The United Party sees the Bantu homelands as a field of development for White capital. Hence its insistence that private initiative and capital should be allowed there. The Bantu homelands are in the opinion of the United Party only areas where their capitalists, for whom the United Party has always been the mouthpiece, can make profits. The National Party sees the homelands as a field of development for the particular Bantu nations for whom those homelands have to be developed. Every homeland must be an area from which only the people whose homeland it is will profit.

In this regard I also want to mention the argument in regard to agency. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said he wanted more information on the question as to whether we would allow White agencies there and what that would really mean. Sir, an agent is surely never an owner; he is never a principal. The masters who are there will be his masters. He is the agent there, the worker; he acts on behalf of his principal. And who is the principal in this case? The Bantu Development Corporation, in other words, the Bantu Development Corporation of the particular population group living in that homeland. Therefore the principal is the Bantu and the agent is the White entrepreneur. The White entrepreneur can only deal with everything he does and gets as a paid agent and the profits belong to the Bantu Investment Corporation, i.e. to the Bantu themselves. There is no idea that this agent should be able to develop the natural resources for himself. He does not operate there to make profits for himself; he does so so that it will go to the Bantu through the Corporation. It is very clear that when we talk about agency, then the hon. member cannot put the questions he asked, through which he pretends that the agent is also the owner and the principal and that the development he does is for his own benefit.

I want to emphasize another difference between the United Party and the National Party in regard to private initiative in the Bantu areas. It is alleged that we want to exclude all private initiative and private capital by this legislation. That is not so. We do not want to exclude all private initiative and capital. All we exclude is private White capital and private White initiative. By means of this Bill we particularly want to stimulate private initiative and capital, but it should be Bantu private initiative and Bantu private capital, so that we can have in the Bantu areas the development we get in the White areas. The I.D.C. stimulated White initiative and private capital in the White area and now we say that this development corporation will stimulate Bantu private initiative and capital in the homelands.

A third basic principle of this Bill which also emphasizes the difference between the United Party and the National Party is that the measure will set in motion industrial and mining activity in the Bantu areas. The United Party now says that they support this measure because they will support anything which stimulates development. I want to emphasize that when the United Party envisages development in the Bantu areas, they envisage nothing else than land betterment; they just want there to be agricultural development, and that the Bantu areas should be stabilized agriculturally. If there is to be any development in the Bantu areas, it must, according to the United Party, be White development because they regard those areas as places where profits can be made, and if they cannot develop them in that way they want to keep the Bantu areas as nothing else but labour reservoirs for their big capitalists, viz. in mining and industry. The National Party, however, wants development of the Bantu areas in every sphere, economically, agriculturally, commercially and industrially and also in regard to mining. I want to say that this measure will particularly benefit mining in those areas.

I cannot but welcome this Bill because I believe it is another great step forward once again to emphasize that we believe in the development of separate nations in South Africa and that every separate nation has its own homeland which should be developed as an asset for the particular population group whose homeland it is.

I will come back presently to one or two of the points raised by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), but first I would like to deal with the second-reading speech of the hon. Minister this afternoon, and particularly a reply to a question by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) who asked “Why do you depart from the Bantu Development Corporation idea?” We have got an Act on the Statute Book, the Bantu Investment Corporation Act: Why now with all the powers in the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, do we now come with a Bill of this character which obviously envisages the same number of development corporations as there will be finally established homelands? Because a development corporation as envisaged by this Bill can only operate in one homeland, the homeland for the particular Bantu group for which that homeland has been devised; it cannot go outside that homeland. So if there are eight Bantu homelands and they are all to be developed adequately, then each will require a development corporation. Then why leave the principle that has already been established in the Bantu Investment Corporation Act and establish eight corporations under this Bill? If the hon. Minister is right in the reply that he gave to the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, that the Bantu don’t want to have anything to do with the Investment Corporation ...

I did not say that.

I accept that, perhaps that is not quite fair to the Minister. I think the Minister put it this way that the Bantu say “No, they don’t want to have that as their method of development, they each want to have their own development corporation in their own homeland”, and the investment corporation in terms of the existing Act, was of general application right throughout the Republic in regard to the Bantu homelands, and that they do not want. They want to have their own. If that is so. why then do we keep the Bantu Investment Corporation at all? It is quite clear that unless the hon. the Minister and the Government are going to be accused of differentiating between one homeland and another, and you start the development of this corporation in regard to the Transkei, then every Bantu homeland that is going to be established, will want a development corporation, but it need not be a Bantu homeland developed to the extent of the Transkei, before a development corporation is established. Therefore my first point is that I want to ask the hon. Minister: Does he contemplate that? You see, Sir, a “homeland” is defined and it means “the portions of the Bantu areas occupied by a national unit”. Now there may be seven or eight areas.

This area is not government land.

No, we are talking about a piece of land, an area. It is a Bantu homeland “if there are pieces of land occupied by a national unit”. It might for instance be a Zulu national unit. If they are occupying eight, nine or 12 pieces of land, which are for the purpose of this Act Bantu areas and therefore presumably scheduled Bantu areas, that is a Bantu homeland. In other words, I make the point that this does not make it necessary to have a territorial authority constituted before such a development corporation can be established. It can be established before a territorial authority has been established. That being so, why keep the Bantu Investment Corporation when the Bantu have clearly indicated that each area wants a development corporation of its own?

I want next to deal for a moment with subsection (3) of Clause 6, that is the right of the Corporation as defined in this Bill to operate in an urban area which is surrounded or adjoins the Bantu homeland for which such corporation has been established. I repeat: A corporation for this purpose can be established only for one Bantu homeland under this Bill, and it is expressly forbidden to go outside that homeland. It cannot operate outside the boundaries of that Bantu homeland. I want to come to that point presently, but that is the position here. But 6 (3) breaches that principle by allowing a Bantu Corporation to occupy in an urban area, which for the purpose of discussion here we may say could well be an European urban area, because it is as defined in the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945. Those are municipal areas or areas under municipal or local government, as the old law had it. Now while the Minister then says that this Bill is really to start a corporation going in the Transkei, I have just pointed out that there is nothing whatever to prevent further corporations being established in respect of units, that is, as the Bill has it here, national Bantu units in respect of those areas where there has not yet been a territorial authority established, and then 6 (3) takes on a totally different significance, Mr. Speaker, because 6 (3) can now apply to European areas dotted throughout the length and breadth of the Republic, which may or may not hereafter be associated with a national unit of the Bantu people. As long as it becomes a Bantu homeland, it comes under 6 (3), and a Bantu homeland has only got to be contiguous to it for the corporation in that national unit to be able to operate in that European area. This is not a question of two or three towns in the Transkei or the Ciskei, or whatever the case may be, but it will apply in regard to all future Bantu corporations such as are contemplated here in any future Bantu homeland, which the Minister may claim is the home of a national unit, notwithstanding that there is no territorial authority yet established. So I say that if this was really intended to limit the activities of the Corporations in respect of the Transkei or Ciskei for instance and nowhere else, then it seems to me that that should have been specifically specified, because now the whole of the Republic is open to development of this kind, the development of Bantu development corporations in European areas—not in respect of the Transkei, but in respect of those homelands which are to be proclaimed in future. It seems to me that on that point alone, the Minister should have published such a Bill 12 months in advance so that all the people who are interested, and there are going to be extremely big interests which will be affected by the provisions of this Bill, as the developments start to take place and folks see precisely how a development corporation such as contemplated here starts to carry on with its work, so that all those people who are interested would have had 12 months’ notice. Everybody should have been given a chance. I say that the people of South Africa are completely unaware of the far-reaching effects of a Bill of this kind so far as the economy of South Africa is concerned.

Now I want to come to that question of the economy of South Africa. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories said that this is now a tendency which we have warned the Government against in the past, not only to split up the country in so far as the racial groups are concerned, but to split up our economy. We on this side of the House have upheld the cardinal principle all through the years that South Africa has got one economy. There is one economic law. or there should be, one central economic law and one central economy, and we are opposed to any splitting up of our economy, and the first step towards a diversification and a breaking down of a central economy and the setting up of other economies which may tend to go further and further afield until we find ourselves with different economies all here within the Republic, is something that we view with considerable alarm. In that regard I want to say that the means which are being adopted here for the establishment of these development corporations are fine so far as they go, but it is clear from the provisions of the Bill itself, in Clause 5 (1) (j), where it says that the tasks to be performed by a corporation in respect of the Bantu homeland for which it as been established shall include the following—

1. (i) to plan, encourage, co-ordinate or undertake the training of Bantu persons as employees, officers, managers or directors in the industrial, business and financial field. . . .

What, is wrong with that?

There is nothing wrong with that if that was participation in the economy of South Africa and if that were clear. But that is precisely what we fear. The hon. Minister said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories: To start with the whole of the corporation will be White, the directors and so forth, all White. I think he said “we don’t want a ‘bontspan’ here”, but the time will come when all the staff of the corporation, including the management and the directorship will be handed over to Bantu persons.

Do you object to that?

We can have no objection to that either provided it is within the four corners of the economy of South Africa. But that is precisely what it is not. Let us look firstly for example at Clause 23—

Is there any such provision so far as the White economy of South Africa is concerned? The moment you bring provisions like that into a Bill to protect a particular kind of economic development, you are starting to change and you get awaw from the one economic law. I am not going to pursue that point, I make it, I emphasize it. The moment you do that, you are getting away from one economic law. How many companies in South Africa are dealt with in terms of this extraordinary provisions? I do not find a counterpart to it anywhere in our legislation. Let us look at the next one, Clause 25—

Again there are the laws of Parliament since 1913, which have got their universal application and their basis is a strong economic basis, apart from any other aspect. A strong economic basis is behind the Land Act of 1913, because one of the arguments was that you must not put the Bantu in a position where he is able to fritter away his birthright and allow other people to come in and take over their land, and so their land was protected under the Land Laws. It was reserved for them, to prevent them being in a position where they would be fraudulently bereft of it. Here comes a Bill which says that for the purpose of these development corporations, that law need not apply. I hope the hon the Minister is going to be frank with us and tell us in regard to both Clauses 23 and 25 why it is necessary to put these provisions in. What is he visualizing in regard to Clause 25 for instance that the provisions of the Bantu Land Act shall not apply to the corporations? What are the conditions under which corporations can find it necessary to do actions which had the Act applied would have been prohibited? Why should they now be able to carry on with impunity because the Act is no longer to apply to them? What are those actions, what are those activities in which they can engage and where they could come into conflict with the Land Act? I go back and say this that if there was a general law, one economic law and one economy, then we could simply accept this without any misgivings and say: this is the development of Bantu areas which we always stood for and we have got no misgivings. But that is not the position. We will have to do this with considerable misgiving as time goes on, and indeed until it comes into operation, it will be very hard for us on this side of the House to forsee exactly how it is going to work out. You see, Sir, the hon. Minister now, as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories pointed out has accepted the position that White capital can be used to develop the Bantu areas. He has gone further in this Bill, and he has provided, and he has stated in his speech just now, that the Corporation can use an agent to carry on business for them. Now the agent, presumably, will enjoy all the privileges which are provided for in this Bill, and indeed there is specific provision for the Minister to limit those privileges, or to allow them all. So an agent can get his fair interest on capital invested, or whatever it may be, and then any profit in excess of what the Minister may deem to be his rake-off, goes to the Bantu unit concerned. I want to ask the hon Minister: If he takes White capital for that purpose, is he prepared to accept capital from any other racial group? Will he take it also from Coloured people and from Asiatics? Will he allow an Asiatic to be appointed as manager to carry on business in this fashion instead of and in place of the Corporation? If there is to be no discrimination and if we go into this wholeheartedly on the ground that we all trust one another and it is all above board, and we don’t want to hide anything under the table, and where the Government has now come and said that they are prepared to accept White capital and even a White agent to act for the Corporation in respect of certain businesses, if there is no discrimination on the ground of colour or race, will he then accept an Asiatic investment and an Asiatic agent to represent the corporation? Or a Coloured?

Or a Japanese?

May be a Japanese. There are the various racial groups. I do not want to enumerate them all. My point is: Is the Minister in practice going to limit it to one racial group and one only, or is he prepared to go the whole hog as his speech seemed to indicate?

A point that I want to deal with for a moment is that in my study of this Bill I have not seen where the protection of kindred businesses, industries, and so forth, is provided for. You see, Sir, in our economy in South Africa, through quite a lengthy period, because of the necessities of the situation from time to time in South Africa, Parliament has been called upon and, indeed, has passed legislation providing for the fixation of wages, by wage determinations and so forth, various forms of control in regard to employees who have to negotiate with their masters, legislation dealing with trade unions and so forth. You have all the industrial legislation. There is nothing to show that those provisions will apply in regard to a business carried on in a Bantu homeland by a development corporation or its agent. When therefore when we deal with this question of one economy, naturally we will be concerned to see that the economy shall not be disrupted by having an agency or an authority such as a development corporation, or its agent, which is placed in a privileged position vis-à-vis existing businesses, industries and undertakings. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories referred to the Insizwa Mountain with its thick copper deposits, and there is some nickel as well, as we have known for a very long time. There would have been development many years ago if it had not been for the difficulty of access. It is an inaccessible place, and it would require a railway line to develop these deposits, but with the Government’s intention to develop the Transkei as a Bantu homeland, no doubt the Minister will look upon it as being a suitable area for development. I do not think he replied to my hon. friend. Perhaps when he does reply he will tell us something in regard to the development of those deposits. But what about our industrial legislation? If we have to have one economy and one economic law, then we do not want to see public money utilized for the purpose of subsidizing businesses which may be in competition with businesses which are compelled, willy-nilly, to adhere to the provisions of the laws we have made for all businesses in South Africa, whether they are run by Indians or Chinese or Whites or Bantu. All those people are running businesses to-day, small or large, and they are governed by one law, wage determinations, etc. Here you will have a corporation subsidized by public money over which the only control is Parliament, because we will see the Auditor-General’s report from year to year, but where the company which has public money behind it cannot, except by resolution of Parliament, be dissolved. Just contemplate for a moment the position of ordinary businesses run on private capital. Where our I.D.C. assists a business, that business falls within the four corners of the legislation. Because the I.D.C. puts money into a business, it does not get preferential treatment; it remains within the four corners of the legislation, but that will not be the case here. These are all matters which I feel require the most careful consideration, and I hope the Minister will be very frank with us and will give us much more detail. We are prepared to support the second reading of the Bill because we accept the principle. In the place of the lack of development in the past, here is a Bill and an effort to bring about development in terms of White supervision and brains and public capital, but with private capital allowed to come in under certain circumstances. The management at present will be White, the intention being that the Bantu will take over the management and the whole of the control will pass over to the Bantu.

My last question is that: Where an undertaking, having been duly established by the Bantu Development Corporation in terms of this Bill, and when there are Bantu persons capable of taking over, and a transfer takes place from the control of a White team which includes the White directors and the managerial staff, and it becomes entirely managed and operated by Bantu, do the provisions here still remain in regard to that new Bantu company? I would like an answer to that. Is that new Bantu company now to rely upon public capital to see it through its losses, and is it also not to be restricted by the Bantu Land Act of 1913, and will it also be in a position where it cannot be liquidated without a resolution of Parliament? I can understand the necessity for that sort of thing to enable the Government to get over the awkward initial stages, but when once a company has reached the stage where the Bantu take over, it seems to me that company must carry on on economic lines, or else it must follow the way a White company would go if it cannot keep its head above water, and go to the wall. But that is not provided for here. My question is whether there are special provisions in this Bill which protect the businesses floated by the Bantu Corporation when the control passes into the hands of the Bantu? We want to know what we are letting ourselves in for. I hope the Minister will be very frank and give us all the details.

We, on this side, are in favour of this Bill because it ought to make more capital available for the development of Bantu areas. We have some criticism to pass, because we feel that, in terms of this legislation, this will be done in a most expensive and most inefficient manner, and I shall tell the hon. the Minister why.

But, in spite of that, you support it?

Yes, but we want to improve the Bill. We say that the way in which this will be done is inefficient and expensive, and we want to try to improve it. It is, of course, unfortunate that hon. members opposite are so obsessed with ideological ideas that they lose sight completely of the economic realities. We find that the Bill will establish a corporation with its own directors and technical staff for every homeland. Let us take a practical example of the type of work the corporation will have to do. Let us take the Transkei, because this is the most ideal area in which the first corporation can be established. Let us see what will be the possible scope of the work of such a corporation. We have an indication of what it will be, because recently the hon. the Minister was good enough to reply to a question in regard to the number of industries established in the Transkei and the Ciskei since 31 May 1948. He said that nine small industries had been established. Therefore, nine industries have been established over a period of 17 years. This gives us an idea of the work that this corporation will have to do. I should like to suggest that those nine investigations could have been dealt with in one month by three or four of the technical officers of the I.D.C. How many applications will this corporation receive in a year? One needs a full board of directors and a technical staff for this, and where is one to obtain these technical people? Even the I.D.C. is struggling to obtain similar staff to investigate our whole economic background, the various aspects of marketing and so forth. That is why we say that a sub-division of the I.D.C. can do this work far more cheaply and efficiently. If it were not for the fact that hon. members opposite are so obsessed with ideological considerations, that is what they would have done.

Furthermore, the whole purpose of this legislation is of course to discourage White capital in the development of the homelands. White entrepreneur capital is excluded. The hon. the Minister has agreed that White loan capital can be used but not White share capital. I do not know why the hon. the Minister draws that distinction. I want to ask the hon. the Minister this question: If White entrepreneur capital is not to be allowed, whence has the initiative and the technical skill to come? We had a reply from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). He said that the initiative has to come from the Bantu, but over the past 300 years we have seen how little development there is when we leave things to the Bantu. So under this corporation all the initiative must come from the officials of the corporation itself and from the Bantu, and with all respect to the officials, this will be a very slow process. The hon. the Minister has told us that he sees swift economic development following upon this legislation. I differ from him completely because of the way in which he is tackling this matter. He has already seen how slow the development is when one leaves it to the Bantu and to officials. I have never quite been able to understand why White capital could not be allowed in the development of those areas. From a practical point of view this appears to my mind to be the way to do things if one wants to develop those areas swiftly, but the hon. the Minister has a sort of complex in this regard. The only explanation we have ever received is that it will lead to the exploitation of the Bantu in their own homelands if White capital is allowed there. That of course is wrong. If one allows White capital to develop the border areas, that is not exploitation, but as soon as it is done beyond the border, it becomes exploitation. This is one of the things which has always surprised me in regard to hon. members opposite. They are great capitalists as far as the Republic is concerned but as soon as there is mention of investment in the Bantu areas, they become Marxists or socialists and talk of the exploitation of capital. It is a very dangerous idea which they are planting in the minds of the Bantu by continually saying that capitalism in their areas leads to exploitation. The Bantu will wonder why the White man is exploiting them in Umtata but not at Hammersdale.

The hon. member for Heilbron went even further. He spoke about neo-colonialism. He uses the same terminology as people like Nkrumah and Nyerere when it comes to the question of the investment of White capital in the Bantu area. Nyerere and Nkrumah are socialists and therefore they say that this is neo-colonialism. I have always thought that the hon. member for Heilbron is a capitalist and that he believes that capitalism is not a system of exploitation.

Does this Bill not try to encourage private enterprise in the Bantu areas?

I cannot see why a distinction is drawn between loan capital and investment capital. If one receives interest on one’s money, it is not exploitation, but if one invests one’s capital in shares and takes a risk, then suddenly it is exploitation. If the hon. the Minister will study economics he will see that over a long period one’s profits on investment capital are not very much higher than on one’s loan capital, and the last-mentioned is far safer. We will never have this swift development which both sides of the House want if we do not allow White investment capital to be used there, and for the simple reason that we need not only capital for development but knowledge as well, or know-how or skill, and this we will not have if we do not allow the White people to go there. This skill will not simply come from the officials. Does the hon. the Minister not realize that the most important thing in the development of underdeveloped areas throughout the world is that capital investment is completely overrated, and what is more important, that the skill to make that capital fertile, is not? The policy of the hon. the Minister was right when he signed the Tomlinson Report because we shall never develop these areas swiftly if we do not allow the knowledge as well as the capital of the White man to be used there. The hon. the Minister has now agreed to allow White capital to be used there as loan capital, but one will only have the skill if one also allows the White man to invest risk capital there, and this the hon. the Minister does not want to allow. The more I think about this the more inexplicable it becomes because, after all, the same Government allows South African citizens to invest money in Rhodesia and in Portuguese East and West. Why do they not say that this is neo-colonialism? The strangest thing of all, if it leads to exploitation or neocolonialism if one allows foreign capital to be invested in one’s country, is why they allow overseas capital, from the U.S.A. and other countries, to be invested in the Republic? It is for the simple reason that, apart from the capital itself, the skill which accompanies that capital is just as important. They realize this but when it comes to the development of the homelands, then it is not a good thing. One sometimes begins to wonder whether the Government is really serious in developing these homelands. When one considers the cultural level of the Bantu in the reserves, one realizes that it will take them generations to build up an industrial community there if one does not allow the knowledge to go there, and the officials alone cannot provide that knowledge. In any case, this would be heading for a system of State capitalism which would never work effectively because we believe in private enterprise. The hon. the Minister can provide protection to ensure that there is no exploitation. This is the only way in which the homelands will develop swiftly and be able to carry a larger population. One will only have the dynamic development which one wants if one allows not only White investment capital to go there but White skill as well. It is because the Government has not wanted to allow this in the past that the development up to the present has been so slow.

There are one or two points I should like to raise in addition to those raised by hon. members on this side. First of all. there is the definition of a Bantu person. The definition given here is: “a person who in fact is or is generally accepted as a member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa, and it includes a Bantu company”. But that is not the definition we have in the Bantu Corporation Act. There they have a different definition. There it says that “a Bantu is a Native person as defined in the Population Registration Act”, which is quite a different kind of Bantu. That is the first point I should like some clarification on. The second is: Does this Act apply to South West Africa? The other one did. There seems to be an inconsistency there. I will not elaborate on the points made by hon. members here, about White capital and know-how, but I should like to mention that the hon. member for Zululand the other day asked how many engineers were being trained at the three African university colleges, and the answer was “none”. So we are dependent at this stage on White technical skill.

Examining this Bill, we see that provision is made for the establishment of two types of public corporation. Both definitions are in Clause 1. The first is the Development Corporation established under Section 2. It is quite clear what that is. We know it is a corporation in which White capital may not participate. That is laid down in Section 2. But the other corporation comes in the second definition, of a Bantu company. What is a Bantu company? A Bantu company is a company in which the shares are held by Bantu persons or by Bantu persons and a corporation. Now we have entered a new phase in the development of Bantu finance. We are now establishing Bantu companies and we shall have to establish Bantu financial institutions. When we establish Bantu building societies, we shall have to establish their own type of building society. But the point I wish to come to is that in these Bantu companies there will be Bantu shareholders. They will subscribe for shares and the companies will be financed, I hope, by the Corporation. Now if you are going to have shares and companies, you must have some negotiability, some manner in which they can exchange their shares, or sell, or buy shares; in other words, you will have to establish a market. Now what is the market going to be? In our White institutions we know that we have the Stock Exchange to provide for negotiability. If we are going to have a four-stream policy we shall have to have a four-stream financial policy in regard to financial institutions. I wish to refer to Clause 6 (1) (c) where this matter is dealt with. The object of the Corporation is to establish or assist in establishing Bantu companies for industrial, business or financial purposes. They are going to have these types of Bantu companies. Then in (i) it says that this Corporation will act as a broker. Will the Minister in his reply explain how one Bantu shareholder will be able to sell his shares to another Bantu? How will it be done? Will there be an exchange in Umtata, or will this company deal as an agent? We are now on the threshold of developing Bantu finance, and of course there is Coloured finance and Indian finance and all these institutions will have to run parallel to each other. We have been told over and over that there must be no White participation in providing capital or technical skill. Will there be no White participation in providing these financial institutions which are essential? I should like the Minister in his reply to give us some clarification.

We have indicated our support for this Bill and we are also trying to show the Minister the shortcomings of the Bill and where the dangers lie of establishing two or three economies. Unfortunately there has not been any response from the other side. We look forward to the Minister’s reply to give us an adequate answer. This satisfies the Government’s dream of ethnic grouping, but what we would like to know is what are the incentives to be given to private enterprise to be associated with the development in the Bantu homelands? Once you start developing the homelands you must have incentives in order to get the initiative to start there. The Bantu have been in this country as long as the White man. The opportunity of using initiative has been with the Bantu for all these years. He has not shown that initiative and for that reason he has lagged behind in the economic race. It is not necessary to examine very far the suggestion made by the hon. member for Heilbron that he will have the initiative. There are many White people in this country who have not shown sufficient initiative, with the result that we have had examples of takeover bids by big corporations, which show that even in modern finance one entrepreneur shows greater initiative than the other, and we have seen many old family undertakings being absorbed by other companies which have shown greater initiative. Here we are expecting the initiative to come from the homelands. We all agree that there is scope for investment there, but we want to know how that initiative is to be developed and whether it is going to be confined to a certain class of people. Who will be the agents, and how will they be appointed? Will they be people who get a special advantage? Are they going to be appointed agents after calling for public tenders? Is it going to be a question of secret negotiations or is the whole world to know about it? You see, Sir, it is very important, because there is one point that has not been dealt with by anybody this afternoon. When we talk about developing the economy, when we talk about providing new industries, whether primary, secondary or tertiary industries, nobody has dealt with the most important factor and that is the question of sales. Where are the goods and the services to be sold? That is the important factor. Are the sales to be restricted to the Bantu areas? That is the point that has to be answered, because if the sales are not to be restricted to the Bantu area, then if there are different levels of efficiency, different standards in the different areas, it will inevitably follow that the standards will be lowered throughout the country. Let me give a practical example. Let us suppose that the Minister goes in a few days’ time to the Umlazi Township and he has his great celebrations there—he congratulates the Bantu there; he opens the ceremony, watches the slaughtering of cattle; he is presented with a new kaross; he hands out brief-cases; a very good time is had by all; the mayor of Durban comes to congratulate him on the Government’s policy. The Umlazi Township, as I understand the position, is proposed to be developed as a Bantu Township, judging by the provisions of Clause 6 (3) . . .

You are misreading it altogether.

Clause 6 (3) reads—

Let us suppose that the Bantu Development Corporation encourages the establishment of, say, a shirt industry or a boot industry in Umlazi.

Read Clause 19 if you want to read something nice.

Sir, when it comes to constructive arguments on economics, the Government is quite right in keeping the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) out of the debate! Let us suppose that such an industry is started in Umlazi. If their sales are not to be restricted to the Umlazi homeland, they can sell their products in the city of Durban. What hope has the shirt industry in Durban or the shoe industry in Durban against the prices which could be charged in Durban by such an industry in Umlazi, where the industry in Durban uses White standards of labour, White standards of factory lay-out, White standards throughout the whole of its organization as distinct from the lower standards which may apply in the Bantu homelands?

Why would the standards be lower?

I suggest that the hon. member go and have a look at some of the industries which are in operation at the present time in the border areas.

They are of a good standard.

No, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I do not want to be diverted, but at the right time I can show the hon. member that the standard of factory buildings has sometimes been lowered. I am raising these matters with this particular object. I want the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that if these industries are established in the reserves the same standards will apply. I hope that the interjection of the hon. member for Heilbron means that the same standard of efficiency, the same lighting factors and the same ventilation factors will obtain; that the same labour rates will obtain; that the same standard of wages will be maintained; that the same leave facilities will apply and that the same medical benefits will apply in the Bantu areas in exactly the same way as in White areas. If the same standards obtain then I have no quarrel, but I want an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the same standards will apply. I hope that the interjections of the hon. member imply . . .

The same standards apply to-day.

I hope the Minister will assure us that the same standards will apply. The Minister will have to ensure that the same inspection will obtain. At the present moment I can tell the Minister, when he assures us that he is going to have trained people to help the Bantu in the establishment of industries, that in most of our big towns there is a shortage of inspectors in the Department of Labour. Our factories in our main cities are not being regularly inspected and the same standards are not being applied because the Department does not have the staff to administer the Act. I therefore want the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the same standards will in fact apply. I take it from the interjection of the hon. member for Heilbron that the same standards will apply that the building workers will get the same wages as European building workers. The hon. member says that the same standards will apply but, of course, that is nonsense because he ought to know that the Bantu building workers get a much lower wage than the White building workers. There already we have an example of the lower rates of wages to be paid.

They do not compete with one another.

Of course they will compete if they are providing a service. No White factory can employ a Bantu building worker at the rate of wages paid in the Bantu areas, and therefore in the Bantu areas Bantu industrialists will be able to employ Bantu workers at lower rates of pay.

Sir, will the establishment of Bantu industries also aim at making a contribution to the export market? Is it the object that they should make their contribution to the exports of this country? There are possibilities for the export of indigenous products. In Pietermaritzburg at the Sobantu village we have seen a certain amount of handweaving and the production of curios on a small scale for sale in the tourist market. A certain quantity of these products is exported. When we come to textiles, footwear and clothing, etc., in those industries particularly, unless the same standards apply there is a very definite danger of two economies competing on different standards, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that the same standards will apply in the Bantu areas as in the White areas.

If this Bill is to achieve what the Minister wishes to achieve then he cannot afford to allow low standards, not only in the interests of the White man but in the interests of the Bantu themselves. If the standard of efficiency of the Bantu people is to be raised so that they can stand on their own feet, then the Minister, if he wishes to achieve his objective, must aim at providing an equal standard of industrial efficiency in the Bantu areas and the White areas. We would like to know from the Minister whether that is his objective, because if that is not his objective then very soon the high standards in the White areas will be reduced by the lower standards in the Bantu areas. We have already seen examples of this in the clothing industry. A few years ago the clothing industry in Johannesburg was mainly in the hands of White workers. Today many of those factories have been moved to the border areas and many White workers who were trained to work in the clothing industry are now out of the industry altogether and a completely new generation of Bantu workers are doing work in the border areas which was formerly done by Whites in the White areas, and they are doing so at lower rates of wages and under poorer conditions of service. If we have rates and standards in the Bantu areas which are lower than those in the border industries, we could have a state of affairs where the industries in the reserves could be competing with the border industries, thus reducing the possibility of employment in the border industries.

Then there is another matter as far as sales are concerned. Is encouragement to be given to the Bantu to buy from their own organizations? Sir, over the years we have seen the development of Afrikaner businesses by Afrikaners. The development of Afrikaner businesses was made possible by encouraging Afrikaners to buy from their own institutions. We have had examples even recently in Pretoria where certain shops have been picketed because they do not employ bilingual staff. The owners have been told that unless they serve their customers through the medium of Afrikaans their businesses will not be supported.

Order: Is that relevant?

Yes, Sir, I submit it is.

Order!

The point I am trying to make is: Will the Bantu people be encouraged to buy only from Bantu shops in the Bantu townships, where they can be served through their own language? That is the point that I am concerned with. [Interjection.] No, it is not a stupid suggestion. That is happening already in my own constituency. Bantu in Clermont are picketing stores in Pinetown and New Germany and telling the Bantu to buy in the Bantu areas. They stopped the Bantu and say to them: “Why do you buy in the European area of Pinetown and New Germany; why don’t you buy in Clermont?” The shops are being picketed by people standing outside the shops. It has been done on more than one occasion. Sir, these hon. members who interject from the other side do not know what they are talking about. On this question of development in the Bantu homelands, while it is very praiseworthy and while it may be the desire of the Government to help the Bantu to develop in these areas, I want to point out that there are dangers and it is our duty as a responsible Opposition to point out the weaknesses. We want to ensure that those weaknesses are avoided. We do not want to see the development of four different economies. an economy for the Bantu, another economy for the Indians, another economy for the Coloureds and another economy for, the Whites; we want to see the economy of South Africa developing as a whole, and when we see these dangers it is our duty and right to bring them to the notice of the House. We have seen these things in operation and it is for that reason that we suspect that there is a possibility that these agents who are to be appointed may be concessionaires. We know what happened in the early days when the White man first went to foreign lands. Chiefs were interviewed and certain concessions were given for working certain territories. Commercial concessions, mineral concessions and so on were given to certain people. Are we now trying to do the same thing under this Bill in 1965? Are we now going to give concessions to certain commercial enterprises which will place them in a privileged position inside these Bantu areas? What we want to ensure is that within this contemplated development scheme we are not going to have four separate economies. Sir, the Minister talks about experts. I hope he will have experts helping him in this matter. This country is very short of experts. The Industrial Development Corporation, which could well fulfil many of the functions envisaged in this Bill, is already short of experts, not just experts to train these people how to manufacture goods, how to manage factories and train these people in the art of administration, the techniques of marketing, the techniques of advertising and all the other factors which make up the complex pattern of modern industrial mercantile practice. Sir, these are lessons which are only now being learned for the first time by some of our leading institutions in this country. We have had to wait until 1965 for a modern school of business management to be established at one of our main universities. In the past we have had to send people over to America and to the Continent of Europe to learn business administration. While we are still learning new techniques we are starting to encourage the Bantu people in the Bantu homelands to enter the modern business world and we are talking about providing experts to help them when we are already short of experts ourselves. If the organization which is being set up under this Bill is to be the success which the Minister wants it to be and which we all hope it will be the Minister will have to make use of the services of all the experts from the central organization, the Industrial Development Corporation, because the country will find that we can ill-afford to establish four different economies. If this organization can be integrated into the economy of South Africa as a whole, if we can have the assurance that standards will not be lowered and if we can have the assurance that entrepreneurs right throughout South Africa will know the extent to which they can invest, the extent to which they can act as agents and the extent to which they can assist, then it is going to be a success, but if it is going to be the close preserve of a few people with inside knowledge and with the ear of the Government, then this organization is going to be suspect.

I think hon. members will concede me one point and that is that it will not be possible for me to reply to all the questions which have been asked because, if I were to do so, I would be here until half-past six on Friday evening. If hon. members are prepared to sit and listen to me until then, I shall do so. I have scarcely startled replying and yet some of the questioners have already left the Chamber! I am afraid that I may be here on my own at half-past six this evening! [Interjections.] No, I shall reply to most of the questions.

Hon. members will also concede me another point and that is that, faithful to the practice of the United Party, so many ghost stories were told during the course of this debate that I started to tremble. Hon. members are quite welcome to make constructive suggestions but once again a mass of ghost stories have been told which really frighten me. I do not think hon. members expect me to pay any attention to stories of this nature. I shall give attention to the important matters which have been raised here. A few arguments have been advanced which I should like to discuss. Some hon. members opposite said that they supported this Bill because up to the present virtually nothing had been done for the development of the Bantu.

Little.

That was what the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) said. I must say that I was surprised to hear this, coming as it did from the hon. member for Jeppes, because the hon. member is an economist and an economist has one basic approach to these matters and that is objectivity. The hon. member really did not show economic objectivity this afternoon because there is one thing in regard to which all economists give us best—I think that if the hon. member were to speak outside this House, he would do the same thing—and that is that there has never before been as much development in the Bantu homelands as there has been over the past few years. Indeed, it is the most fantastic development South Africa has ever seen. Sir, it is not fair of hon. members to make a statement of that nature; it is not fair to South Africa. Perhaps they think that they can make some political capital out of saying something which does not hold water, but I do not think that a statement of this nature is to the advantage of the United Party either. I can say here to-day that there is no country in the whole of Africa which has made the same progress in the economic sphere as has South Africa. I greatly resent the fact that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has said that this statement is devoid of all truth. I repeat this statement and I challenge the hon. member to prove the opposite. Here I am on very safe ground. World experts agree that the development in the other Africa States has taken place in a chaotic way. Take Ghana as an example. A friend of mine was recently in Ghana and conditions there are so bad that he was offered 20 Ghana pounds for one English pound! But I do not want to discuss this. These are facts which hon. members cannot refute and so it is not fair of them to say that they are going to vote for this Bill because hardly anything has as yet been done for the development of the Bantu homelands. More has been done over the past 15 years in connection with the development of the Bantu homelands than was done over the previous 50 years.

But hon. members opposite have made another statement which is not quite fair either. They say that we are proposing the establishment of this development corporation because the Bantu Investment Corporation is such a failure and does not answer its purpose. But hon. members know in their heart of hearts that the Bantu Investment Corporation has over the past few years produced results which have surprised more than one person. How have the Bantu developed in the sphere of commerce? Take a place like Zwelitsha at King William’s Town. See how many Bantu traders there are there who have been assisted by the Bantu Investment Corporation and who are very wealthy people to-day. I can show hon. members an hotel there which compares very favouably with some of the best hotels in our rural towns. I do not know whether there is as attractive and neat an hotel in King William’s Town, a White town, as there is at Zwelitsha. In this case too the Bantu Investment Corporation was of assistance. Sir, I can point out developments throughout the whole of Africa in this way. Why this sneering remark that the Bantu Investment Corporation is not answering its purpose? The Bantu throughout the whole of South Africa have great praise and much gratitude for the work which the Bantu Investment Corporation has done up to the present. I think that they have done a tremendous amount of work. I have previously indicated here what the Bantu Investment Corporation is doing, for example, to encourage a sense of thrift. Hon. members opposite have often laughed me to scorn in this regard in the past. But what is the position to-day? There is Bantu investment in the Bantu Investment Corporation of more than a million rand to-day. Is this not an achievement of which to be proud? Consider for a moment the educational task in this regard. It is not right to make such irresponsible statements here. After all, we are all responsible people. It is unfair to South Africa itself. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that nothing has been done in the Transkei. The question was put to me here by hon. members in regard to how many industries have already come into being in the Transkei. It is quite true that not many industries have as yet been established in the Transkei but there are at least a few which provide work for a number of people. I just want to remind the hon. member for Transkeian Territories of his old story of the small shop which we took over and where the Bantu are making a few pieces of furniture and so forth.

It was not so small.

But that was what you gave to understand.

Do you know what happened? When he visited that place on one occasion and saw what was being done, he said; “I did not know that there was a factory of this nature in Umtata.” I admit that not much has been done as yet in connection with industrial development in the Transkei but we must not forget that there is one very important requirement for the development of one’s tertiary and secondary industries and that is that one’s primary sector must be ripe for it. It was a mighty task in the Transkei to do the necessary work in connection with the primary sector. There was the question of the reclamation of land, the development of agriculture, the development of animal husbandry and the development of forestry. Consider the number of Bantu employed in those projects. There is also the development of roads in the Transkei. Consider how many thousands of Bantu are employed in this regard. Consider the development of the public service in the Transkei. Consider the number of Bantu already employed in this connection. Hon. members opposite are people with a knowledge of business; they know far more about it than I do. Is it right of them to paint this picture here? They know that this basic work had first to be done before one could continue with the development of the secondary and tertiary industries. A tremendous amount of work has been done recently in this connection. I say again that thousands of Bantu are employed in these other sectors.

Hon. members opposite want to build the roof on the house before the foundations have been laid.

The further statement has been made here that we are departing from our policy in that we are establishing agencies to do certain work in the Bantu homelands. That is not correct. I have here the speech which the hon. the Prime Minister made in this House in 1962. He was discussing the establishment of the Bantu Investment Corporation and he had this to say (translation)—

This is very clear. He went on to say (translation)—

There is not the slightest deviation here from the policy followed in the past.

I should like to reply briefly to a few questions put to me. The accusation has been made, which I want to reply to for the umpteenth time, that I have not adhered to the report of the Tomlinson Commission. As far as this matter is concerned, the report of the Tomlinson Commission states very clearly that if such businesses, as suggested, did arise, they would have to give an undertaking that they would be handed over to the Bantu within a certain period of time. This was a fundamental condition which was set and there were a number of other conditions. I said that the people would simply not make use of it. Nowhere in the world are people prepared to make that sort of sacrifice. Reference has often been made to the fact that the Tomlinson Commission recommended that £104,000,000 be invested in the Bantu areas. But there were the other tasks which had to be undertaken and which had to receive priority. There was the question of the clearance of the slums in the White areas and so forth. We were not capitally strong enough to spend all those sums of money simultaneously. I can only say—and I think every member of the Tomlinson Commission will admit it—that, although it did not fall within our terms of reference, we were unanimous that those things should receive priority. These were the danger points for South Africa, and consider how we removed them. Hon. members must not make this accusation. Points of growth have been established everywhere to-day and the development continues.

The hon. member for Tanskeian Territories also asked about the water resources and the minerals there. He asked whether a separate economy was going to develop there or whether we were going to have one economy. We have always adopted the attitude that we have one economic structure in South Africa. We have never said that separate and different economies would be established. That has never ever been the idea. There will be cooperation within the economic structure of South Africa. The necessary assistance will be given without the old principle of colonialism, of exploitation, being brought into the matter. This is an important principle. In connection with these agencies the hon. member also asked whether we were going to follow the old Cape Colonial method of a 99 year grant. No, very definitely not; that was a form of colonialism. We are very definitely not going to follow that practice. These people will be there to render service; they are not there for exploitation purposes, not in the slightest. The development corporation is being set up to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen.

May I ask a question? How is the hon. the Minister going to enter into these contracts? Will he ask for tenders for various projects? Will he tell the whole country what he intends doing or will only a select few be awarded those contracts?

I think that the procedure which we are following in South Africa to-day is very clear. There are, for example, people who are interested in such a project and it is ascertained whether these are people who can render the necessary services. The result is that in most cases we do not have any difficulty at all in this connection in South Africa. It is obvious that we may in the future decide to call for special tenders. These are matters which can be arranged but we have a procedure to-day which works excellently. Anybody with a grain of knowledge will not laugh about it. I want to challenge any hon. member to give me one example of where this procedure is not working well.

More concessions!

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said that we were trying to deviate from our policy. I do not want to discuss this matter; I have already replied to him and I do not think it necessary to say anything more in this regard. But he did raise a few matters to which I should like to reply. He referred to Clause 6 (3) of the Bill which gives the corporation the right to set developments in motion in an urban area which is surrounded by a Bantu area.

And which borders on a Bantu homeland.

Yes. We have a few difficulties in this connection. We have the difficulty in the Transkei, of which the hon. member for Transkeian Territories is just as aware as I am, and we must make provision in this regard. He asked, quite correctly, why we do not specify the Transkei, in which case all the other parts will not be affected. But it is possible that something of this nature may arise in Zululand, for example, or other places, and then we must be covered. Moreover, I have another problem and I think that in this connection the hon. member for Transkeian Territories will be sympathetically disposed towards me. There are cases in which people would like under certain circumstances to dispose of their property. This then is one of the quickest ways in which they can dispose of it. Our policy is of course that we do not allow a non-White company to develop in such an area. The hon. member said, quite correctly, that this is our policy now, but, he asked, what of the time when we are no longer there? I just want to say that I am quite prepared to discuss this point again with my law advisers in order to see to what extent we can be covered completely. The hon. member has a point here and I am prepared to discuss it again with my law advisers. If necessary, I shall then effect the necessary changes.

The hon. member for South Coast also asked why this corporation can only be dissolved by an Act of Parliament. The fact is that this is a provision which applies to each one of these corporations. Because it is a creation of this Parliament it can only be dissolved by this Parliament. This is a condition of the Bantu Investment Corporation; it is a condition of the Coloured Development Corporation and will be of the Indian Development Corporation, if such a body is established. This is a procedure which is followed generally. It is not as if we were making an exception in this case.

The hon. member also asked why we do not apply the provisions of the Bantu Trust and Land Act in this regard. This is not a deviation either; the same provision exists in the Bantu Investment Corporation Act. The hon. member will remember that when a White man wants to buy land in a released area, the permission of the State President has first to be obtained. Unfortunately, this takes a great deal of time and if such a corporation wants to work quickly it must be relieved of this provision. This is a principle which has been generally accepted in the past and there is therefore no departure in this regard.

The hon. member also asked if we are going to allow other race groups to go there. It is obvious that this corporation is the birthright of the Bantu. We shall not make it at all possible for other race groups to be used there. One of the requirements is that the Bantu must be trained, even if this is a slow process, so that they will have the assurance that they are protected in their own area. I feel very strongly about this matter, and so do the Bantu.

What about the development of the Insizwa Copper Mines?

I cannot give any information in regard to that mine now; unfortunately, I do not have that information here. I did not expect the hon. member to ask this question. It is obvious that the minerals in the Bantu areas must be developed for the good of the Bantu. There are a number of old contracts by which we are of course bound. We cannot simply ignore those old contracts. They are legal contracts and the interests of those people must also be protected. But as far as new contracts are concerned it has long been the policy to protect the interests of the Bantu.

The hon. member for Jeppes said that we should rather allow White private capital to be used there because then the development would be far swifter. The development would then be far swifter but I fear that the exploitation would be far more serious too. This is something which one has found in other parts of Africa—that those companies are not out to benefit that part of the country. They are only interested in what they can obtain; they plough nothing back. Once the mines are worked out, they will leave, and the Bantu will be left with the empty shafts. We cannot allow this to happen in South Africa; it is against our principles. No matter what the hon. member may say, we cannot make any concessions in this regard. I agree with him that the process is slow initially but when one considers how it is progressing in many respects, I think we have every reason to be very optimistic for the future. We ought to be very satisfied with the development and with the way in which the Bantu are lending themselves to that development.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) asked why the definition referred to a Bantu person as well as to a Bantu company. If the hon. member will think back he will remember that this was also the position initially in connection with the Bantu Investment Corporation. Because of the development in the Transkei we have found it necessary to effect an amendment to enable a company like the Bantu Investment Corporation also to function as a Bantu. This is necessary for the development of the area. It is otherwise a White body and it cannot fulfil its function in the Bantu area. The hon. member also asked about engineers. This is one of the matters which other hon. members also raised. They say that I gave an assurance that experts would take the lead in these matters. Hon. members now ask where we are to obtain these experts. Hon. members must not be concerned in this regard. In spite of all their complaints about the manpower shortage and the shortage of technicians and so forth, South Africa is still progressing. We are getting the people to do the work. I want to give hon. members opposite the assurance that this is actually no concern of theirs; it is my worry and it scarcely worries me at all. Hon. members say that I am an optimist. I am. I am very pleased that I was not as pessimistic as hon, members opposite, because if I had been, none of this development would have taken place in South Africa. This matter must be tackled optimistically and I say again that we have the people to do the work. Hon. members need not be concerned in this regard.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well) asked a number of questions to which it would take me a long time to reply in detail. He spoke about standards. I agree with him. We have of course to ensure that the correct standards are applied in the Bantu areas. We have one economic structure and we must bear this fact in mind. The hon. member said: Take the case of a Bantu building worker; he must be paid the same as a White building worker. The fact is simply that the Bantu building worker in the White area does not receive the same as the White building worker does. The questions asked by the hon. member will be solved over the course of time. I just want to tell hon. members that we will be opening Umlazi one of these days. I want to invite hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for South Coast, to be present on that occasion and to celebrate it with us. I should also like to invite the hon. member for Transkeian Territories to pay a visit to Umlazi and to see what we have done there. But Umlazi is not the only place. There are a large number of these places in South Africa. I want to extend a hearty invitation to hon. members to be with us on Saturday afternoon, the 26th, at the opening of Umlazi. I shall send the hon. member a special invitation.

Will we be finished here?

The opening is on a Saturday afternoon; we will simply fly up there and return immediately afterwards.

I want in conclusion to express my appreciation for the interest that has been shown in this Bill and for the assistance I have received from all sides of the House. We can go to meet the future confidently when we approach the matter in this way.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I think the introduction of this Bill was an event which was generally welcomed by both sides of this House. As is indicated by the long title of the measure, its provisions amount to the implementationn of the Government’s decision to sell K.O.P.C. to private enterprise.

In dealing with this measure I think it is necessary, and I think the House would expect of me, briefly to outline the background against which that decision was taken.

The question of the complete take-over of K.O.P.C. by private interest groups came to be examined as long ago as 1947-8, when various overseas undertakings showed interest in such a possibility. However, negotiations in that connection continually failed because of the unacceptability of the proposals made to the Government, particularly in regard to the extent of control to be exercised by local as opposed to overseas interests in order to obtain the capital and know-how required.

In the fifties various South African undertakings also sounded the Government in this connection, some of them on a basis of complete take-over, while others, again, were only interested in taking over certain sections of K.O.P.C. For reasons that are not relevant here, those offers too could not be carried to a successful conclusion.

In this connection it is desirable that I explain to the House that the activities of K.O.P.C. are divided into three main sections, namely—

1. (i) the inorganic or chlorine/alkali section, where chlorine, caustic soda and other chemical by-products are produced;
2. (ii) the organic or chlorination section, where chlorination is carried out and basic materials such as BHC and DDT are produced; and
3. (iii) the formulation and packaging section, together with the marketing section, where the commercial end-products for pest control are prepared, packed and marketed.

In 1962 the Cabinet granted approval for K.O.P.C. to be authorized to negotiate with a large local organization with a view to considerably extending the inorganic section of K.O.P.C.’s activities and transferring it to an independent new undertaking in which K.O.P.C. would have a shareholding of 60 per cent and the other undertaking a shareholding of 40 per cent. These negotiations were terminated by the private undertaking.

Subsequent to that the Cabinet granted approval in 1963 for K.O.P.C. to be authorized to negotiate with a Dutch firm and another local group (not the one to which I referred a moment ago) with a view to transferring K.O.P.C.’s formulation, packaging and marketing section to a new joint undertaking in which K.O.P.C. would have a shareholding of 40 per cent, the overseas group 30 per cent and the local group 30 per cent. Like the negotiations I have reverred to, these negotiations were not brought to finality either.

There were various reasons why the Cabinet was prepared to grant approval for K.O.P.C. to be authorized to enter into negotiations with the private interests concerned with a view to the transfer of sections of its activities to new companies. The most important of these was the fact that K.O.P.C. had to diversify to a larger extent in order to remain a profitable undertaking in the long run, but that each new direction brought it into conflict with private enterprise.

As a result of all these negotiations, however, Federale Volksbeleggings Beperk again proposed recently that the Government should consider transferring K.O.P.C. as a whole to South African private interests, and they offered to take over the Government’s shareholding in K.O.P.C. in collaboration with other interest groups on an agreed basis, if the Government should find that proposal acceptable in principle.

Considerations on the part of the private sector in support of the complete transfer of K.O.P.C. to South African private interests are, inter alia, that—

1. (a) there is a tendency throughout the world towards the formation of large private undertakings in the chemical industry which produce not only large quantities of individual products, but also a large variety of products;
2. (b) large undertakings of this nature, based on the principle of vertical integration, are an absolute requirement for economic production in the chemical industry, and for that reason vast foreign undertakings have been established in the chemical industry by means of collaboration between large international companies and even between countries;
3. (c) the fragmentation of K.O.P.C. by transferring two of its main sections to new companies, thus leaving it in sole ownership of the chlorination section only, would, therefore be quite contrary to the approach of having large, vertically integrated undertakings which all other countries regard as essential for success in the chemical industry; and
4. (d) K.O.P.C.’s present position as a statutory body makes it impossible for it to extend its activities further in order to exercise a proper influence in the field of the chemical industry. If it were transferred to reliable private interests, it could be used as an extremely valuable undertaking to serve as a nucleus for the development of a new and powerful South African complex in the chemical industry.

Over against these arguments in favour of the complete transfer of K.O.P.C. to private ownership there were quite a few considerations which the Government had to keep in mind, namely—

1. (a) K.O.P.C. occupies a key position in the chemical industry and in time of war it may have a strategic value which will necessitate its control by the Government. It is doubted, however, whether its potential use as a manufacturer of chemical materials for the purposes of warfare still carries as much weight as was initially anticipated, and in time of war the Government would in any case, if it should be necessary, be able to commandeer any new private undertaking which may be developed with K.O.P.C. as its nucleus, for strategic production purposes;
2. (b) K.O.P.C. renders an important service to the farming community, and its present position as a statutory corporation is a guarantee to the farmer that the prices of his insecticides will be maintained at as reasonable a level as possible, and what is even more important is that its total potential can be applied for the purpose of providing the materials required—guarantees which might not apply to the same extent if the Government should lose its control over K.O.P.C. by transferring the Corporation to private ownership. It has been made a condition of such transfer, however, that the new undertaking will not increase its prices unless it can satisfy the Price Controller that, from an economic point of view, such price increases are essential for the maintenance of a reasonable income level; and
3. (c) K.O.P.C.’s extremely important function as a supplier of essential pest control materials to the agricultural industry in times of crisis demands either that it should be under direct State control or that any new private undertaking which may be established to take over K.O.P.C. should agree to submit to the Government’s decisions in regard to the production and distribution and pest control materials in times of crisis. In this connection a formula has been devised which is acceptable to both the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and F.V.B., namely, that the purchaser undertakes that in times of crisis it will produce and apply all pest control materials to the best of its ability and the maximum capacity of the plant according to the wishes of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

After the pros and cons of all these considerations had been considered, the conclusion was reached that it would be desirable to allow K.O.P.C. to pass into private ownership. In addition the Government felt that that would be in accordance with its policy of not participating in fields of activity in which private initiative had demonstrated that it was willing and able to carry on activities which were regarded as essential and desirable in the national interest, apart from the fact that, as far as could be foreseen, there was no further necessity for the State to play an active part in K.O.P.C.

The fact was also taken into account that complaints had been received from time to time that K.O.P.C., as a semi-State undertaking, was competing with private enterprises in various fields of its activities—which, after all, must all be carried on in order to make the undertaking an economic one. It was also obvious that as long as K.O.P.C. remained subject to the restrictions in terms of Government policy, it would never be able to develop to the undertaking which it could be in the chemical industry, and that full utilization of the machinery, works and manpower involved in K.O.P.C. was not possible under the present restrictions.

When the F.V.B. group came forward and stated that it was prepared to meet the principal requirements imposed by the Government in connection with the complete takeover of K.O.P.C., the opportunity was taken to enter into further negotiations which culminated in the following provisional agreement. The following offer was made by F.V.B —

1. A. The consideration of not more than R7,000,000 which has been offered shall be an amount as motivated and determined on an equitable basis by two firms of auditors, one nominated by the seller and one nominated by the buyer, provided that—

   1. (a) in determining the values of fixed assets, equipment and stock, the said auditors shall call in the services of sworn appraisers;
   2. (b) the assets of the Corporation shall be assessed as part of a going concern in the heavy chemical industry;
   3. (c) the buyer and the seller shall each bear his own costs in respect of the valuation services rendered to each.

   In determining the value of current assets provision shall be made for possibly obsolete and surplus stock, irrecoverable and doubtful debts, etc.

2. B. If the auditors do not reach agreement, further negotiations shall be conducted between the Government and F.V.B. (1 foresee no insurmoutable problems in this connection.)
3. C. The offer shall be valid until 31 March 1965. (Here I may mention that the validity thereof was subsequently extended to 31 May 1965.)

4. D. Unless the buyer satisfies the following conditions before 30 June 1965 the transaction may be cancelled by the seller:

   1. (i) That the composition of the consortium shall be approved by the Minister of Economic Affairs, subject to such conditions as may be acceptable to the Minister.
   2. (ii) That arrangements acceptable to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services shall be made for the supply of pest control materials in times of crisis.
   3. (iii) That, in respect of the debentures of K.O.P.C., arrangements shall be made for the take-over thereof by the buyer or the furnishing of a counter-guarantee to the satisfaction of the Minister of Economic Affairs.
5. E. The Department of Commerce and Industries shall endeavour to have the Corporation incorporated in terms of the Companies Act by legislation so that the present name shall be retained and no transfer of property shall take place.
6. F. On behalf of the consortium F.V.B. undertakes to take over the staff in the same capacities as those in which they are at present employed by K.O.P.C. on conditions which shall not be less favourable than those applicable to them at present.
7. G. On behalf of the consortium F.V.B. gives the undertaking that the activities of the company will be extended to the best of its ability and the maximum of its means and to such an extent as is economically justifiable.

The offer made and conditions stipulated by F.V.B. have been accepted by the Government, subject to the following further conditions—

1. (a) The acceptance or otherwise of the maximum consideration of R7,000,000 which has been offered shall be subject to the condition that the minimum consideration which will be accepted by the Government shall be an amount of R5,600,000 or such an amount as is determined in accordance with the procedure I outlined a moment ago, whichever amount is the greater. The Government therefore does not commit itself to sell the A shares to the consortium if the amount determined by the appraisers is more than the maximum consideration of R7,000,000 which has been offered;
2. (b) that Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity authorizes the Government by way of legislation to take the necessary steps for the disposal and transfer of the issued shares, assets and liabilities of the Klipfontein Organic Products Corporation.

In consequence of this provisional agreement immediate steps were taken to appoint suitable appraisers on both sides, and F.V.B. commenced with negotiations in connection with the composition of the consortium, which, according to the provisional list which has been submitted, will consist of approximately 15 local undertakings. As the matter of the final price demanded by the Government has not yet been settled, owing to the fact that the valuations concerned were only received a very short while ago, it is at this stage not yet possible for me to give details about the final composition of the consortium, except that I may mention, as a matter of interest, that there is a difference of approximately R200,000 between the two valuations and that the final price will probably be in the vicinity of R5,600,000.

As regards the Government guarantee which was furnished in 1959 by resolution of both Houses of Parliament for 51 per cent debentures for the amount of R 1,500,000 by means of which K.O.P.C. obtained capital for further development, the Government eventually decided that the furnishing of a counter-guarantee was not acceptable and Penkor, which undertook the underwriting of these debentures, was authorized to enter into negotiations with F.V.B. and the debenture holders concerned in regard to suitable alternate security for their debentures. In this connection, too, it will only be possible to reach finality after the final purchase price has been determined and the consortium has been formed. I may add, however, that it appears from negotiations to date that 66 per cent of the debenture holders are prepared to continue their investment, provided the rate of interest is increased somewhat. Ten per cent want to withdraw their investment, while the remaining 24 per cent first wanted more details about the conditions of sale.

I think I have given hon. members a reasonably comprehensive background to the matter and I shall now proceed to explain in broad outline the practical implications of the Bill before the House and the basis on which it has been drafted.

When this Bill was drafted it was of cardinal importance to ensure that there would be no interruption in the corporate existence of K.O.P.C. or that a new legal personality would not be created. The necessity for that lay in the fact that if that were to happen, it would be a tremendous task for the new corporation to renegotiate all the agreements, including agreements with its employees who would be taken over when K.O.P.C. was sold, agencies, etc.

1. (a) As has been stated, the alienation of K.O.P.C. will be effected by way of the sale of all its issued shares to a consortium of companies. Clause 1 (1) (a) of the Bill authorizes such a consortium to negotiate with the present board of directors of K.O.P.C. in that regard.
2. (b) In terms of clause 1 (1) (b) the State President, as the sole shareholder in K.O.P.C., is authorized to see to each member of this consortium, on such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the State President, the number of shares subscribed for by that member.
3. (c) In order not to interfere with or change the legal personality of K.O.P.C. in any way, it is being registered under the Companies Act, 1926, and its memorandum and articles of association, which have to be registered under the Companies Act and will be signed by nominees of the consortium, will be substituted for Act No. 40 of 1950, in terms of which K.O.P.C. was established. (Clause 1 (1) (a).) Furthermore, the subscribers of the memorandum and articles of association will then autodirectors of K.O.P.C. (Clause 1 (1) (c).)
4. (d) In conjunction with this step K.O.P.C. will be deemed to have been registered under the Companies Act since its establishment. (Clause 1 (2).)
5. (e) The State guarantee in respect of the 5| per cent debentures for the amount of R 1,500,000 is being withdrawn (Clause 4.)
6. (f) The sale, the registration of K.O.P.C’s memorandum and articles of association under the Companies Act, 1926, the alteration of its name by inserting the word “Limited” at the end of its present name in the register of companies, the repeal of the present K.O.P.C. Act and the withdrawal of the State guarantee will all be effected simultaneously and will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. (Clause 1 (3).)
7. (g) No stamp duties, transfer duties or other costs will be payable in connection with the transaction, because in the first place there is no change of legal personality and in the second place the alienation of the shares will be merely on account of a transfer of the control over the present K.O.P.C. from the State to a private organization. In this case the sale of shares has precisely the same effect as when an ordinary public company sells its entire shareholding or its majority shareholding to another company. (Clauses 2 and 3.)

Hon. members will notice that the provisions of this Bill are purely enabling and that no single step mentioned therein will have the force of law before the State President has declared it as such by fixing a date by proclamation in the Gazette.

I am of the opinion that this hon. House will agree with me that the practical implementation of the provisions of this measure, if it is approved by Parliament, will cause the least possible disruption and inconvenience to all the parties concerned in the matter.

Although we on this side of the House much appreciate the full explanation the Minister has given us this afternoon, both of the background and the negotiations in regard to the transfer of the Klipfontein Organic Products Corporation to the Federale Volksbeleggings Beperk and the final conclusions the Government has come to, I must point out that we are dealing with an entirely different proposition when it comes to dealing with the Bill. We are dealing in the Bill with the position where Parliament is being asked to authorize the corporation to deal with people, and it goes on to say, such people as the board “may agree with”, and not “have agreed with”. It then says that the State President “may agree to sell”, not “has agreed to sell”. We are faced now with a fait accompli. We are faced with a situation in which the Government has concluded its negotiations or reached a process of conclusions far in advance of what the terms of the Bill provide and to that extent we have been taken by surprise because in effect what the Minister is asking the House to do is to ratify an agreement already made or about to be concluded, with this specific organization . . .

Of which we have no details.

In those circumstances what we have had before us thus far is certainly not what we have before us at this moment. A considerable amount of new matter has been introduced in the hon. the Minister’s speech, which is not in the Bill and which we on this side of the House had no reason or ground for contemplating would take place. I want to ask the hon. the Minister therefore whether he will agree to the adjournment of the debate in order that we may study the very full address he has given us, with the new matter both of principle and of detail. I think in fairness firstly to the Opposition but certainly to the House itself, we should have an opportunity of studying these new provisions and I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will agree to the suggestion I have made, otherwise we are left in this unfortunate position of having studied the Bill, having based our arguments and our views entirely on what is before us in the Bill and now finding ourselves faced with an entirely changed circumstance. If the hon. the Minister will intimate at this stage whether he will agree to my suggestion I will sit down.

Will you carry on for a while?

What we are faced with here is a very important Bill, the principle of which is the disposal by the Government of a State-controlled enterprise of some 15 years’ standing and the conversion of this State enterprise into a registered company, privately controlled. If that is the proposition which was before us then our approach to the problem was to deal with the disposal of State property, not to ratify an agreement already concluded, because the Bill before us contemplates the making of two forms of agreement; firstly an agreement with a group of persons as yet unnamed to form a company to agree to acquire the shares of K.O.P. and then by that means to acquire the asset by way of a transfer of shares. These are all matters which we on this side of the House were fully entitled to believe were still in contemplation. In those circumstances it is quite obvious that, whilst we have no objection, to the disposal of K.O.P. as a going concern to private enterprise, such disposal should be subject to a very important consideration, namely, that any disposal of State property of this sort should be on a competitive basis. I say that we on this side see no objection to the disposal of the K.O.P. to private enterprise because as an Opposition Party we believe in principle that a system of free private enterprise in commerce and industry is desirable and essential. But it stands to reason that when State property is sold, whether that property is made up of tangible assets or whether it is to be made up of a shareholding in a body in which those assets vest, two important obligations rest on the Government. The first obligation is to advertise the disposal so that private enterprise can compete fairly for the purchase of the assets and secondly, there is the important obligation on the Government to see that the assets are sold either to the highest bidder or certainly that they should be sold to the best possible advantage of the State as the owner of the assets concerned. Those are some of the considerations which we on this side of the House would have wanted to advance, but the situation which has now arisen as a result of the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech leaves me in this difficult position that at this stage I can only move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Order of the Day No. VIII to stand over.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Commission of Inquiry into the Postal Vote system and Voters Registration in its report during 1963 arrived at the conclusion, inter alia, that certain irregularities were taking place in regard to postal votes and also that it was clear that responsible political organizations and politicians wanted to be rid of those aspects of the postal vote system which, rightly or wrongly, placed them under suspicion (Paragraphs 97 and 98).

It was decided by way of experiment to take the question of postal votes out of the hands of political parties and to entrust it to presiding officers for absent votes, men chiefly in the service of the State. The only exception that was made was in respect of justices of the peace. During the debate on the Bill, various hon. members cherished a silent fear that the additional burden placed on these officials would in some cases be too heavy for them to bear, but they were nevertheless prepared to try to find the best solution to this problem.

The hon. members for Bloemfontein East (Mr. van Rensburg) (Hansard, Volume 10. col. 5572), Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) (col. 5509). Maitland (Mr. Hickman) (col. 5512) and Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) (col. 5514), made it known that they would welcome it if this burden could be borne but that they thought that this would be asking too much in some cases.

Hon. members will also remember that in col. 5522 I gave the assurance that if this experiment appeared to be a failure during the provincial council elections, I would come to Parliament with new suggestions.

In some cases the officials and justices of the peace acquitted themselves of their tasks in a praiseworthy manner but problems arose in other cases and indeed to such an extent that of the 43,919 postal votes issued, only 33,529 were returned in time to be counted; 10,383 went astray, that is to say, about 24 per cent. During the Referendum in 1960, 22,890 postal votes were issued of which only 8,155 were not received, that is to say only 3.5 per cent. It was clear therefore that another solution had to be found and in this connection I want to refer the House to another conclusion of the Commission in paragraph 140 of its report which was subscribed to by all its members, namely, that the Commission could not summarily accept the suggestion that only public servants be used as presiding officers for the existing system for absent voting.

I want therefore to explain the broad principles of this Bill which are chiefly the same as those recommended by the Commission in its report. Besides the existing presiding officers for absent votes, provision is also being made whereby Senators, members of the House of Assembly and members of Provincial Councils may also act as such, and indeed, in respect of the whole country. I am not going to limit the actions of these people at all because any such restriction will be nothing less than a reflection on their integrity. The Commission recommended that they should only act as such for their own postal votes in their own constituencies, but the Bill provides that they will be able to act as such throughout the country.

Besides these persons, every candidate in a division, or if a political party has not nominated a candidate in that division, the authorized representative of such party, is given the right to have 12 persons appointed as presiding officers for absent votes by the returning officer. This is recommended in paragraph 144 (i) (b) of the report. If there are more than 12 magisterial districts in a constituency, there will be a further additional person for each such magisterial district in excess of 12 (clause 3). These persons will be sworn by the returning officer or a magistrate will be given a letter of appointment and will be able to preside throughout the country, but they will receive no remuneration for their services from State funds.

The greatest problem experienced during the past provincial council election was to get voters to a presiding officer to vote.

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

Evening Sitting

When we adjourned for dinner, I had been indicating briefly that one of the new principles in this Bill was to introduce a small additional group of presiding officers who could deal with postal votes. I had been dealing with the second principle, which was that the main problem was to get voters to a presiding officer. If one succeeds in getting them there, it often happens that the presiding officer is no longer on duty or is too busily engaged on other essential duties to attend to the voters immediately.

Various attempts have been made to take presiding officers to voters, apart from voters who are immobile, but as you will recall, Sir, the application made by the United Party’s candidate in Hottentots-Holland when he refused to accept the official interpretation of the Electoral Law in this connection, failed in the Supreme Court.

In order to enable the political parties to carry out their traditional function in respect of the voters, it is proposed in Clause 7 of this Bill that presiding officers be authorized to visit any absent voter with his voter’s envelope containing the ballot paper and other papers and to allow him to vote there and then.

The third principle contained in the Bill is that absent voters should retain the right to choose a presiding officer themselves—the presiding officer in whose presence they want to vote—and that their ballot papers are then sent to that presiding officer. If a voter should in the meantime decide that he wants to have a different presiding officer, then he must submit to his new choice a written request addressed to the other presiding officer, who, upon receiving that request and after furnishing a receipt, must deliver the voter’s envelope concerned to the new presiding officer. That is provided in Clause 9. The written request of the voter is necessary in order to prevent irregularities from occurring.

It will be clear that the voter must have the right himself to choose his presiding officer, and if he has no confidence in some presiding officer or officers, or if doubts arise in his mind after he has made his choice, he can choose one in whom he has confidence. If he prefers to vote before a government official, he is perfectly free to do so. In that way, Mr. Speaker, I think we shall succeed in eliminating all the exaggerated stories of dishonest dealing from our political life—if the voter is satisfied that his vote is in good hands, I cannot see how anybody else can hold different views on the matter, unless he wants to be mischievous.

A further problem which has been encountered is that completed postal votes are not delivered to the returning officers concerned in good time. In order to deal with this problem, Clause 10 authorizes presiding officers to deliver postal votes personally to the returning officer. They may also deliver postal votes at a polling station in the electoral division concerned or cause it to be delivered by any other presiding officer.

The necessity for this provision will be evident from the fact that during the general Provincial Council election large numbers of completed postal votes which were dispatched by mail arrived too late to be counted in the following electoral divisions, to mention a few only: Germiston (District), 45; North-West Rand, 220; Springs, 256; Jeppes, 65; Brakpan, 54; Benoni, 51; Queenstown, 47. The provision I have mentioned contains nothing new, but represents a return to the previous position. The guarantee against abuses is provided by the fact that the various officials as well as the appointed presiding officers will only handle the postal votes under the strict supervision of the returning officers, as has been recommended by the Commission—that is the Commission which consisted of the hon. member for Durban (Point), the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), and others. The appointed presiding officers will be screened and immediately dismissed and prosecuted if they violate the official oath taken by them.

I do not think any political party will run the risk of recommending persons for appointment if they do not trust them absolutely. It would be fatal for any political party to be branded with the stigma of dishonesty. It is a heavy responsibility which they are taking, but I believe that the honesty of our political life will stand the test.

The Commission made a fifth proposal affecting matters of principle, and that is that a special voting system—which I promised last year (Hansard, Volume 10, col. 4398) would constantly be kept in mind as far as future planning was concerned—-be introduced. Accordingly, provision is made in clauses 1 (b). 2 and 17 for that system. The following will be presiding officers for votes of special voters: all electoral officers, returning officers, magistrates and officers acting under their direction and control. Absent voters only may vote as special voters. That is dealt with in Clause 2. In other words, an absent voter may vote either by postal vote or by special vote.

It will be possible to make use of the special vote both inside and outside an electoral division; in other words, no matter where the absent voter is, he will have the choice between a postal vote and a special vote. If a voter votes in both ways, which of course he is not allowed to do, only the application which is received first by the returning officer will be considered. Applications for special votes may be made to the presiding officers concerned during the hours from seven o’clock in the forenoon to nine o’clock in the afternoon of every day during the period from the 21st day before polling day up to and including the day preceding polling day, except on a Sunday, Ascension Day, the Day of the Covenant and Christmas Day, provided, of course, the voter has not already applied for a postal vote.

Here I may just mention that the United Party member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) has showed me some of his amendments. One of them is that we shall make this day not the Tuesday, but the Monday. There are very good reasons for that, which I have discussed with him, and that amendment is quite acceptable.

The application must be completed in duplicate, and must be signed by the presiding officer, who lets the voter vote there and then. The special vote is either despatched by post or delivered to the returning officer concerned by the presiding officer personally. The presiding office may even have the special vote delivered at a polling station by a presiding officer for absent votes. During this period at least one presiding officer will be on duty during the period from seven o’clock in the morning to nine o’clock in the evening at each magistrate’s office and at the offices of returning officers and electoral officers for the purpose of enabling special voters to vote.

Instead of bearing the usual secret mark on its reverse side, the ballot paper must bear the official stamp of the presiding officer and must be signed by him in order to prevent falsifications from occurring. Presiding officers must advise every returning officer every day, by telegraph and by letter despatched by registered express delivery post, of the ballot papers issued by them for the division concerned, in order to enable the returning officers to keep their voters’ lists up to date and subsequently to check whether all special votes have been received by them.

All special covering envelopes which are received by returning officers must be opened by them not later than the day after the day on which they received them, in the presence of such representatives of political parties as desire to be present. One copy of the application to vote as a special voter is enclosed and also serves as a declaration of identity. If the application is in order and the voter’s name appears on the voters’ list of the division, the returning officer must place the ballot paper envelope in a ballot box for special voters and keep the application in his custody. If the applicant’s application is rejected, he must be informed by telegraph of the reasons for the rejection and requested, if there is still time, to vote again. Defects which are due to the negligence of presiding officers may be remedied by telephone or personally. In addition it is also provided that any returning officer shall, at the request of the representative of a political party, postpone the consideration of any special vote for a period not exceeding 24 hours, but not beyond a time immediately preceding the time on which the counting of votes is commenced, in order to afford an opportunity for inquiries to be made.

Special votes are counted together with postal votes, but separately from the other votes, and candidates and their representatives are advised of the result.

The foregoing is a statement of the general principles contained in the proposed amendments, and I think hon. members will agree with me that the details can be more profitably discussed in the Committee Stage after a decision has been reached in regard to these general principles. It should be clear at this stage that the proposals upon which the commission were agreed, to a large extent form the basis of this Bill, and therefore I have no doubt that similar agreement will be a feature of the further discussions.

I cannot omit to express my thanks and appreciation for the co-operation I have received from the United Party in the person of the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and Durban (Point). I must say that the hon. member for Durban (Point), together with his colleagues, has made a very thorough study of this Bill, and I must also mention that he has showed me a few amendments which they intend moving. It is clear to me that they made an honest attempt not only to improve this Bill even further, but also to ensure that as many as possible of the loopholes which may arise—I am not saying “will arise”—are closed. I have pleasure in saying that most of the matters raised by the hon. member have been agreed to in principle by me and will be accepted. I have now referred those matters to the law advisers to be cast in the proper form. If we take the second reading to-night, we shall probably not take the Committee Stage before Thursday or so. That will afford hon. members an opportunity to make a proper study of the amendments.

Mr. Speaker . . .

You have lost already.

I am going to disappoint the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) by starting off by expressing my appreciation to the hon. the Minister. . . . [Laughter.] Sir, if we can get the Bill passed after that, then I do not know. It will be rather difficult.

I must say that this is one of the subjects on which it does seem possible for both sides of the House to deal—a matter affecting the election of every member of this House—in a spirit of seeking methods and systems which will make that election as easy and as fair and as reasonably efficient as possible. I am not going to spoil the picture very much by saying that this is always much more apparent when it seems obvious that new ideas have been found by this side of the House which have not yet been thought of by the Government. Therefore, I will not say that Mr. Speaker. But I will say that in this measure, as in other measures where we have dealt with the question of elections, there has been a sincere desire to create machinery which will evolve for this country a system of election as near as it is humanly possible, within the weaknesses of human failings, beyond suspicion. For that reason the commission, on which both sides of the House sat, spent a great deal of time studying the possible abuses, suspected abuses, and, let us be frank, the known abuses, in some cases, which could take place under the system which pertained prior to the amendments introduced last year. Last year this House introduced an amending Bill. I would hate to think what sequence number it would have in the amending Bills which have been passed since 1946, and I think the number of those amendments themselves indicate the difficulty of the subject with which we are dealing—changing the law dealing with our elections. This House has found it necessary to do so year after year. Last year a radical amending Bill was introduced, an amending Bill not entirely in keeping with the recommendations of the commission which was appointed to investigate this matter following on the Select Committee.

I would like to say at once that we are sorry that it should so soon be necessary to amend the amendment of last year because we feel that it has not been given a proper chance to prove itself. Last year’s legislation was tested in one election only. It was tested with both the officials who became the core of the responsible persons dealing with absent voters and the political parties unversed in the detail, the technicalities and so forth of that amending legislation. Essentially there were difficulties and problems. I believe that a lot of those difficulties could have been ironed out. But there were complaints and the Government, in its wisdom, decided to abandon, or rather not completely to abandon, but to modify radically that experimental legislation after one brief test. In the light of that decision we on this side of the House therefore look at this legislation as it affects the problems which were apparent last year and the possible difficulties that can arise from the proposed amendments. Looking at it in that light we accept this amendment not because we believe it is the ultimate answer but because we believe it introduces a new system which offers, to our mind, the ultimate answer to postal voting, i.e. a system of blank ballot papers which is the essential element of this amending law. It is a system which incorporates the fundamental principle for which this side of the House has always stood, a principle that a ballot paper should always remain the property of the State and should never become the property of the voter. That principle is partly maintained in this amending legislation but it is completely maintained in the blank ballot papers system, the so-called special vote system, which is incorporated in this Bill. That system provides that a voter may go to a highly placed Government official, an electoral officer, a returning officer in a constituency or a magistrate—nobody below that senior level of Government employee—and obtain from that person a ballot paper and an application form on which he applies, declares and proves his identity, and casts his vote in one visit and in one operation. Instead of having to apply, having a ballot paper issued and posted to him or to a presiding officer, voting and then having that vote returned to the returning officer, a voter may, in one visit, apply, prove and declare his identity, have a blank ballot paper issued in which will be entered the names of the candidates in his constituency, vote and have that completed ballot returned to his own constituency. In other words, in one visit the complete operation of voting is effected, in the same way as a voter on election day pays one visit to the polling booth and completes his or her vote. That, to our mind, is the ideal and this legislation introduces that ideal. It brings about a system where a voter votes under the close scrutiny of senior Government officials in similar circumstances and conditions to those which apply on election day, and where that vote can be accepted as having been cast in complete and total secrecy. Therefore we on this side of the House are fully and enthusiastically in favour of that new system as this Bill introduces it. Because of our enthusiastic support we are prepared to accept as, we hope, a temporary interim measure, the provisions of the first Clause of this Bill which expand the alternate system of conducting voting to Members of Parliament, Senators and Provincial Councillors and to persons appointed on the recommendation of political parties; 12 persons appointed by each political party in terms of the proposed amendment in this Bill. We accept that, not because we like it, but because it is the stepping stone to the subsequent amendment which we consider will be in the interests of a better postal voting system. We accept it because we believe that the blank, or special ballot system, offers so many advantages that we hope it will be possible in a very short time, after perhaps even the next election, for this House to decide that that is in fact a successful system. Therefore the extension proposed in Clause 1 of this Bill will no longer be necessary.

Whilst the blank, or special ballot system, is in its experimental stage we are prepared to accept this Clause extending the presiding officers who may handle the normal absent voter’s ballot as an interim measure. There is one weakness which we see in it and which we shall discuss in the Committee stage; it is a weakness which we emphasized in our discussions last year. The existing Act lays down that a group of Government officials shall handle absent ballot proceedings but it includes in that group one extraneous element, namely, Justices of the Peace who are not Government employees and therefore not truly within the control of the group which we envisaged and which the legislation envisaged last year. The introduction of that group at the time was a matter of some concern to us. We had our worries about it. When legislation was introduced by the hon. Minister of Justice at the beginning of this year, whom I am glad to see is here, making it possible to extend the number of justices of the peace, we were even more concerned. Because, whether it is right or wrong, whether it be justified or unjustified, the position arose where people could say that the Government had within its power the right to appoint persons outside the control of the State, at their discretion, who were entitled to handle postal ballot applications.

But on your recommendation.

And those applications were made and those appointments were made. The hon. member may interject but the fact is that nobody can blame the Government for it but in the appointments which were made it was inevitable that consideration should be given to applicants with whom the Government was familiar and whom the Government was prepared to support. I am not saying that no justices of the peace were appointed who supported other parties. I have only one personal experience. I applied for one justice of the peace to be appointed at Durban, after the election, for the specific reason that I did not want that appointment confused with the need to have a justice of the peace to handle postal votes. That application was rejected as being unnecessary. But I can mention name after name, dozens and dozens of names, of persons who were appointed for the sole reason, to our mind, of handling applications by absent voters. The Minister will know that these appointments were made. They were made with that purpose in mind. Supporters of this party may have been amongst them but those appointments were made for that reason only. So, consistent with our attitude, we believe that whilst we now have Members of the Assembly, Senators and Provincial Councillors plus 24 appointees, appointed on the recommendation of candidates or political parties, and while we retain all the State officials who previous could handle the casting of ballot by absent voters, there is no need to retain this odd group in the midddle. On the one hand you have State employees whom we accept unequivocally; on the other hand you have this new group of parliamentarians and provincial councillors who are identifiable. You have the new group of 12 persons appointed on the recommendation of a candidate or a party, persons who are identifiable. But in the middle you have justices of the peace who are neither under State control nor are they appointed on recommendation, nor are they sworn and given specific duties in terms of the Bill as it is before us to-night. The Bill places restrictions which requires that appointees nominated by a candidate or political parties shall have their duties laid down, shall take an oath which binds them to carry out those duties. In other words, they are people who will be accountable, on the one hand, and State officials who will be accountable, on the other hand, and in the middle this group of people who are not accountable to anyone. Therefore we shall press, at the Committee Stage, for the deletion of this odd-man-out group, the group who are neither responsible to the State nor responsible to the returning officer as the other members are. We don’t believe that, if you have 24 appointed people, plus your public representatives plus all your State officials, there can be one constituency in South Africa in which there will be a shortage of people to handle postal votes.

This Bill provides that State officials will carry even a greater burden than they carried before. We welcome the fact that a greater number of votes is likely to be cast before persons responsible to the State. That is our basic approach to postal votes that the person administering a postal vote should be a person in the employ of the State and responsible to the State.

Before I leave that point, I want to ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to deal with what we believe is an important adjunct to this increased responsibility of State officials. They will be called upon to work longer hours, to carry greater responsibilities. I would like the hon. the Minister to give an assurance that in carrying out those extra duties, they will be suitably and properly remunerated for the extra sacrifice which they will be asked to make. Because if those officials are to work as this Bill provides until 9 o’clock every night, if they are to carry the additional burden which this Bill places on them, then we have the right to ask that they should be fairly and adequately remunerated. The present remuneration which is paid to persons working in an election, either as returning officers or in other capacities, is not in keeping with the importance of the work they do. It does not compensate them for the time or the efforts which they put in, and I hope that this very clear increase in responsibilities will be accompanied by an equally radical amendment to the scale of compensation which is paid to those people.

Finally, I wish to deal with what I regard as the four matters requiring further discussion. The first is that of justices of the peace, which I will not carry any further; the second the Minister has dealt with, that of the closing time, and I am grateful to him for his undertaking that he will accept our amendment. It is only reasonable that both sides in any election should know what votes have been cast through the post before balloting opens on election day. Therefore I am grateful that the hon. Minister has agreed to accept that point of view. The third is the question of returning officers having their office in the constituency for which they are appointed. In all the cities you have the position where your returning officers are always concentrated in one or two buildings; all your magistrates, who normally act as returning officers, are usually in one building or one complex, and your electoral officers are usually in one building or one complex. Therefore where for instance in Durban you have eight constituencies, the eight returning officers can all be found within two buildings, a matter of half a mile apart, in the centre of the town. The same thing applies to Johannesburg and it also applies in Cape Town and in other areas. All your returning officers are concentrated in one “klompie”; so every voter who has to vote before a presiding officer, or every election agent who has business with his returning officer has to come in from the outskirts of the city to the centre. Every time you have to bring an emergency voter in to cast an immediate vote it can take anything up to an hour and a half or two hours merely travelling to and fro. Therefore we feel that, difficult as it will be, and we accept the difficulty, somehow we have got to ensure that the returning officer for a constituency operates for the period of postal ballots from within the constituency which he controls. I recognize the difficulties, but it is a matter of tremendous importance when we come to deal with the convenience of the public and the smoothness of the machinery which we are now establishing. That matter too we will discuss in Committee.

The final matter which I would like to raise at this stage is what the Select Committee referred to as the disputed vote (“die omstrede stem”). In every election one of the most unpleasnat things which happens is the struggle which takes place when one party obtains an application for a postal vote from a supporter of the other party. The other party comes to hear of it the following day when the application is lodged, promptly visits that voter, puts pressure on him and says “You must now sign a letter asking for your ballot-paper to be taken away from the person who is going to handle it and hand it over to our organization”. I should say that very few things create more bitterness, more unpleasantness and more heat than that tug-of-war which goes on between the two parties, struggling for the vote of a voter to be cast before their representatives. It was eliminated in the legislation last year; it becomes again possible in this legislation, and we would like to see that tug-of-war in which the voter becomes the unfortunate victim, with two parties pulling at either arm, using all the pressure they can to influence him, tearing him apart emotionally because one or other party has-got him to sign an application, eliminated. We will move an amendment in the Committee Stage to ensure that where there is a dispute as to the person before whom the voter shall cast his vote, that that vote may then only be cast before an official of the State, so that whichever party gets that application first, immediately it becomes a matter of dispute by the voter applying for the transfer of his ballot to some other presiding officer, that other presiding officer shall have to be an official in the employ of the State. Thereby you can ensure that this unpleasant tug-of-war, this battle over the vote of a person is eliminated.

So we on this side of the House give our support to this legislation. I repeat my appreciation to the Minister, and I do so very sincerely, for the manner in which he has listened to our representations, has discussed the points which we have raised and has recognized, as we recognize in him, the sincerity with which we have approached these problems. I am satisfied that the Minister and the Government are attempting to provide a foolproof and a suspicion-proof machine, and it is an essential element that this machinery should be suspicion-proof. I think the Minister accepts that we in our approach have adopted the same attitude. So I thank him for the spirit in which he considered the points we have raised and the very high degree of agreement we have reached. I would like to say that we on this side of the House, whilst believing that this is not the last word in this matter, believe that it has gone a long distance towards eliminating malpractices. All that now requires to be eliminated is the possibility of intimidation which still exists in the existence of party-nominated presiding officers. It is limited, it is restricted, but the roots are still there, and we believe that those roots can be eradicated when this new system of special ballot has proved itself and when South Africa will realize that the ultimate answer lies not in being able to wring one or two voters out of your opponents but in providing the machine which I believe very nearly is beyond suspicion, and in which both sides and all parties participating can have confidence. We therefore support this measure.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) expressed his misgivings, towards the end of his speech, with regard to political appointees serving as presiding officers. Sir, this reminds me very much of the Dutch proverb: “Een slecht geweten is een geweten dat zijn plicht doet” (A bad conscience is a conscience that does its duty).

The halo does not suit you, Basie.

Vause, you will have to lose a good deal of face before you can become a little angel.

I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the fact that he has made use of the opportunity so soon after the provincial elections to amend the postal vote system. Sir, we cannot deny that this system, as it was amended last year, proved to be a total failure at the provincial elections. My honest opinion is that the basic weakness of the measure which was placed on the Statute Book last year was the fact that persons who wanted to vote through the post could not be visited at home by the presiding officers. We cannot get away from the fact that throughout the years we developed in this country a postal vote system which was designed to make things as convenient as possible for the voter. The object really was to bring the postal vote to the voter on a platter. The new Act of last year did away with this convenience and with what had been the practice throughout the years. Instead of the postal vote being taken to the voter, the voter had to go to the postal vote. That was the basic weakness of the Act, and, I believe, the basic cause of the failure, as clearly outlined to us here by the Minister.

Do you want a travelling polling booth on election day?

No, we know that the organizations of the political parties are equipped to deal with the position on election day and that arrangements are made in advance for transport for voters if they do not come along themselves to vote, but the hon. member cannot deny that it placed a very heavy burden on the political parties to provide transport for people before the day of the election. It placed an extra burden on their shoulders and not only an extra burden but it also entailed financial burdens for the political parties. Whereas in the past they used to visit the voter once or twice to attend to his postal vote, they now had to make five or six trips to deal with his postal vote.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also referred to justices of the peace, but I want to say here this evening that if it were not for the fact that more justices of the peace were appointed during the last provincial election to assist as presiding officers, I am certain that the number of postal votes which never reached their destination and which were not counted, would not have amounted to only 25 per cent of the postal votes issued but that a much larger percentage would have been lost. The fact of the matter is that the public servants who were charged with this responsibility simply could not cope with the situation. During the provincial elections a case was brought to my notice where even a returning officer was not able to allow a certain person to vote at a certain time. One could not blame him because in addition to the normal administrative duties that he had to perform it was also the duty of this returning officer, on top of all the work which is always entrusted to a returning officer and his staff 3£ weeks before election day, to cope with all the additional work of dealing with the votes of 300 or 400 voters in between. It was simply a physical impossibility for the returning officers. I think the object of electoral laws in a democratic country should not be to disfranchise voters but to make it possible for all voters to cast their vote. That is why I welcome the fact that the Minister has made use of this opportunity so soon after the provincial elections to amend the Act. This measure removes this basic weakness from our legislation and rectifies the position.

I also want to express my gratitude for the fact that the hon. the Minister has now decided to give effect to the recommendations of the Postal Vote Commission of 1962, inter alia, that senators, members of the House of Assembly and members of Provincial Councils will be able to act as presiding officers and also that candidates will be able to nominate 12 persons to act as presiding officers at elections. With this amendment we are now reverting to the old system that we had in South Africa for years. The basic attitude of the commission of inquiry was that no drastic amendment to our postal vote system could be justified except on the basis of prior experiment. Let me read out what the commission of inquiry said with regard to this matter (para. 227)—

Then I also want to express my thanks to the Minister with regard to one matter in which he has not given effect to the recommendations of the Postal Vote Commission and that is to make the blank ballot paper compulsory for voters outside of the constituency. The Commission recommended it, but I think the Minister quite correctly adopted the attitude that the system which had been tested at the provincial elections had proved to be a failure and that we could not afford another gamble by embarking upon a further experiment.

It is not correct to say that it was a complete failure.

I think it is quite correct to say so. That is why I am grateful for the fact that this thing is first being made optional so that the voter will now have a choice as to whether he wishes to vote in the old way to which he had become accustomed over the years, or whether he wants to make use of this new system of absent votes. I think this supports the attitude which I adopted with regard to this whole question of blank ballot papers during the sitting of the commission of enquiry. In this connection I want to quote from para. 230—

1. (i) The new special vote system should first be tested out to establish whether it is adaptable to the requirements and conditions of South Africa, before it is applied generally to a group of absent voters.
2. (ii) With only the special vote system now applicable to this group of voters, even greater burdens will be placed on political parties, especially in urban areas. Since, as is generally admitted, voters are pampered and spoilt it will again be the political parties who will have to convey these voters to the special voting bureaux for the purpose of casting their votes. Apart from the number of trips which may have to be made to one voter to find him at home, one can foresee the endless trouble that the parties will have in arranging an appointment with such a voter and in finding a time that suits him to cast his vote.

What I said here in 1962 appeared to be correct in 1965 during the provincial election, and that is why I am grateful for the fact that a trial period is first being allowed for this blank postal vote system to prove itself. I do not doubt that as the voters become accustomed to it—because it is undoubtedly a system with many advantages—as the voters are educated to do their duty in this connection of their own volition the blank postal vote system will eventually become a popular system with absent voters. But it is essential that it should first serve a trial period and that the voters should gradually be made accustomed to it, and that is why I am grateful for the fact that this too is being made optional in the Bill.

I want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister once again for accepting the recommendations of the Postal Vote Commission of 1962. I am pleased that we are reverting to a system which will undoubtedly work better than the system which was tried out last year during the provincial elections. Let me say here perfectly clearly that, in view of the fact that so much difficulty was experienced in the limited number of seats which were contested, only one-third of the seats in the country were contested—I do not think we can risk a general election in which all the seats are contested on the basis of the postal vote system as we have it to-day; it would simply lead to chaos as far as postal votes are concerned. I am pleased therefore that the Minister has intervened timeously to rectify the position and to place the matter beyond all doubt.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) raised a few points in the course of his speech with which I do not quite agree. I shall come back to it during the course of my speech.

I think everyone who has had to do or is still dealing with the organization of a political party will agree with me when I say that one does not welcome continual amendment of the Electoral Act. Particularly one cannot welcome it when one now finds that the Electoral Act becomes so complicated that one almost needs a legal adviser every time one deals with a postal vote. I must say immediately that I have no solution for it, because even though I object to continual amendments I must nevertheless honestly admit that if there is one Act we should never stop trying to improve it is undoubtedly the Electoral Act, because we are dealing here with an Act which in its turn deals with the most fundamental right of every citizen, viz. the right to caste his vote. And we as a House of Assembly must try to put that Act in the best possible form. I, therefore, regard the Bill before us as an attempt to amend the present Electoral Act so as to obviate any alleged malpractices or abuses which might have existed in the past. The old adage has it that all changes are not necessarily improvements, and whether the changes now being made will in the long run prove to be improvements we still have to see. Nevertheless, I think that this House has no option but, against the background of the information available to it, to make such amendments to the existing Electoral Act as the House might consider necessary.

Apart from the fact that one is dealing here with improvements, there is another idea, and that is that one should try to adapt these improvements to the practice.

One of the practical objections we had to the existing Electoral Act and which came to the fore very clearly during the last provincial elections, was certainly the fact that complaints came from all sources that there was a shortage of public servants to do the work. In view of the fact that public servants had to do this work, one can understand that there were such complaints. I think, however, that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) goes a little far by saying that this thing was a complete failure during the recent election. I personally know of various areas, and I know the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Rawl also referred to it. where the present Electoral Act. as amended last year, worked excellently. As against that, one again had other areas where it did not work. I want to support what was said by the hon. the Minister, that the public servants under the new conditions in all respects performed their duties excellently, and one cannot but congratulate them on the manner in which they performed their task.

The fact remains, however, that we had the position here, as the Minister said, that there was an approximate reduction of 24 per cent in the number of postal votes which should have been cast. That proves that there must be something wrong somewhere, and now this Bill tries to deal with the problem in two ways, in my opinion. It creates two systems according to which one can vote before polling day, and the first is what is now known as the special ballot paper. It is something new in South Africa, but it is not a new thing in the world. There are countries where it is used on a large scale with great success. There they make use of the blank ballot paper and there are definite advantages connected with it. In the first place, one will succeed in completing the voting itself much faster. Secondly, the possibility of abuses and malpractices is eliminated to a large extent. I personally hope, as hon. members opposite have also said, that this new system will become so popular that later we will use only the special ballot paper and that we will no longer hear about the second type of system we have to-day, viz. the old system.

In so far as the old system is concerned, as it runs alongside the new system at the moment, no basic change is being made, except for the manner in which the postal votes are issued and the applications, etc., are controlled. Under the existing Act there were two groups of persons who exercised control, firstly, the public servants and, secondly, the justices of the peace, whom I regard as a special group because I am unable to fit them in anywhere. Then we now have a new third group, viz. M.P.s, Senators and Provincial Council members and the 12 people who can be specially nominated by every party.

In regard to the public servants, I have already said that I laud them for the way in which they did their work. The fact is also that where there were objections, where problems arose as the result of the fact that the work could not be done, one should remember that here we had a completely new machine, something quite new to the Public Service, and I am surprised that in the circumstances those people did not do worse. I also want to agree with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) that one feels somewhat concerned over the fact that if a country-wide general election were to take place, that machine would have creaked even more than it did, and then the problem arises in how far the public servants under present conditions, where they have to perform various other duties also, will be able to do their work. But I think it is a pity that we have so soon changed the old principle which was accepted last year. I shall return to this point later.

In regard to the justices of the peace, I want to say immediately that I cannot put them in anywhere. It does not seem to me that they fit in with the normal group as described in the legislation. I remember that the great argument in favour of retaining the justices of the peace last year was that there are large areas where there are not sufficient officials to perform these duties. But where we are now getting this new group of 24 people appointed by the two parties, 24 presiding officers who can do the work, I really do not think that the justices of the peace fit in there and in my opinion they should be eliminated. I, therefore, agree with an amendment which will be moved by this side of the House that those persons should no longer act as presiding officers. I also want to point out to the Minister that we are dealing here with persons appointed by the State, and there are new people or bodies who become suspect so quickly in a political struggle than the State. Whether that is true or not, it nevertheless remains a fact that where we are dealing with justices of the peace appointed by the State, from all parties, we may possibly have suspicion which can be eliminated.

Justices of the peace are prominent people.

In so far as Senators and Members of Parliament and provincial councillors are concerned, together with the 12 persons nominated, we have a system which will control these people very well, but in my opinion it is a pity that we should have taken this step. Here we have, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has said, the same thing that we had in the past. Here we again have the position where there will be suspicion. It cannot be avoided; there will be people who will say that there was no secrecy, because one is dealing with persons belonging to political parties. One will even get people who will say that there was coercion, and that will probably result in destroying the principle one should like to maintain in regard to the Electoral Laws. Another problem which worries me in regard to these 12 persons is this: I recollect that in the Commission which dealt with the matter, doubts were expressed in regard to the large number of postal votes passed, and at one stage it was felt that we should try to make the system of postal votes difficult so that people would not be able to vote by post more easily than to vote normally at the polling booth. Doubts were expressed about the large number of postal votes, and where we will now in a normal election have 24 persons dealing with postal votes, I foresee that we will again have an increase in the number of postal votes. I think that is a mistake. I have also heard people say that postal votes should be abolished. I am not one of those who say that. I believe, however, that steps should be taken to avoid the number of postal votes to increase unrestrictedly.

I would definitely have opposed the nomination of 12 persons were it not for the fact that we are getting the new system alongside it, the new system of special ballot papers. As the Minister has said, we are dealing here with a system which I hope will in future take the place of the postal vote system, and I should like to thank the Minister for having had the courage to accept that revolutionary suggestion made by the Commission to introduce this new system. I have every confidence that in the course of time it will replace the old system and that we will then have complete control over every postal vote by public servants. I also want to tell the Minister that however much one tries, this will surely not be the last amendment to the Electoral Act. There will always be some person who discovers some point or other to evade the provisions. I do not want to say that I have discovered a few, but it is possible, and I therefore want to tell the Minister that even though he comes along with amendments again, as long as his Department and this House try to improve the Electoral Act, I do not think we should do anything to prevent it.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman), who was a member of the Postal Vote Commission, is objecting to the justices of the peace in particular. I just want to say that if we had not had the justices of the peace at the recent election, the work in connection with the postal votes would still have been unfinished to-day. What the hon. member apparently forgets is that the justices of the peace were the first presiding officers in our postal vote system. If he cares to look up the original Electoral Act he will see that that is the position. I do not want to follow the hon. member in his observations. I was prepared to give the Minister and the Department a chance last year, but I knew that things would not go right and I shall tell you why. In the first place, there is not nearly so much dishonest dealing. Perhaps I have been in this game longer than anyone else in the House of Assembly. There is not nearly as much dishonest dealing as people want to make out. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) waxes lyrical about the fraudulent practices which are committed in connection with postal votes, but he is only blowing his own trumpet. My experience is that people blow up this matter to an inordinate size, and I am saying that very decidedly and responsibly. As is the case with the registration of voters, this function cannot be performed properly by the State, as it does not have the machinery required. The poorest registration one gets is the general registration. The parties on both sides, the United Party and the National Party and, in the case of the Coloured voters, the Progressive Party, have to step in to get the voters registered. A general registration is the poorest registration one can get and no one can contradict me. I am not laying any blame on State officials here. They cannot undertake it and it is not being done properly. We had a general registration last year. The parties have to step in now, and I may tell you, Sir, that I think that less than three quarters of the voters in South Africa were registered last year.

Order! The hon. member must not go too far.

No, Sir, I am talking about postal votes and I am merely drawing a comparison. The State cannot do the work. With the best will in the world the officials cannot do it for you. No matter what Government was in power, and even if this Government were to decide this evening that it would do the work itself, it would still be unable to do it. In this matter, as in the case of registration, one has to bring the parties into it, and ultimately one has to place the responsibility on them. As a member of the commission I want to say this to-night. I honestly and sincerely did my best, and that is my view and my belief, to make this existing system, which has been built up by the parties, and in which they are playing a tremendous part, as safe as is absolutely possible. We as a commission agreed to eliminate very possible irregularity which could arise and to suggest certain security measures, and we have done so. The report is available; you may read it in that. We went as far as that. The 12 agents each candidate can get have had certain responsibilities imposed upon them. Amongst other things, they have to take an oath before the local magistrate. They must each get an official stamp, and each of them can be called to account for every postal vote handled by him. I want to be candid now. I expected that we would return to that system. I was prepared to give the Minister and the Department a chance last year, but I expected that we would return to that system. However, I want to issue a warning. I think I would be neglecting my duty if I did not do so. I am very sincere in this matter, and it is also dealt with in the commission’s report. Two of the members published a minority report. We want to give this system of blank ballot papers an opportunity on a small scale. I do not want to go into that this evening. It is also dealt with in the commission’s report. We were prepared to make an experiment, as I still am this evening, but the matter is thrown open in this Bill. I shall vote for this Bill, because it is better than the existing law, but I cannot help issuing a warning. In the first place I want to say this. The blank ballot paper system is going to retard election results a great deal in South Africa. Up to now we have been used to the position that if an election took place to-day, all the results in the country would be known by to-morrow evening, but with this new system we are accepting—I may be wrong, and as we are accepting it, I shall be very glad if I am wrong, but with this system of blank ballot papers, election results will be delayed by at least a week. Up to now we have been used to getting all our results throughout the Republic within 48 hours, and I say that this system may contribute to our results being delayed for at least a week. I do not want to go into that any further. Let me say this to-night: I do not feel so convinced in my mind. I wish I were, but I am not convinced in my mind that this system of blank ballot papers is a good thing. I want to give it a chance. I am one of the careful people. I want to give it a chance. I want to give it a chance on a small scale as an experiment. As a matter of fact, that was what I recommended as a member of the commission. But I am not so sure that this new system about which some members waxed lyrical this evening is not going to lend itself to more serious irregularities. I just want to mention one example to show why I am saying that, and I want the Minister to listen carefully. Sir, do you know where I came across the largest proportion of spoilt ballot papers in the past? I have taken part in many elections in my life. I do not know whether any other hon. member has attended more counts than I have. What I am going to say now, I am saying on the strength of my experience. Do you know where I came across the largest proportion of spoilt ballot papers? Not in the case of postal votes, but in the case of declaration votes. Let me explain what happens. The presiding officer, who is a State appointee, is a State official for those 12 or 24 hours. He is not a permanent State official. At the referendum I also came across cases in which the presiding officer had not signed the declaration forms of persons who had obtained declaration votes, and in which their votes were consequently not counted. I just want to tell the Minister that he should please take that into account. That applies to all the parties. Each party handles the votes of its own people. No party is anxious to do another party’s postal votes. I have had a great deal of experience and I do my own party’s postal votes first, and the others can stand over till later. If persons belonging to other parties want to be attended to by me, then I attend to them. In recent years the United Party thought that the National Party was guilty of fraudulent practices, but what happened is so obvious. We did not go and look for the people concerned, but the United Party’s people came to our organization and said, “Please handle our postal votes, because we no longer support the United Party and we want to vote in favour of becoming a Republic or for the National Party candidate.” That is the origin of this terrible story of fraudulent practices. I was an organizer for many years. I am not anxious to gather votes for any party, not for the United Party either, because I know they are not voting for me. In the first place I gather my own votes. Nor can the United Party come and tell me that they gather in National Party votes: they gather in their own votes in the first place. That is the way in which this whole postal vote system works. When the National Party was in opposition, we also made these accusations that the Government was indulging in fraudulent practices. It is the obvious thing for any Opposition to do. The more the leaves fall and the more the people come to us, the more the accusation is made that the Government in power is indulging in fraudulent practices as far as postal votes are concerned.

Why are you so much on the defensive?

No, I am not on the defensive; I am on the attack. I want to ask the Minister that we should not take too much notice of the complaints made by the Opposition. If we take notice of their complaints we shall make mistakes. Let us follow our own course. We have always followed the course of justice. That is my belief and my conviction. We must not allow people on the other side to dictate to us what course we should follow. I am of the opinion that the parties must handle these postal votes. Then things will go right. I am going to vote for this measure because I believe it is better than what we have had up to now, but I cannot help saying to the Minister that I doubt whether it will be a great success.

This was a fairly cheerful debate until we had the rather mournful speech of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden), and there is a rather unusual unanimity in the House in this debate. I am sure the Minister will be pleased to learn that it is not my intention this evening to sow discord and to disturb the atmosphere, at least as it was until the previous speaker gave us the benefit of his faith, his fears and his agony. In other words, I support this Bill, but I do have some reservations and I do have a few fears of my own, although I will try to voice them a little more cheerfully than the last speaker.

First of all, my main reservation is that the new system, although it is an improvement in some respects, has one big shortcoming. It puts the system of postal votes to a large extent back into the hands of the political parties. The Minister will agree that the Commission of Inquiry mentioned that the main weakness of the then existing postal vote system was that “the ballot paper passed out of the control of the responsible polling officer for a considerable length of time, when it came into the hands of interested parties who are exposed to immense temptation not to be unduly strict in observing certain requirements such as secrecy”. That was one of the opinions expressed by the Commission, and of course it tried to find some way in which the obvious malpractices which could come about could be avoided in future. One of its main recommendations was that as far as possible the ballot paper should not fall into the hands of the political parties, of the candidates or their agents. To some extent this Bill does put the postal vote system back into the hands of the political parties, and of course since it again re-appoints as presiding officers, sitting Members of Parliament and sitting members of the Provincial Council and sitting Senators, it does mean that the majority party at the time, which is the Government, clearly has an advantage over other parties. It is obvious that at the next general election the National Party, which has more Members of Parliament, etc., than the United Party, and certainly than the Progressive Party. will have a considerable advantage in that it will have so many more people to put into the field to assist in the collection of postal votes. That is a shortcoming of this Bill.

In any case, no one will vote for your party.

Order!

I will not be distracted by that highly irrelevant and inaccurate observation. The appointment of 12 persons to act as presiding officers for postal votes, on the recommendation of each candidate, adds to the party-political flavour, and I would like the Minister to take this Comittee into his confidence and tell us how he overcame the strictures of his colleague the Minister of Justice in this regard. I have a recollection that a little earlier this Session, when we were discussing the appointment of justices of the peace who would act as presiding officers for postal votes in the provincial election, the Minister of Justice was decidedly against the appointment of these 12 persons originally recommended by the Commission to act as postal vote agents. He said this. He was having an argument at the time with the hon. member for Maitland and with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), who were partial to the appointment of such people rather that justices of the peace, and in the course of that argument the Minister of Justice asked whether the hon. member for Maitland realized what would have happened if his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, had accepted this recommendation of his and of the hon. member for Durban (Point), that the parties should appoint 12 persons to act as postal vote agents. The Minister of Justice pointed out that in any one constituency where there was a three-cornered election, 36 such people will be appointed, 12 from each party; and he went on to say that these 12 people, whom he said the hon. member for Point would have appointed, would have been people over whom the Minister would have had no authority, and over whom his magistrates would have no authority. He said they could just be any people because they had to be 12 people nominated by the candidate, and not even by the political party. He went on to say that he just “catches them in the veld and brings them in”. In other words it is quite clear from what was said by the Minister of Justice that he was against the appointment of these 12 people. Now the Minister of the Interior is going to appoint such people and I should like to know how he has resolved his dispute with the Minister of Justice.

Now I must say that I do not share the fears and the sentiments of the hon. member for Durban (Point) about the J.P.s. I think they must surely be as reliable people to operate postal votes as the 12 appointed by the candidates.

That is the normal J.P.s, not the political appointees.

What the hon. member does not seem to realize is that once a man has been appointed as a J.P., he acts as one, and he is in a very responsible position. I think any man who has been appointed as a J.P. would certainly think twice about jeopardizing his position by falsifying a postal vote in favour of a political party. The J.P.-ship does carry a certain honour, and I do not think that a citizen, having been accorded this honour, would lightly throw it away. So I do not really share his fears, because I think the J.P.s will certainly be as responsible as the 12 people appointed by the candidate. I might add that I did not have the same experience as the hon. member for Durban (Point) in regard to the appointment of persons as J.P.s at the time that more were required to deal with postal votes. I, too, made recommendations, and they were accepted. I took care to make recommendations in areas where there was difficulty in getting postal vote applications completed either because a very busy official had been appointed, such as a Bantu commissioner, or the magistrate was simply unable to handle the volume of work, or there was only one police station in the constituency, and therefore there was difficulty in getting someone else to act. And of course I took care that the people recommended were very well-known citizens. I must say I had no difficulty as far as my recommendations were concerned. I am prepared to vouch that not one of these J.P.s who received their honour with due appreciation would jeopardize his position for the sake of tampering with a few postal votes. Apart from anything else, I am sure they would not dare risk being deposed and to face the public scandal that would arise if that happened.

Having made my objection to part of this system of postal votes going back into the hands of the political parties, I want to say at once—and this is the main reason why I support this Bill—that I think that the system of special voting which is now being introduced is an enormous improvement. To some extent it conforms with the recommendations made by my party when the Commission was sitting in favour of a system we referred to as pre-election balloting, which is exactly the same as this special voting; in other words, where a person is going away and knew he was going away but would still be within the constituency where he was registered within three weeks of the election, i.e. when the ballots were being issued, then there should be a system whereby he could go straight to the returning officer and without any more formality other than identifying himself either by means of an identification card or by any other form of identification which would be acceptable, voting there and then in front of the returning officer for his constituency. In other words, we wanted a system which would cut down on the enormous volume of paper work which was previously involved in making an application for a postal vote and obtaining the issue of the ballot form, a system which was far too complicated, involved and time-consuming. Hours are taken up every morning by the returning officers, who are busy men, with paper-work concerning the issue of postal votes, and I think that is completely unnecessary. I am quite sure that with the introduction of this pre-election balloting or special voting, we will cut down enormously the volume of work entailed in postal voting. I think that the extension of this system by this Bill to people anywhere in the Republic who have already left the constituency where they are registered, is also a great improvement and will reduce the work. I think we will find that this system will in fact work very well, and that the main objective of the Bill, which is to see that every registered voter has the opportunity of exercising his vote even if he is going away or has already left his constituency, will in fact be attained. Therefore from that point of view I support the Bill.

I fully agree with the point made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) that it would be helpful if the returning officer for these special voters could be stationed in the constituencies where they are to act; in other words, in the suburbs, because there is a large amount of work involved in transporting voters to the centre of the town, with all the difficulties of parking, and a very complicated arrangement results. It will be so much easier, especially as I see in the Bill that these officers will be available from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., to take these voters to the returning officer if he is in the constituency where the voter is registered, and I think many more voters will register their votes in this way than was possible under the existing system. Therefore I agree very heartily with that point made by the hon. member.

I should like to suggest to the Minister that when this Bill has been accepted by the House and has gone through alll its stages, and prior to a general election, the Government should make a point of publicizing this new system. This Bill might get a little publicity now in the Press, but by the time the next general election comes along either late this year or early next year or whenever it will be, the public with its short memory, will have forgotten entirely about this new method of postal voting or special voting or pre-election balloting, and although the political parties in their eager search for those elusive voters will naturally do their best to bring this to the notice of the voters, I think it will be very helpful if the Government officially publicized this new system of voting so that voters might take advantage of it. This is the main suggestion I have to offer to the Minister. Other than that, I believe that there is a great deal of good in this Bill. There is some bad in it also, but I shall certainly not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that we are to a large extent, with this legislation, returning the postal votes into the hands of the political parties; I do believe, however, that that need not be the position for an indefinite period because I think that if this open ballot system is a success, it will over the year, and not over too many years, replace completely the old postal vote system; that it will replace the old postal vote system and that we shall, with some minor adjustments to make provision for the really immobile absent voters, rid ourselves completely of the old postal vote system and that it will very fruitfully be replaced by this new system. I think this system will succeed because public servants who are uninformed will not be expected to handle postal votes. Under the old system public servants were indiscriminately expected to handle postal votes which are complicated things to handle. Many mistakes have been made because people were not au fait with the kind of work they had to do. I think, therefore, that where we shall now have selected public servants who are au fait with the work and who will have the opportunity of learning something about the work as presiding officers for postal votes, there will also be far fewer spoilt ballot papers. I support the request made by the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) and the hon. member for Houghton that while electoral officers are handling postal votes they should have their offices in the constituency in which they are operating. It happens that because of the fact that presiding officers have their headquarters in the electoral office in a big city or at the magistrate’s court, they are often at the extreme end of the constituency and that a great deal of time is wasted in getting to them. If this request can be acceded to it would do no harm even if it is only for the period of 21 days prior to the election. I think the presiding officer must be a full-time officer for that period. The State must set him aside for the job of handling postal votes. I do not, however, share the doubts expressed by the hon. members for Maitland and Point as far as justices of the peace are concerned. I think hon. members opposite are doing justices of the peace a great injustice by casting suspicion on them. Mr. Speaker, I have the same confidence in the integrity, impartiality and honesty of our justices of the peace as I have in our public servants. Public servants are also human and they, too, have political views. I believe in the integrity and impartiality of public servants to the same extent to which I believe our justices of the peace will maintain their integrity and try to be impartial when doing such responsible work.

There are one or two minor points I still want to refer to. In the first place, this legislation provides that presiding officers may hand in ballot papers at any postal booth up to closing time on the day of the election. This privilege was done away with in the previous legislation and I think that is one of the reasons why so many postal votes did not reach the electoral officers timeously. In terms of the new provision it is more likely that postal votes, which are exercised at the last moment, will reach their destination seeing that they can still be handed in up to closing time.

Another benefit flows to us from this new set-up. Candidates can still appoint a number of agents although not as many as they could under the existing law. The Bill before us at the moment also contains this benefit that in the case of uncontested seats the various political parties can appoint agents. It has always been our difficulty in the past that postal votes in uncontested seats could not be attended to timeously and smoothly because there were not sufficient people in such constituencies to do so. There was no candidate to appoint agents. Now, however, the political parties may appoint agents in the absence of a candidate.

There is another little matter in respect of which I want to express my doubts. I do not want to say much about it because I think this is a matter which can be discussed further at the Committee Stage. I refer to the great number of signatures demanded by this legislation. The voter is called upon to sign, as well as the presiding officer, a witness, etc. I want to point out that every signature constitutes a potential danger that that ballot paper may be spoilt. The reverse is also true: the fewer signatures required the fewer the number of spoilt ballot papers. We know how postal votes can be spoilt; they can be spoilt because they have not been properly completed. That is often due to the fact that the persons concerned did not sign the forms; one witness may have signed where there should have been two. We now provide in Clause 17 that the prospective voter must prove his identity to the presiding officer. The voter must then sign and then the presiding officer, somebody who is in a responsible position and somebody who has established the identity of the voter. As if that is not enough—a witness must also sign ! Why are three signatures necessary? I do not think they are all necessary. I can give other examples but I shall leave the matter there seeing that we will have an opportunity in the Committee Stage of devising methods which will least lend themselves to the spoiling of ballot papers. A precedent already exists in that it is provided that where a presiding officer has omitted to fill in the voter’s address or occupation in an open ballot paper that ballot paper will not be declared invalid. Provision is already made, therefore, for human failings as far as the proper completion of forms in in terms of the law is concerned. I think it ought to be possible to go even further and to do so in a few other respects as well.

But provision has been made for that.

In conclusion I want to say that I think this measure will bring about a more effective and a more efficient handling of postal votes and for that reason I am pleased that it is supported by all sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it rather seems to me that if one wants a really detailed discussion of any particular measure, and also if one wants a really attacking speech to be made by the hon. member for Malmesbury, one must be in agreement with that measure !

In any case, I was very glad to find from the discussions so far that we can have so large a measure of unanimity, as well as the willingness to meet one another halfway, on so important a matter as the electoral laws of the country. As we know, the postal vote system was introduced for the convenience of those voters for whom it would be very inconvenient to go to a polling station on the day of an election. The Commission, however, was somewhat concerned about the fact that, as the postal vote system developed, it became easier and more convenient for people to vote by postal vote instead of voting in person at the polling stations. Parties take so much trouble to visit people and to pamper them that many people try to find reasons for voting by postal vote, rather than to go to the ballot box personally, as it is their duty to do.

Another aspect which caused members of the Commission some concern was the evidence submitted in regard to the existence of malpractices, malpractices which had arisen from the postal vote system. A large number of officials of the electoral office of the Department of the Interior submitted evidence in regard to this aspect. As a matter of fact, only one of the officials in his evidence did not refer to the malpractices which have developed, but he did so not because he was of the opinion that there were no malpractices, but because, as he stated, he was not interested in that aspect as, in his view, it was the duty of the political parties to keep an eye on one another, and not that of the officials of the Department.

In the light of the overwhelming evidence of malpractices taking place, the Commission decided to make an attempt to eliminate those malpractices. What struck one was the fact that political parties did not blame one another reciprocally as far as those malpractices were concerned. All of them declared that it was unfortunate that opportunities for such malpractices did exist. Moreover, all of them felt that such opportunities for malpractices had to be removed. The principle which was decided upon was that the ballot paper had to remain in the hands of the State and should not come into the hands of agents of the parties or of candidates. This principle was then accepted by Parliament last year, perhaps in an even stricter form than that contemplated by the Commission.

Unfortunately there was one weak link in the proposals which the Minister submitted to Parliament at the time, proposals which were unanimously agreed to by Parliament. This weak link lay in the fact that the second aspect of the Commission’s proposals had been ignored. The position was that the Commission had proposed that a system of blank ballot papers should be put to the test, ballot papers referred to as “special ballot papers” in the present Bill. The Chairman of the Commission, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central), went to a great deal of trouble to have that system investigated. He obtained information about the operation of the system in Australia and New Zealand. The Commission was unanimous in its opinion that the two systems had to be tested alongside each other. It was foreseen at that time already that a system of blank ballot papers would eventually prove to be more acceptable, as it was generally a neater system than the system in vogue at present. It meant that any person who wanted to vote by postal vote had to appear before an official only once. Under the other system a voter had to apply for a ballot paper in the first place and when he had received it he had to appear before a commissioner of oaths or some other competent person in order to cast his vote. Under the new system a person went directly to officials who had been authorized to act as presiding officers and cast his vote there and then. That was the end of the matter as far as that person was concerned. In other words, it was almost the same as the process which the ordinary voter had to go through when he wanted to go and cast his vote at the ballot box on polling day. The two groups are now being placed virtually on the same footing. In that way both the voter concerned and the parties are being saved an infinitely great deal of trouble.

I now want to come to the original proposals made by the Commission. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, I want to say that we were perhaps more pleased than others with the proposals made by the Minister last year, because we thought that some of the proposals were even better than the proposals made by the Commission. In the absence of a system of blank ballot papers, however, the proposals could not work. The alternative system of reducing pressure on officials did not exist.

Where we are now reverting to the appointment of presiding officers for absent votes, officers who are similar to the special commissioners of oaths who were appointed before, we can only say that it is a good thing that we are going to appoint 12 per electoral division and per candidate. In the first place it facilitates the work and in the second place it affords the parties a greater opportunity of performing their important function in this regard, which is that the one should act as watch-dog over the other to prevent malpractices from being committed.

We are glad to see that there are two safety valves as far as the appointment of these presiding officers is concerned. In the first place I take it that the Department will continue to print ballot papers in fugitive ink so that any attempt to tamper with the ballot paper after a person has voted will be immediately noticeable. In my opinion this practice is one of the most important results of the work of the Commission. In the second place the presiding officer for absent vote? will be responsible for returning the ballot papers, and if any particular ballot paper has not been completed, it must be returned to the presiding officer, so that in case of any dispute arising, explanations can be demanded as to why any particular ballot paper had not been dealt with. In other words, an onus is now being placed on the presiding officer for absent votes to see to it that the ballot paper is duly completed and returned to the presiding officer.

I want to express the hope that the system proposed by this Bill will be regarded as an experiment by the hon. the Minister and by all sides of this House. I want to express the hope that if it appears that the system of blank ballot papers is a more effective one for preventing malpractices we shall come back to this House and decide that it is to be the only system for this country.

Various members have said that certain amendments are to be introduced at the Committee Stage, one of them being that provision is to be made for greater decentralization of the office of the presiding officer in electoral divisions in large cities. In the City of Johannesburg, for example, there are only 16 electoral divisions, which have nearly 200,000 voters. If only 10 per cent of those voters wanted to vote by post, it would mean that 20,000 voters would have to come forward within a period of 21 days—that is to say, an average of 1,000 voters per day—for the purpose of casting their votes. In my opinion that is asking a little too much. There may be difficulties in decentralizing, particularly be cause the presiding officers have to be responsible officials, but that decentralization can be brought about with the assistance of officials acting under the supervision of the presiding officer. As a matter of fact, in terms of the definition of “presiding officer” in the Bill the work need not always be done by the presiding officer himself. It is also permissible for the work to be done by officials acting under his supervision, and his supervision need not always be exercised in praesentes, but may also be exercised in absentia.

I hope the Minister and his Department will introduce a certain measure of decentralization. Special electoral divisions have special problems. The electoral divisions in our cities are densely populated; they have more voters than rural constituencies have. That becomes even more the position as a delimitation gets older, because people are constantly moving to the cities. In my opinion these people are entitled to some consideration. I know I am not allowed to discuss it now, but there is a Bill on the Order Paper in which a special concession is being made to electoral divisions which extend over large areas. I am now asking the hon. the Minister to make a similar concession to the densely populated electoral divisions in our cities, in cities where a large number of electoral divisions have to be served by one and the same office.

In conclusion I just want to say that postal votes will always cause us problems, at any rate as long as the registration of voters is not first class and effective.

Accordingly there is one further question which I want to put to the hon. the Minister. In its report the Commission made certain recommendations in regard to the improvement of the system of current registration—they recommended that the assistance of certain State authorities should be enlisted to notify electoral officers of changes of address. Can the hon. the Minister give us any indication as to what progress is being made in this regard? He has already said that this matter does not require any legislation, but can be dealt with administratively. Progress in this respect may perhaps mean a great deal when it comes to improving our postal vote system and bringing it up to date.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very sincerely for their support, for their co-operation, and for realizing that we are dealing with a matter here which affects all of us and which we want to improve as much as we possibly can.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said at the outset of his speech that it was really a pity to change the present system, because the system which came into operation as recently as last year had only been given one single chance, which was during the recent provincial election. He was of the opinion that if the persons who applied the system had been a little better informed they would have made a greater success of it. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. member in that respect. I think the results achieved by means of the present system were sufficient proof that it was not so much a question of ignorance, but rather a case o-f inability to handle what had to be handled.

I am very glad that there is a large measure of agreement in regard to a few major principles contained in this measure. The blank ballot paper or, as it is called in the Bill, the special vote, has met with general approval. The hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Van Staden) sounded a slightly discordant note when he said that it would delay the election results by at least a week. Well, I do not know where the hon. member gets that information, because what is not in the ballot box by 9 p.m. on polling day is simply not counted. How the blank ballot paper can therefore delay the result of an election by as much as a week I simply cannot understand. Mr. Speaker, the results cannot be delayed, because if a ballot paper is not in the ballot box it is simply not counted, as I have said. Immediately after nine o’clock on the evening of polling day the counting of the votes which have been cast is commenced, and the counting will be completed as quickly as in the past.

Mr. Speaker, when one wants to reprimand others, one must first reprimand one’s own people. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) also displayed a certain measure of ignorance when he criticized the number of signatures required. If the hon. member read paras, (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (6) of the proposed Section 71duodec in this measure in conjunction with Section 67 of the Electoral Act, he would see that he is making a mistake in this respect. Section 67 deals with declarations of identity and reads as follows—

But that does not relate to this; it relates to witnesses.

The hon. member would do well to read the other matters too. In any case, this is a matter which can be discussed further in the Committee Stage. I want to point out to hon. members that if they had come and discussed these little points with me beforehand—as the hon. member for Durban (Point) did—we could perhaps have had greater clarity.

I now want to say a few words about the blank ballot paper. Like other members, I also feel that this is going to be the future postal vote system in South Africa. In fact, I am hoping that it will be the system.

Hear, hear!

But I want to add that that will depend on the way in which the system is handled by the political parties. We in the Republic of South Africa are very conservative. We are accustomed to a certain system. If the postal vote system is handled so poorly that the voter is not satisfied that it has been handled correctly as far as both himself and the value of his vote are concerned, we cannot expect the system to be as successful as we all want it to be.

Hon. members also referred to the question of justices of the peace and special justices of the peace. It appears to me that the main objection is the following. We have a group of State officials whose hands are rather tied owing to the positions occupied by them and who cannot possibly lend themselves to malpractices. A further group of people is being created by the measure under discussion, and they will have to take a special oath. In this connection I want to say that I am perfectly prepared to make the provision that justices of the peace and special justices of the peace may hold the office of presiding officer subject to the proviso that they may do so if they also take the oath before the returning officer or the electoral officer. The oath will be the same as that which will have to be taken by the other 12 persons. If they have taken that oath, I do not doubt for one moment that their integrity will be as high as that of the other people who take the same oath. I am perfectly prepared to introduce that amendment in the Committee Stage.

No, that is not the point.

We shall discuss it there, because it seems to me that there is a misunderstanding.

We are not suggesting that there is anything wrong with their integrity.

I know, but the intention is to treat them on the same basis as the other people.

I want to give the hon. member for Durban (Point) the assurance that where State officials now have additional duties to perform, duties which will entail their having to work longer hours—some of them up to nine o’clock in the evening—they will be duly compensated. I shall see to it that they are duly compensated, in contrast with the meagre compensation which they received in the form of a global sum for the great deal of work done by them in this respect in the -past.

A very strong plea has been made that returning officers should be in the electoral divisions themselves.

Or their representatives.

Or their representatives, yes. I know the concentrated electoral divisions in our cities, and I know their problems. Consequently I am sympathetically inclined towards the persons who made this plea. I am satisfied that we do not differ with one another as far as that aspect is concerned, and hon. members may rest assured that I feel very strongly about this particular matter. My law advisers tell me that no amendment of the Act is required to put the matter right, as Section 35 of the Electoral Act grants the Minister the power required to take the necessary steps. In the first place, however, there is the problem of finding a suitable building. It is not so easy to find a place in a city where that person can receive members of the public. As the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said, problems will arise if voters from 20 or so electoral divisions come there at a rate of approximately 1,000 per day. It could therefore happen that 50, 60 or even 70 people from one electoral division visited that person on the same day. The first problem is therefore to obtain a building, a place in which the official can be accommodated.

The second problem is something about which the hon. the Opposition have been making a fuss throughout the Session, and that is the large shortage of manpower. We shall have to see whether it is humanly possible, whether it is physically possible, to take an official from the magistrate’s office for a period of 21 days for the purpose of doing this work only. I have experience of this problem, because I was faced with it myself on the Witwatersrand. I want to go so far as to accept this advice and to take the necessary steps in terms of Section 35 of the Electoral Act, in collaboration with my colleague who has to provide the manpower required and my colleague who has to provide the accommodation, to see whether we can do that where it is at all practicable.

Will the hon. the Minister consider appointing a member of the Police Force to do the work under the supervision of the presiding officer in certain constituencies where there are police stations?

If it is possible, we shall do so. I want to do everything possible to have this matter run smoothly. In many cases it is impossible for a voter to cast his vote. In many parts of the Witwatersrand a voter who wants to vote by means of the blank ballot paper has to negotiate heavy traffic to get to the magistrate’s office. He has difficulty in finding a parking place and again has a great deal of trouble in getting home. Well, in some cases it is just physically impossible. I want to give hon. members the assurance that I shall go into this matter in order to remove the difficulties as far as possible.

What the hon. member for Durban (Point) said about disputed votes is quite correct. If the parties are going to quarrel over who is to deal with which vote, then the voter concerned must be taken to a State official. In that way neither of the two dogs fighting for the bone will get it. The vote can then be cast before the State official.

I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance that the ballot papers will be printed in with fugitive ink. It has already been decided to do that. As far as current registrations are concerned, I may inform the hon. member that the O. and M. officials are studying the question of changes of address, and it is hoped that they will report to me in the course of the year. They have been engaged on the task since last year already: they are carrying out a thorough investigation, and I hope to receive their report towards the end of this year.

Will the hon. the Minister give consideration to bringing the new system to the notice of the public as far as possible before an election?

Yes, I want to give the hon. member for Houghton the assurance that we shall accede to that request of hers, namely, to advise the public of the way in which they can vote by postal vote. Voters can find out from their nearest electoral office under what circumstances they can get postal votes, and so forth.

I think I have now dealt with all the points raised by hon. members, and I want to thank hon. members for their suggestions and proposals.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This recommendation reads that the pension granted to this hon. lady shall terminate upon her remarriage. I want to move—

To omit “the pension to terminate upon her remarriage”.

The reason for my doing so is that this lady has been a widow for the past 27 years, that she is 84 years of age, and that she is confined to bed on account of rheumatism. I do not think she is likely to remarry, and I feel that under the circumstances it is rather ridiculous to add those words to the recommendation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Recommendation, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Resolutions reported and report adopted.