Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in this Bill there are two main principles which we have accepted. The first is the validation of the rules of the council where doubts have existed in the past in that connection. The second principle which we have accepted is that in regard to the appointment of sub-committees and of faculties of the Academy.

The Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Weten-skap en Kuns is receiving a subsidy of over R40,000 from this House this year. We are satisfied to leave the spending of that amount in their hands with full confidence. That is why it is a pity, therefore, that I feel myself compelled to stand up here to-day and refer to a discordant note which occurred a short while ago after we had accepted this principle, a discordant note which took the form of a declaration which was made by an eminent hon. member on that side in connection with this Bill. I am referring to the hon. member for Koedoespoort and a statement which he made the day before yesterday in a Sunday newspaper. You will recall that the entire House approved these sub-committees of the Academy, because we know that sub-committees, inter alia the sub-committee which is going to allocate the Hertzog prize, will act in an entirely impartial manner. That is why we on this side of the House also felt it our duty, and I believe that the majority of members on that side also felt it to be their duty, not to make any comment. That is why it came as a shock to me, since we have accepted this principle, to read in the Sunday newspaper the following statement by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He said (translation)—

I do not necessarily want to mention a person’s name here; it could have been anybody.

You must read the full quotation.

I shall be only too pleased to quote certain other words which the hon. member used—there where he said that a method must be found “to give attention to the views of Afrikaners who, although not academic literary men, nevertheless have a good knowledge of literature and a healthy judgment”. These are the words of the hon. member. And do you know, Mr. Speaker, whom the hon. member mentioned as an example of this kind of Afrikaner? He mentioned himself as an example. I shall not go any further into what the hon. member said. Perhaps you will not allow me to do so, Mr. Speaker. All that I still want to say, is that since this side of the House are agreed as far as this Bill is concerned, it is a great pity that the hon. member for Koedoespoort, particularly after the reprimand which has already been addressed to him, should come forward again with a suggestion like this.

Do you not agree with that?

Most certainly not. Has that hon. member not heard of great writers who have been honoured throughout the world but who in their own lifetime were banned from their own country? Has the hon. member not yet heard of Calvin who had to go to Geneva to continue his work? Has he not heard of Thomas Mann, one of the greatest German writers of all time, to whom the Nobel Prize was awarded, and who had to live and work in America? Has he not heard of our own Roy Campbell? Has he not heard of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a man who could not write in his own country? Has he not heard of Dante, the greatest writer in the Italian language, who laid the actual foundations of the Italian language, and who could not live in his own Florence but had to die in Ravenna? Has he not heard of Einstein? Has he not heard of Neils Bohr? [Interjections.] I am just replying in passing to the interjection made by the hon. member for Jeppe.

Has the hon. member ever heard of Die Kruithoring?

In any case I am quite certain Die Kruithoring would not come into consideration for the Hertzog Prize. To repeat: I consider this remark made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort to be a reprehensible one. I think he owes this House an explanation in regard to why, in the light of the unanimity which there was in regard to this Bill, he still tried to cause trouble. I also expect the hon. the Minister to dissociate himself, to use the modern terminology, from this attitude of the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The House will recall that I objected to the second reading of this Bill. I now wish to object to the third reading as well. The Minister did not advance any argument during the second reading or Committee Stage to make me change my mind in the slightest. He then gave us the assurance that there was nothing in this Bill giving him any more power than he already had. As proof of that he referred to the fact that he had received a letter from the principal of one of our main English language universities as well as to a legal opinion he had obtained to this effect. But let me say once again that assurances do not constitute the law. We have had many occasions in the past where assurances which had been made were later forgotten. There is absolutely no guarantee that there will not be a recurrence of this as far as this Bill is concerned. As far as the letter is concerned, obviously I cannot comment upon it except to point out that the Minister has represented it as expressing the conviction of the principal concerned. But what the principal, in fact, said was that he was glad to be reassured that there were to be no changes in the law. Therefore, he accepts the Minister’s assurances rather more readily than I do—perhaps because he has not had the same experience that I have had of ministerial assurances in Parliament. In regard to the legal opinion to which the Minister referred, let me point out that legal opinions, too, do not constitute the law. Furthermore, there can be conflicting legal opinions. So, until the hon. the Minister attempts to impose conditions not confined to the objects of the principal Act and until such conditions have been tested in a court of law, I am not prepared to accept the Minister’s legal opinion. I too have obtained a legal opinion on the provisions of this Bill and it happens to differ from the one of the hon. the Minister. As I have said, neither legal opinions nor assurances constitute the law. What this House ought therefore to be debating now should be the actual provisions of the Bill which we have before us. I say that if there are to be any changes at all the Minister ought to return to the procedure which existed in 1955 —in other words, before the 1959 Act was introduced. The Minister ought to go back to issuing regulations so that one can examine them. He ought to go back to the old procedure, which was based on objective formulae agreed upon by all the authorities, instead of relying on the wide provisions of the Bill as it is now worded and in terms of which the Minister may lay down any condition he wishes to lay down.

Furthermore, this Bill is another indication of the attempt on the part of the Government to control universities. The Minister said it was not in keeping with his own character to try to achieve what he wanted from the English language universities via a backdoor—in other words, through this Bill—and that, if necessary, he would re-introduce legislation which he formerly had introduced and withdrawn. I have no doubt that that is the case— there is no necessity for the Minister to resort to any backdoor procedure at all. He has the power to do what he wants to do. But his successors might find it very useful not to have to come to this House with contentious legislation. It might be very inconvenient for them to have this whole matter arraigned once more before the public eye. Therefore, it might be convenient for them to have on the Statute Book an enabling provision allowing them to do what this hon. Minister might have done in a more forthright way. This, then is another reason why I object to this Bill. We hear a great deal of talk in this country about the Government providing the money for universities and since that is so that the Government should be entitled to dictate the policy which should be followed by universities. But I take the strongest exception to this line of argument.

It is not the Nationalist Government, the Nationalist Party, that provides the money for our universities, it is the taxpayers of South Africa, and I would like to point out to hon. members opposite that the taxpayers include not only supporters of that party but thousands upon thousands of people who object very strongly to the Nationalist Party’s policy. Therefore I have no hesitation in rejecting the argument that the Government, because it pays the piper, should be allowed to call the tune. For all these reasons therefore—the fact that assurances do not satisfy me, the fact that legal opinions do not constitute the law, the fact that there are no legal restrictions on the Minister or his successors as a result of this legislation, and finally the fact that it is not the Nationalist Government that pays for our universities but the taxpayers of South Africa—I wish to record my objection to the third reading.

The position is not nearly as complicated as the hon. member for Houghton wants to make out. She only used this opportunity to propagate her old policy once again. This is a perfectly simple matter. All that is being done in clause 4 is to make it clear that if the statutory conditions imposed upon universities at the payment of subsidies are not complied with, the subsidies may be withheld, and what the hon. member for Houghton is doing is in fact to encourage the universities to disregard statutory conditions. All this clause does is to place a sanction on any failure to comply with the statutory conditions. In my second-reading speech I mentioned what those statutory conditions are. The only conditions which may be imposed are conditions in terms of the provisions of the Act, not the imaginary conditions existing in the mind of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton has all kinds of sinister ideas as to what the Minister is going to do. The Act imposes restrictions upon the Minister; he cannot impose simply any condition. If that is the opinion held by the hon. member in the light of the legal advice obtained by her, then I would advise her to get in touch with my law advisers as well. They will very soon satisfy her. The hon. member need not distress herself in this way. She need not dream dreams and see visions about the matter; she may rest assured that no Minister succeeding me, perhaps even from her own party one day, will be able to abuse this Act.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is customary at the third-reading stage of a Bill to take into review what we have discussed at the second reading and the committee stages and also to consider the implications of the Bill and the effect it will have on future policy. I regard this as a very important Bill indeed, because it gives us a new approach to higher education in this country. This is a Bill on higher education. Strangely enough, we have four Ministers of higher education. The Minister of Indian Affairs has now taken what I regard as this forward step. He has decided, in this Bill, to have a council for these advanced technical colleges. a council which will be multi-racial. It will not be representative of one race only, but of both Indian and white persons. I think that is a step forward. In addition to that, the board of studies, which corresponds to a senate in a university, will also be a multi-racial body.

Do not let the “verkramptes” hear that.

That is the position and I regard it as a step forward. The point I should like to make is that the hon. the Minister, in addition to having this institution for higher education, also has the Indian University College in Durban. He is responsible for the control of that institution. The Indian University College comes under our Separate Universities Act, the Extension of University Education Act, as it was called. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he now contemplates an amendment to that Act, as far as Indian education is concerned so that he would be able to extend this principle to the university. After all, the university is the superior institution, and if this principle is applied to the junior institution, which is the college for advanced technical education, then naturally it must be applied to the university institution. If that is accepted as the policy to-day, then I should like to know whether it will be extended to the Coloured University College of the Western Cape and to the three Bantu university colleges. Sir, I approve of the principle and I can assure the hon. the Minister that in applying this principle he is in very good company—and I do not mean my company. When we considered the Separate Universities Bill we had expert opinion from people of the highest standing in Afrikaans education in South Africa—the greatest I know. We have no men of higher standing either in our English or Afrikaans universities. Three of these learned professors who gave evidence represented Sabra. Then we had the principal of Pretoria University and the principal of Potchefstroom University.

Order! Is it necessary to go as far as that?

Sir, I wish to encourage the hon. the Minister in the step he is going to take.

I do not think the hon. the Minister needs encouragement.

I will not pursue that except to say that these five learned professors, the flower of our universities in South Africa, supported the view of the hon. the Minister and so did the minority on that commission. Finally I would therefore suggest that the four Ministers of higher education in the Cabinet should get together and tell us what their policy is and whether they wish to amend the policy stated in the Separate Universities Act. I think that is essential, because this is a complete departure from the principle laid down there. It will not help hon. members to say that this is the natural development of Nationalist Party policy, because ten years ago this proposal would have been anathema.

Order!

That is the point on which I should like the hon. the Minister to enlighten us.

I think I ought to reply just shortly to the hon. member for Kensington. He wants to know whether I am contemplating extending the principle of a multi-racial council to …

And the Senate.

… to the university institutions. Well, I cannot give the hon. member a reply to that question now. This is a matter which will receive my attention in due course and I will then have a close look at it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I want to move a small amendment to clause 6 as follows:

In line 2, page 5, after “disorder” to insert “insolvency”.

Hon. members will see that I am inserting the word “insolvency”, because I think that should be one of the grounds upon which a councillor could be disqualified. Therefore I am inserting the word “insolvency” after the word “disorder”. It is just to bring it into line with our other legislation.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 7:

In the English text, line 14 et seq, it says: “Provided that in the case of an equality of votes in the election of a chairman or an acting chairman of the Council the contesting candidates shall draw lots for such election, and the winner of such a draw s all be deemed to have been elected”. The Afrikaans text reads: “… die wedywerende kandidate om sodanige verkiesing loot …”. The text should either read that “the contesting candidates for such election shall draw lots”, or the words “for such election” should be left out altogether, because as it stands it is not good grammar. I should like the Minister to look at it, and either to redraft it or to have an amendment moved in the Other Place to put the matter right.

Yes, I will do that.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

In regard to clause 1, the hon. member for Transkei yesterday asked me for an explanation in regard to the future operation of the divorce courts. With the establishment of the High Court for the Transkei, the High Court for the Transkei will have jurisdiction only in the Transkei proper, but not over citizens of the Transkei who are resident in white areas. Consequently the divorce cases of citizens of the Transkei who are resident in Matatiele and Port St. Johns will still be handled by our own courts, by the courts of the Department of Bantu Administration. For the present they will still be handled by the Southern Bantu Appeal Court, but when the High Court for the Transkei has been established, they will possibly be handled by the Southern Appeal Court of Natal for the sake of convenience, because then it has to be a court which falls under the Department of Bantu Administration as the High Court for the Transkei only deals with citizens of the Transkei in the Transkei proper and not with those in the white areas.

T should just like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the Department will make it convenient for the Appeal Court and the Divorce Court to visit the Transkei, as the other court did?

Yes, that is the position. These courts are now paying occasional visits to certain areas and if the Southern Court of Natal is going to handle this, they will also pay visits to Matatiele and Port St. Johns, in the same way as they visit Kokstad.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I want to move the following amendment to clause 3—

I regret that it has not been possible for me to see the hon. member for Transkei to tell him about this, but this amendment merely seeks to make it quite clear what the position is. I do not think there will be any objection to it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Yesterday the hon. member for Transkei asked me quite a number of questions and it seems to me as if I am more keen to give him the information than he is to get the information. He asked me whether it was necessary to mention acting chiefs or whether this omission was due to an oversight. The omission of the words concerned is not due to an oversight. In the definition contained in the Transkei Constitution Act, we find that the designation “chief” includes “acting chief”, etc. Consequently the words “acting chief” need not be inserted.

[Inaudible.]

It is unnecessary to include these words there. I can read the entire definition to the hon. member. I can give him the assurance that the definition in the Transkei Constitution Act makes it unnecessary to include the words “acting chief” in this clause.

Clause put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of section 4 (12) of the Public Service Act a member of the commission shall vacate his office and, if he was employed as an official in the Public Service prior to such appointment, retire on pension when he attains the age of 65 years. If he attains the said age after the first day of any month, he retires with effect from the first day of the month following that in which he attained the age of 65 years. No provision is made for the continued employment of a member after having reached the age of retirement or for his reappointment after he has vacated his office on having attained the age of retirement.

This Bill contains purely administrative measures designed to make provision for the continued employment of the chairman of the Public Service Commission for a further period not exceeding two years after having attained the age of retirement, or for his reappointment for such period if he has already retired.

This is the main import of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side appreciate that this legislation is to give a permissive power to extend the period of service of the chairman of the Commission for an additional period of up to two years. We on this side have no objection and therefore support the measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

All the amendments contained in this Bill are designed to remedy certain deficiencies in the principal Act. None of the principles contained in the principal Act is, however, affected by any of the proposed amendments, nor are the amendments of a contentious nature.

In regard to clause 1, I want to explain that the present position is that the Marriage Act, 1961, does not apply to the territory of South West Africa. Marriages in that territory are regulated by a marriage ordinance of 1963. Both the Act and the Ordinance provide for the publication of banns of marriage in a church or for the publication of a notice of intention to marry, which has to be published in a magistrate’s or a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s office.

Both these measures also lay down that banns of marriage published outside the Republic or the Territory in conformity with the law of the country concerned, shall be deemed to be banns of marriage published in either the Republic or the Territory, but no such provision was made in the principal Act in respect of notices of intention to marry. This matter is now being rectified. It is therefore being proposed that section 16 of the principal Act, which deals with this matter, be replaced by a new section, in which provision is also being made now for a notice of a proposed marriage published in any country outside the Republic in terms of the law of that country, to be regarded in the Republic as valid for the purposes of a marriage within the Republic.

The amendment will not only prevent marriages which, according to legal opinion, are invalid for technical reasons, but will also remove obstacles for couples who intend to marry. It will also cause marriages solemnized in the Republic and South West Africa to take place on a more uniform basis. It may be mentioned that the Marriage Ordinance of South West Africa has already been amended accordingly.

In regard to clause 2 I just want to say this. Just as in the case of a notice of intention to marry published in the territory of South West Africa, a special marriage licence issued in that territory is invalid in the Republic. For the same reasons as mentioned in respect of clause 1, it is necessary that a special marriage licence issued in that territory should be valid in the Republic too for the purposes of a marriage.

The Marriage Ordinance of South West Africa already recognizes special marriage licences issued in the Republic, and consequently there is no sound reason why the Republic should not recognize special licences issued in that territory for the purposes of a marriage in the Republic.

Under the circumstances it is proposed that section 19 of the principal Act, which contains the provisions in respect of special marriage licences, be amended by the addition of a subsection (7) in which specific provision is made for special marriage licences issued in South West Africa to be recognized for the purposes of a marriage within the Republic.

Clause 3 is purely a consequential amendment. In respect of clause 4 I want to mention that in terms of section 29 (2) of the principal Act a marriage officer shall solemnize any marriage in a church or other building used for religious service, or in a public office or private dwelling-house. These provisions were purposely inserted in the Marriage Act at the time to prevent marriages from being solemnized in all kinds of places which detract from the solemnity of a marriage, for example on skating rinks, in mines and in aeroplanes. The marriage of one couple was recently solemnized in a tent, while the marriage of another was solemnized on an uninhabited island in a river. With reference to these occurrences the law advisers expressed the opinion that in enacting that article the legislature intended that marriages solemnized in places other than the prescribed places should be invalid. Considering the Act as a whole they have found that, in the first place. the provisions thereof indicate prima facie that it was the intention that such a marriage should be null and void.

They have therefore come to the conclusion that any marriage which is solemnized in any place other than those referred to in section 29 (2), will, as a rule, be invalid. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether a marriage which necessarily had to be solemnized elsewhere, is valid. I have in mind, for example, a marriage which has to be solemnized in a hospital owing to the serious illness of one or both parties. There are also serious doubts about the validity of, inter alia, the 35 marriages solemnized in the Centenary Festival Tent at Monument Hill on 15th December, 1938, because the provisions of the law which applied in the Transvaal in 1938 as to the places in which marriages were to be solemnized were for all practical purposes the same as those of the Marriage Act, 1961. As a result, some of the couples whose marriages were solemnized in the Centenary Festival Tent in 1938 are not certain whether they are, in fact, married. Some of them—and it seems as if many of the hon. members know them— already have grandchildren. There is uncertainty now as to whether their children or grandchildren were ever born legitimately. It now appears to be fair and expedient that we should amend the Act in such a way as to remove the uncertainty existing in the minds of those couples so that there will be no doubt as to whether they were legally or illegally married.

In order to remove all doubt and uncertainty and to obtain the necessary statutory authority, it is being proposed that section 29 of the principle Act, which relates to this matter, should be replaced by a new section. In the new section provision will be made for a marriage to be solemnized in a place other than one of those presently laid down in the Act in the case of the serious long-standing illness of the parties. Secondly, provision will be made for declaring valid marriages solemnized in the Orange Free State and the Transvaal prior to the commencement of the Marriage Act, 1961, in any place other than those appointed by the relevant marriage laws of the respective provinces, as well as marriages which, by reason of the serious or long-standing illness of, or serious bodily injury to, one or both of the parties. were solemnized in a place other than one of the prescribed places.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that I have explained the whole matter to the satisfaction of hon. members and that the minor amendments contained in this Bill will receive the wholehearted support of both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given us the reasons for the legislation which he has introduced this afternoon. There are, however, one or two points which arise out of this Bill and which I should like to being to his notice. He has indicated the necessity for some amendments to the provisions of the Act to deal with the situation in South West Africa. I agree that that is necessary. But if one looks at clause 1 of the Bill which contains the proposed amendment to section 16 of the principal Act, reference is made there to “a notice of intention to marry published in a country outside the Union”. I should like to know what the Minister has in mind in regard to the manner in which such a notice should be published. We know that the normal procedure in the Republic and South West Africa is that the notice is posted in a landdrost office, or in the case of South West Africa in a commissioner’s office. But this clause goes beyond South West Africa and deals with a notice published in any place. It seems that there should be some provision in this regard, by means perhaps of the public display of the notice for a period of three weeks as is the case in regard to notices published in the Republic and South West Africa. What form will the notice take in a country such as Great Britain or France? Is it contemplated that such a notice will be published in conformity with the laws of that particular country. This seems to me to be what is intended.

In regard to clause 4 which amends section 29 of the Act, we welcome the amendments introduced by the hon. the Minister, namely to legalize marriages which take place in hospitals. The Minister has also referred to the marriages which took place in the Orange Free State some years ago, which also necessitated the Act being amended.

We on this side of the House support the proposed amendments. I have noted the restrictions as to where marriages may legally take place. I therefore hope that those people who are queueing to be the first to be married on the moon will be dissuaded now that the marriages there will be illegal as far as we are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Green Point in respect of the notices mentioned in clause 1. Our intention is precisely what the hon. member has inferred. In other words, notices falling within the statutory provisions of other countries will be recognized in this country as legal notices for marriages. The period of notice may differ. There may be countries which provide that the period of notice is three weeks, and there may be others in which it is six weeks, and there may even be others where it is three months. But if the notice is duly published in accordance with the statutory provisions of that country, we shall recognize it as a legitimate notice and we shall, for that reason, not delay or in any way try not to recognize such marriage.

†It will, therefore, not only apply to South West Africa, but to other countries beyond our borders. Those notices of marriage must comply with the law of the country in which they are published. I hope that the position is clear in this regard.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments contained in this Bill are not amendments which affect the principles of the principal Act. Furthermore, the amendments are mainly of an administrative nature and are aimed at making the implementation of the provisions of the principal Act more effective and also at facilitating matters for the general public. Consequently I want to refer briefly to the provisions contained in some of the clauses.

Clause 1 deals with the appointment of district registrars and assistant district registrars of births and deaths. As the position is at present, district registrars and assistant district registrars of births and deaths are designated by the Minister of the Interior or any person authorized thereto by him, at the request and recommendation of magistrates and Bantu Affairs commissioners. Where no district registrar has been designated, the magistrate of such district will ex officio be the district registrar, provided that if a Bantu Affairs commissioner has been appointed for any such district, he will ex officio be the district registrar in respect of Bantu and the magistrate will be district registrar in respect of persons of all other races.

The designation of district registrars by the Minister, or by a person authorized thereto by him, involves delays and creates problems for magistrates. We have received complaints from the Department of Justice, both from within the Republic and the Department of Justice in South West Africa. It is now being envisaged to entrust magistrates and Bantu Affairs commissioners with the power to designate district and assistant district registrars, except in those districts where the Department is represented and where these functions will be carried out by the officers of the Department.

To achieve this goal it is therefore being proposed that the relevant section of the principal Act, namely section 3, be substituted by a new section in which it is chiefly being provided that a magistrate may designate district registrars and assistant district registrars for his district from officers or employees of the Department of Justice, with the exception of the following districts: the Pretoria district, where such officers are designated by the registrar general or his employees, because it is a principal seat; a district where a regional representative of the Department has his office, in which case such regional representative may also designate registrars and assistant registrars from his staff that works under him in that region; and any district where a Bantu Affairs commissioner has been appointed. In the latter case he will appoint such persons from the staff working under him to register the births and deaths of Bantu in that district.

Clauses 2 and 4 should really be read together. It may just be mentioned that, although provision is made in the birth information form for a description of the race of the child and of its parents, there is no definition of the various race groups in the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, referred to as the principal Act. For the purposes of the former Act classifications in terms of the Population Registration Act do not apply either. Section 5 of this Act provides that the children are to be classified according to the classification of their parents. We merely want to put this into operation, because there are no reasons why this should not be done as early as possible in the life of a child, so that any inconvenience, doubt or unpleasantness which may follow if this were not done, may be eliminated for the child in advance. For this reason it is being proposed that classification in terms of the Population Registration Act be applied for the purposes of the registration of births by inscribing the parents’ classification in terms of that Act on the birth information form and determining the race of the child in terms of the provisions of that Act or any proclamation made in terms of that Act. But in order to prevent the issuing of birth certificates on which the child’s race is shown incorrectly, it is being proposed further that no birth certificates in respect of children born after 1st December, 1967, may be issued unless the registrar general of births, marriages and deaths has confirmed the race description of the parents and of the child. We chose that date because the Act had come into force as from that date. All registrars and assistant registrars of births have already been instructed to determine or inscribe the race description of the child in accordance with the classification and the regulations of the Act.

After section 7 of the principal Act an additional section 7A is being inserted in terms of which the registrar general is being authorized to amend on the original birth information form the race description of any person born before 1st December, 1967, and of his parents, to correspond with the classification in terms of the Population Registration Act.

Furthermore, in respect of any person born on or after 1st December, 1967, the registrar has to ascertain what classification has been assigned in terms of the above Act to such person and to each parent of such person, and if the race description of such person or of his parents differs on the birth information form from that which was assigned to them in terms of the said Act, the race description on the birth information form should be amended to correspond with the classification.

In addition no birth certificate may be issued unless it has been checked. For that reason an additional subsection (4) is being added to follow subsection (3) of section 42 of the principal Act; in terms of subsection (4) it is provided that no birth certificate may be issued in respect of the birth of a person born on or after 1st December, 1967, unless the race description of that person and of his parents has been checked, as prescribed. I think this is only logical.

Now we come to clause 3. Section 9 of the Aliens Act, 1937 (Act No. 1 of 1937) provides that if any person who at any time bore or was known by a particular surname assumes or describes himself by or passes under any other surname which he had not assumed or by which he had not described himself or under which he had not passed before 1st January, 1937, he shall be guilty of an offence unless the State President has authorized him to assume that other surname.

It often happens that, owing to circumstances beyond their control, children who were born after that date are known by or pass under a surname other than the one in which their births were registered. Cases of this nature include in particular children who were brought up under the surname of their step-fathers and illegitimate children who pass under the surname of the man whom their mother subsequently married. The only alternative for such children is to apply, in terms of the above-mentioned section, for permission to adopt that surname. In terms of the provisions of the section publicity has to be given to this. Notices are to be published in local newspapers so as to ascertain whether there are any objections. It is an expensive procedure. The costs involved vary between approximately R50 to R60, and this does not even include the fees of attorneys. In most cases such children are not aware of these circumstances and owing to the confidential and intimate circumstances the parents are not prepared to give publicity to this. In other cases the persons concerned do not have the financial means to afford the costs involved in having this published in the newspapers. In some cases this state of affairs only comes to the knowledge of the person concerned when he has already married and registered his children under the other surname. That is why it is being deemed advisable and just that relief be brought to such persons. If such a person has in fact applied and obtained permission to adopt another surname, there is no legal authority for inscribing that surname in the births register and issuing certificates in that surname.

In order to prevent embarrassment and hardship it is therefore considered to be essential to make provision for the necessary inscription in a births register in cases where a person has been granted permission in terms of section 9 of Act No. 1 of 1937 to adopt another surname and where an illegitimate child or a step-child is known by the surname of the man whom his mother married subsequently, provided that that man consents to this being done.

To effect these envisaged amendments it is now being proposed that after subsection 8 of the principal Act an additional subsection 8A be inserted in which it is specifically provided that an alteration of a surname, in the circumstances as explained, may be inscribed in a births register and that birth certificates may be issued in that surname.

I have already dealt with clause 4 in conjunction with clause 2, and no further observations are necessary.

As regards clause 5, up to 31st December, 1963, the births of “Indian immigrants” were registered in terms of the Indian Immigration Law, 1891 (Law No. 25 of 1891 of Natal). That law was repealed by the Indian Laws Amendment Act, 1963 (Act No. 68 of 1963), and in terms of section 44 of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, 1963 (Act No. 81 of 1963), the latter Act was made applicable by proclamation to the registration of the births, marriages and deaths of the said Indians, with effect from 1st January, 1964.

The birth information forms which were prescribed in terms of Law No. 25 of 1891 (Natal), did not make any provision for information concerning the surname of either the child or the parents. In fact, in accordance with Indian custom an Indian does not have a surname in the Western sense. However, in the course of their development many Indians assumed surnames and the Protector of Indian Immigrants, who administered Law No. 25 of 1891, inscribed such surnames in the births register of the persons concerned.

However, there is no legal authority for the insertion of surnames in such births registers, and in order to afford “Indian immigrants” the opportunity to cause to be inscribed in their births registers or marriage registers the surnames which they assumed and by which they are known, it is proposed to amend Act No. 81 of 1963—in other words, the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act—so as to make provision for this.

Although the registrar-general is at present, in terms of section 1 of Act No. 81 of 1963, the custodian of the records of registrations which were effected in terms of the former Act, he has no authority to effect any improvements, alterations or additions to such records.

In these circumstances it is therefore being proposed that an additional section 443 be inserted in the principal Act after section 44; section 44A provides (a) the surname of any Indian whose birth or marriage has been registered in terms of the Indian Immigration Law, 1891 (Natal), may be inscribed in that register, and (b) that certain provisions of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, 1963, are applicable in relation to the registers kept in terms of the former Act.

Sir, we on this side of the House support this measure. There are, however, one or two matters I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first one is that the power which is now given in the case of magisterial districts for the magistrate to appoint a member of his staff to officiate as the district registrar, is really giving legal effect to the practice which is being adopted at this moment. I understand that the position is that somebody in the magistrate’s office at the present time is delegated to be responsible for this work, and that man now merely gets official status in terms of the Act in fulfilling that duty. I take it that the final responsibility will be removed from the shoulders of the magistrate concerned.

Sir, we have some difficulty with clause 2. The proposed section 7A (1) provides that the registrar-general may amend the registration of the birth of any person by the substitution of any inscription in respect of the race or in respect of the classification under the Population Registration Act. “Substitution” appears to imply that there can be a complete erasure of the inscription which appeared in that certificate prior to the substitution of the new inscription. It seems that that should not be done. If there is an amendment, as this is intended to be, then let us use the word “amend” instead of “substitute”. Let us provide that he can amend the record so as to show that there has been a change, following on the classification of the person concerned, which is not in accordance with the method by which it has been registered. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has in mind that there should be a complete erasure of what is then in the register and a substitution, or whether in this instance there should not be merely an amendment in so far as the register is concerned.

Then there is another difficulty which arises and that is in connection with subsection (2) (a). This directs the registrar-general, as soon as practicable after the receipt in his office a birth information form in respect of the birth of a person bom on or after the 1st December, 1967, to ascertain what classification has been assigned in terms of the Population Registration Act to such person. Sir, one visualizes the situation that a birth is registered and within a matter of a fortnight the registrar-general receives a notification form, and he must then find out how that baby has been classified. I wonder whether in fact that is the practical approach. Is there in fact a classification before the birth has been registered; can there be one under the population register, or must the birth not be registered and the classification then dealt with and an amendment made, if an amendment is necessary, under the Population Registration Act? The only instance where one can visualize the possibility of a classification being assumed, would be under the inviolate rules which were introduced into the Population Registration Act last year. That is that if one parent is Coloured, then the child shall be deemed to be Coloured. While one realizes that these cases must be checked, I am wondering whether this is not putting the chicken before the egg, because here the registrar-general goes along with a new birth to the population registrar who does not know about the existence of that child, and says, “What is the classification of the child?” The Act only requires a classification of the child when it reaches the age of 16. I believe that this is not intended to apply to the new-born babe but to each parent of such person and that the checking up should only be done so far as the parents are concerned at that stage because there is no legal classification of the child. Sir, we may have more to say about this in the Committee Stage, but I raise the matter at this stage, not that we are opposed to the principle that the registration of births should conform to other laws which are applicable and in this case should conform to the provisions of the Population Registration Act because it is the law of the land and it would be unacceptable if the one did not conform with the other.

Then as regards clause 3, which contained the proposed section 8A, one appreciates the motives which have prompted the hon. the Minister to introduce this measure. It is a great simplification where a child born out of marriage is subsequently legitimized by the marriage of the mother and father and that the child should then, merely by departmental procedure, assume the name of the father without the undue publicity and the costs attached to the publication of a notice of intention to change the name. But there is another aspect of this amendment which goes much wider than to deal with that situation only. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister, if I may to the circumstances which may arise where a widow or a divorcée with minor children intends entering into a second or further marriage. She might well be persuaded to do that by the protestations of the future husband that he will take over the children of the deceased or divorced father as his own. She may well lose rights to a pension or she may lose rights to income from the State or other sources which might be provided for in a will, or she may in fact lose her right to claim maintenance from her former husband. She then enters into the marriage and this procedure only is adopted, that is to say, a formal application for a change of the names of the children into the name of the second husband who has said in all good faith that he will look after them. But if that second husband were to change his mind after a year or two and desert this woman, she has no legal claim upon him whatsoever insofar as the maintenance of the children is concerned, although she may have lost rights by entering into this further marriage. But she would have that claim if the second husband had given legal effect to his intention to look after the children by in fact adopting them under the adoption laws. There are these three methods of changing the name—the procedure of adoption. the procedure of publication and application for a change of name and the procedure which is now contemplated—and one wonders whether that is going to be sufficiently publicized so as to protect women from losing rights upon remarriage. One wonders whether these different courses of procedure should not be incorporated in some way in the application form which must be used under this particular section, when it becomes law. In other words, when a person applies to the Department for a form to adopt this procedure, it should be clearly stated on that form for all to see that a change of name by this method does not create the relationship of father and child, except in the one instance where it is a legitimation of a child born out of wedlock. I wonder whether that might not meet the danger which presents itself here and which might lead to hardship in cases where a marriage is entered into in all good faith but where there is subsequently a change of mind in regard to responsibility for the children. Sir, we will support the Bill at the second reading, but may have further comments at the Committee stage.

I just want to call attention to a few points because it may perhaps shorten the discussion in the Committee Stage. The point of departure in this regard is that in respect of the powers we propose to assign in this Bill to magistrates. Bantu Affairs commissioners or regional officers, we now want to legalize in fact what they are already doing as a rule, but this is not quite so. They are making recommendations, but every recommendation that is made by a magistrate in respect of a vacancy must, as the Act reads, be proposed by the Minister personally, and that takes a great deal of time. Now we say that the magistrate does, after all, know his district and his officers—why then this redundancy? He is responsible as it is, because where a district registrar has not been appointed he automatically acts as district registrar, and our magistrates are after all trained and responsible people and so are the Bantu Affairs commissioners. We need not think that we are granting these powers and effecting this amendment because they abused this office in the past. This office was not abused in the past, and for that reason we had delays. That is my first reply.

Secondly, the hon. member for Green Point had an objection. He says that a child is not classified at birth, but when he is registered the inscription on the birth information form, by the parents or whoever, always specifies the names of the parents. In practice this is the case to-day. The other day I spoke to two young men, employed in the Public Service, of whom I had heard by chance. In both cases it was the birth of a first child. One was in Pretoria and the other in Cape Town. I asked one of them whether, when he had the birth of his child registered, he did so himself or sent somebody else to do it for him. He said that he himself had done it. I asked him what had happened on his arrival at the district registrar’s. I think it was in November. Then he said that he had fetched his wife’s identity card—on which her race was stated—at the hospital. He had his card with him and all the registrar of births asked him, was “This is your name and that is your wife’s name, and the race of your child is White?” I asked whether they had not asked to see his identity card to make sure whether it corresponded with his race classification. He said no. We know that it often happens that people themselves do not go to register the birth of their children but that they ask a friend or somebody else to do it for them. All we are saying here, is this: In view of the fact that a birth information form is one of the forms or returns used by the Secretary for the Department, inter alia, to do classifications, he may classify incorrectly if due regard is not had to what is stated on the form as regards indicating what the parents’ race is. Surely we know what the provisions of the Population Registration Act are. If the race was stated differently, and if, for instance, it was stated that he was white when one parent was non-white and the other white, then one knows that it is wrong. If he was stated to be a Coloured or a Bantu and both parents had been classified as White, then one also knows that it is wrong, and then one simply sets it right. As one inscribes it one simply makes sure.

So you can use it as a double check on the population register.

†The MINISTER: No, there is really nothing in the Population Registration Act as such, if you do not want to apply it. I would like to see the day arrive when we make much more use of our population registration, and that the identity card is used for many more purposes and contains many more facts which the State really needs, so that it can be a real book of life, as it should have been when it was introduced. I do not want to go into that matter now, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that during this Session still all hon. members will hear more about this, not in the way of legislation that I am going to introduce at this stage, but I want to take them into my confidence in regard to the planning and the investigations which are being done. Much thought has been given to the subject. I think that after everything has been explained to them, hon. members will have no objection, because this is not a political matter. It is only designed for better government and for many other good reasons that I do not want to go into now. But I will see to it that hon. members get an opportunity, before I introduce a Bill, to get at the real meaning of it all. This will also conform with what I have in mind and with the wishes of my Department and of the State. Why should there be a classification of parents? If the child cannot conform, when his race is being filled in on that form, with the regulations and the provisions of the Act as it stands, you have purposely neglected to see that the race as entered on this form is in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

Now we come to the surnames. Here we give the Registrar the right to scratch out something, but there is no erasure as such; he just has to change it and then initial it, with the date, so that you can always know that this was the name, and this is how it was before and this is how he changed it, so that one can check up to see whether he did not make a mistake. It is not a question of erasure.

In the Afrikaans it says “verander”, and in the English it says "substitute”.

We understand both English and Afrikaans so well that we understand exactly what we mean. We do not want to split hairs about words. But I can assure hon. members that in the Other Place I promised during the Committee Stage that I should see to it that any alterations in the birth information forms would, as regards the race of the child, be duly initialled and dated by the registrar-general and the district registrar. In other words, they will have to consult their records and make sure, because, after all, they do have the records. But if the alterations are made, I want proof that they were made by the officers, and that they were not simply inscribed by the person himself. I can give the assurance that those instructions have already been issued, and I envisage an amendment of the regulations in terms of this Act so that no errors may creep in when alterations are made.

When we come to surnames and the rights of children, the surname of a child may be altered, but it will not be erased. I think that it is merely an imaginary danger the hon. member for Green Point is seeing when he mentions the example of a child who is not adopted by his stepfather, for instance; he merely assumes that surname, and in view of the fact that he assumes that surname and that an alteration can be made in the birth certificate, he may perhaps forfeit bequests he could have received from his legitimate or natural father. But the inscription of the new name will not replace the other one in this sense, because the other one will still be there so that there will be sufficient proof to the effect that this had been his former surname and that his present surname was the one he had subsequently adopted. This can only take place with the consent of the stepfather. But if the stepfather wants to do everything for him. this will only be so in the circumstances where such a child has nothing. There are such stepfathers. But if he knows that he cannot care for the child in the way his own father would have cared for him, and he cannot accept responsibility to that extent because the child is not his own, then he will not give his consent in the first place. One does not want this poor child to have a surname which comes to his knowledge for the first time on the day he wants to get married.

This may cause inconvenience and grief. We only want to help in this respect, but we do not want to do so in such a way that he loses something by it; we want to help him so that he may only stand to gain, with less trouble and expense. That is why I think that if we study this Bill well, we ought to have no fundamental objections to it. Therefore I think that we might as well resume our further discussion of this matter at the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The Wine and Spirits Control Act, Act No. 38 of 1956. which was originally placed on the Statute Book as Act No. 5 of 1924, deals in the main with the marketing of and control over distilling wine, i.e. wine which is the produce of the vine and which is intended for distillation into brandy or other spirits. It is therefore not wine which is produced for consumption in the form of good wines, whether these are table wines, sherry or port.

The Wine and Spirits Control Act, inter alia, also creates the machinery whereby the price which is fixed for distilling wine can be made enforceable. This is the minimum price which distillers of brandy and spirits have to pay for such wine when they purchase or obtain it from wine farmers or co-operative associations of wine farmers.

Such co-operative associations and wine farmers themselves undertake the distilling of their distilling wine, and sell the spirits thus obtained directly to the trade. In terms of section 2 (4) (a) of the Act such producers are however prevented from selling spirits at a price which is less than the price based on the price at which the K.W.V. sells distilling wine of the same vintage, to which the cost of distilling has already been added, to wholesale traders or distillers.

Where spirits are obtained from producers the addition of the distilling costs is therefore compulsory and must, according to a principle which was already laid down in the 1924 Act, be paid by the purchaser, who may be either a wholesale trader or a distiller.

In terms of the then requirements all spirits could be utilized for drinking purposes without reservation. Since then, however, provision has been made to the effect that spirits and brandy, the produce of the vine, must first be approved by the Government Brandy Board before it may be utilized for drinking purposes. The requirements laid down for the approval of spirits are such that the product which it is possible to obtain by means of small distilling units is not normally approved. Normally it does not comply with the standards set.

Wine farmers and co-operative associations of wine farmers are still, in some cases, undertaking the distillation of their own wine. Producers in regions which are situated at further distances from the premises of distillers in the Western Province are doing this particularly with a view to reducing the quantity by removing water and certain other constituents from the wine so that a smaller volume may be transported. The quantity is decreased in this way by approximately 87½ per cent. This distillation is being done by means of relatively small kettles, the so-called “stripping column”, and the saving on transportation costs makes such a “pre-distillation”, as it may be called, a paying proposition for the producer. In other words, it is being done for the sole purpose of economizing on transportation costs, an item which can sometimes be very high, particularly when the products have to be transported over long distances.

However, the wholesale trader or distiller buying such a product is compelled to re-distil it before he is able to obtain approval for it to be utilized from the Government Brandy Board. He must therefore incur the same costs in regard to distilling as if he had received only wine. On the other hand the producers have not incurred the costs of distillation with the purpose of receiving compensation of any kind for it because they realize only too well that they are not delivering a product which will be approved for use without distillation.

The wholesale trader or distiller wants to obtain this product, but cannot pay the distilling costs on that product if they have to incur again the costs of re-distilling it. The cost of such a re-distilling process is, for all practical purposes, precisely the same as it would have been if the wine could have been distilled into approved spirits in the first place.

The new clause 2 (4) (a) of the Bill, therefore, also makes provision for a proviso which authorizes the sale of such spirits, in certain circumstances, without the payment of the costs of distilling as part of the minimum price being compulsory. In other words, it will be possible to sell such spirits at a price for the equivalent quantity of distilling wine it represents. The wholesale trader or distiller buying such raw spirits is not benefited in any way because he has to bear the costs of distilling himself.

Such sale will only be authorized if the relevant producer convinces the K.W.V. that the Government Brandy Board has refused to approve and certify the spirits in question, and the K.W.V. is therefore satisfied that the trader who bought the spirits will have to re-distill it in order to obtain approval and certification thereof.

No evasion of the minimum price can occur therefore, and all that is intended in the proposed amendment therefore is to adapt the Act to altered circumstances.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has given an exceptionally clear exposition of this Bill—in complete contrast to what we experienced yesterday afternoon. If it had not been for the fact that we had from time to time discussed this matter with the Department it would have been impossible for us to understand what the second reading of the Bill …

Order! But this has nothing to do with the Bill.

I know, Mr. Speaker. But I just wanted to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we appreciate it, and we want to congratulate him on presenting this Bill in such a clear way. We hope and trust that his colleagues will follow his example. As far as the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister is introducing in this Bill is concerned, we on this side of the House have no objection to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Precedence given to private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move—

If we examine the urban areas legislation, we observe that since 1923, also in the various amendments and in their subsequent consolidation, this important basic principle is clearly and unambiguously stated, namely that the State determines the policy and that the local authorities assist in its application. We often hear the accusation that the Central Government is interfering in municipal affairs when it intervenes and reprimands, reproves, or admonishes local authorities that are not prepared to carry out the national policy. To-day I want to make it very clear once more that the State is the body responsible for the policy in the field of Bantu Affairs. The Central Government is not interfering, but only doing its duty when it issues instructions in this connection and carries out its supervisory function. When local authorities are not doing their duty in respect of Bantu legislation, the Government must intervene. The independence of the local authorities in respect of other matters is not affected. The local authorities can still act independently with regard to any other matter. This factual position must be made very clear because it does not exist only for the sake of uniformity, but also for the sake of peace and order in our country, so as to prevent conflicting attitudes from being adopted when dealing with the Bantu in our cities and towns. Many town councils and officials are toying with the idea that the Central Government is arrogating rights to itself in adopting this point of view, while in actual fact the Government is not presumptuous at all and is not arrogating a new right to itself, but is merely undertaking the proper fulfilment of its duty as laid down by the Constitution. The matter is considered to be of such importance that the State deemed it advisable to protect by legislation the chief official of Bantu Administration, who has to fulfil a double function, namely on the one hand to implement national policy and on the other hand to give loyal service to his employer. The legislation provides that he be licensed by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The licence granted to him affords him the protection of the Minister and the Department in case he should come into conflict in certain respects with his employer, the town council, in the course of the lawful execution of his duties. The chief official is a very important link between the Central Government and the local authorities.

I also want to say at once that I am able to speak with the greatest appreciation of the cooperation of by far the majority of the administrators of Bantu Affairs in the Republic. I have personal experience of the willingness of these officials to co-operate in the implementation of Government policy. I can also attest to the fact that with the odd exceptions —and here it is usually the larger town councils—these officials meticulously and correctly interpret Government policy to their town councils. As far as the town councils are concerned, certain powers have been delegated to them in connection with Bantu Affairs in this country. All the cities and towns are only concerned with executive activities. It is the duty of the urban authorities to implement the policy of the country, not to assist in formulating basic policy for themselves or for the country. They must implement the policy; they must not attempt to formulate policy. This is a very clear principle that was laid down in our legislation from the very beginning, namely that it will only create confusion and disorder in the country if Bantu Affairs become subject to a diversity of policies. It simply cannot happen that in one city the Bantu is controlled on a certain basis and that in another city he is controlled on a different basis, or that the policy of the Central Government is implemented in a piecemeal fashion. We cannot allow a diversity of courses of action to develop.

I should like to emphasize very strongly that the white man and the Bantu in South Africa cannot develop a way of life if ideas are seized upon left and right. A proper plan of action must be followed. Our deeds must be systematic and then there will be mutual understanding.

Both local authorities and officials in charge of Bantu Administration must realize that the policy which forms the basis of their work comprises a comprehensive programme. Separate development is not simply a matter of disconnected ideas and disconnected plans. One cannot simply make a departure here and a concession there. Moreover, a town council cannot simply be allowed to go its own way. No. Concessions may sometimes appear to be very superficial to the town council or to the local official. It may be felt that local conditions can simply be adapted to it, but it is the duty of the State, when concessions have to be made, to consider those concessions very carefully and to see what the consequences of those concessions would be. That is why we find so many town councils declaring to-day that the Government is very unreasonable because they were only asking for a small concession, which was not granted. They ask, “What difference would such a small concession really make?” But they have not considered carefully how that concession would affect the country as a whole.

The figures of the policy of separate development extend far, and reach deep into the living circumstances of people: to make them happy, to help prevent clashes, and to bring peace and order. The National Party can boast that it has brought peace and order among the various race groups in this multiracial country, despite the wilful and malevolent opposition from the United Party town councils in the past 20 years. We have achieved this in spite of the opposition of officials who have not done their duty, and in spite of selfish businessmen who wanted to exploit the Bantu, and of United Party town councils that only wanted to make political capital out of the matter and were not concerned about the welfare and progress of the Bantu. If we cast back our thoughts to what has happened in the past 20 years, if we recall to mind the abuse, the opposition and the stirring up of suspicion among the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa and abroad, if we think of the legislation which the Government has placed on the Statute Book for the sole purpose of establishing peace and order in our fatherland, we can be filled with pride at what has taken place these past 20 years.

Just recall to mind the tremendous opposition we encountered when legislation was placed on the Statute Book in order to clear up slums and squatter camps. You ask, where? Just consider how the opposition fought the legislation in connection with Cato Manor and Sophiatown. Think of the old Germiston location, the whole of the Witwatersrand area, Port Elizabeth and East London, and think how they are still fighting the legislation in that connection. But in spite of the opposition from the City Council of Johannesburg, this Government has piloted the legislation through. Think of the time when Dr. Verwoerd put through his legislation in connection with levies, so that businessmen would also have to contribute to many essential services which had to be provided to the non-Whites in the Bantu townships, and think how the businessmen were opposed to it and were not prepared to make their contribution.

When we look at the beautiful housing schemes in our Bantu townships to-day, we find that the United Party are the first to boast of them. They conduct overseas visitors to the townships and say: “This is what we have done for the non-Whites in this country.” Just think of the opposition we experienced when we began with the site and service scheme. Not one of the local authorities controlled by the United Party was in favour of it, with the exception of the Town Council of Benoni. Not one of them supported it. What happened when the Town Council of Benoni accepted the National Party policy? Shortly afterwards it also became Nationalist.

If we consider the ethnic grouping of Bantu under the various local authorities—how did they not fight it! And to-day? Does one still hear of faction fights and large-scale murder over the week-ends in our Bantu townships? Or has there been peace and quiet since ethnic grouping was introduced? How the Opposition fought us when we placed the locations in the air legislation on the Statute Book! One would have thought that we were doing the greatest injustice to the Bantu. But to-day the City Council of Cape Town is the city council that most laments the fact that it was not properly implemented. They are now crying over Sea Point. As soon as they apply that legislation drastically, there will be a great improvement.

We placed this legislation on the Statute Book and made it very clear that the local authorities only had to implement it and that the officials were there only to interpret the law. We find, however, that the policy of the Government has been wilfully obstructed in the past year, and even because officials were too lax to implement the legislation. I do not want to single out only one town council today. I even want to haul the Bloemfontein City Council over the coals. Here, in the heart of the Free State, we also find that obstruction. According to Die Volksblad of 30th April, 1963, Colonel Vermeulen said that it was his impression that after 9 p.m. there were more Bantu than Whites in Bloemfontein (translation)—

A colonel of the Police Force says that the legislation is there and that he is going to implement it. But he continues—

Here we have a local authority which is not doing its duty, which is not carrying out the law. Now the Chief of Police has to act when the inhabitants of that city complain that burglary is on the increase. But there will be no more burglary if this local authority carries out its duty.

A head official of the Durban City Council, Mr. Borquin, is only busy creating confusion instead of carrying out his duty as laid down in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. He does not accept the legislation. Here it is written that—

Instead of doing his duty, he is creating confusion there. Surely he was appointed to interpret the law properly to his local authority and not to express his own opinion on it. Just remember, Mr. Speaker, that these officials are licensed. They are protected by the law. At the last congress held at George, and at which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was present, Mr. P. W. A. Koller asked for a freer hand for administrators. He had the audacity to say the following (translation)—

Is it not presumptuous to say such a thing at an important congress of administrators from over the length and breadth of the Republic? What does he think for one moment he has achieved by that? Does he think he has brought about better co-operation between himself and the Department of Bantu Administration? Is he aware of the tremendous discord he is sowing, not only as an administrator of a very important local authority, Johannesburg, but what does he think is the effect on the Bantu in the urban locations who must look up to him, and the Minister who has to care for the Bantu and to plan their future and their welfare. Here an official declares that the Minister and his entire Department know nothing about the urban Bantu. But this same official has to be licensed by the Minister. I say it is disgraceful. It is such utterances and actions on the part of irresponsible officials that are getting us into hot water to-day and causing unnecessary suspicion among the Bantu in their townships.

What will happen if the policy is not determined by the Central Government? A certain Mr. A. J. Cutten had the following to say. I concede that he is an independent city councillor of Johannesburg. But do you know what he wanted? “Direct representation on the Johannesburg City Council for Johannesburg Natives by at least four Native City Councillors, sitting in the council chamber, was urged by Mr. A. J. Cutten, an independent city councillor.” Does this city councillor realize what would have happened if we had permitted five non-Whites to sit in the Johannesburg City Council to determine the policy for the future of this country? Mr. Speaker, can you imagine in what chaos and confusion the Republic of South Africa would have been to-day? Do you realize what the consequences would have been if we had allowed a man unbridled expression of his ideas? No. That is why it was so important that our Constitution should provide that only the Central Government must have the power to determine the policy of this country. But I want to go further. We find that even after the legislation in connection with locations in the air was passed, the then Minister of Bantu Administration had to issue a warning in 1962. Under the heading “Bantu still teeming in the city’s locations in the air” in Die Vaderland of 7th August, 1962, we read the following (translation)—

Legislation in this connection did exist, but the Johannesburg City Council was not prepared to apply it. What do we find to-day? Mr. Cuyler says in a report: “City of Gold allows Bantu laws to fail”. He adds (translation)—

This is what Mr. Eben Cuyler, leader of the National Party in the City Council, said a while ago. He went on to say—

As a result of the failure to apply influx control properly, there are to-day many more Bantu in the city than there are employment opportunities. Has the time not perhaps come for the State and the Government to undertake the implementation and application of their own laws?

We find a similar report under the heading “Government must take over Soweto” (translation)—

He adds—

That is the Resettlement Board established by this Government—

I say here to-day that the National Party has in the past 20 years brought about peace and order among the Whites and the Blacks in South Africa. That is what we have brought about in this multi-racial country of ours. And we are on the eve of carrying through successfully the second phase of our policy of separate development. We have influx properly under control. We have brought about segregation between Whites and non-Whites. Now the Government’s greatest and most responsible task begins, and that is to cause the Bantu to flow back to their homelands in an orderly way. We are already finding that the United Party and its United Party-orientated city councils are trying to obstruct us. We are already noticing the strong opposition on their part and on the part of certain businessmen in connection with the Physical Planning Act which is on the Statute Book.

T want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon not to hesitate to take firm action against any city council which is not prepared to carry out this policy and against any city council which is obstructing this policy. We do not want a repetition of what occurred in the past 20 years in connection with the implementation of the various Acts. We do not want a repetition of obstinate city councillors and wilful businessmen frustrating our policy. The United Party does not think of the future. It only thinks of the present. As long as it can derive economic advantage, all is well. It is of little concern to members of the United Party if a non-white proletariate is developing in our cities which will present the greatest threat imaginable to our white civilization. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister to-day: The people outside are demanding that action be taken in this connection and they are saying that this action must be taken quickly—the more drastic that action, the better, because we are sick and tired of having the policy of the National Party obstructed. We will definitely not tolerate it any longer.

Mr. Speaker, this motion by the hon. member for Brakpan is, of course, in keeping with the thinking and the policy of this Government, i.e. to interfere more and more in all spheres of Bantu administration. They seem to want to control and regulate the life of the Bantu no matter where he may be. We, of course, have opposed the encroachment of this Government on the rights of municipalities to administer, according to the law, the Bantu in their own areas. Because of our attitude in the past I wish to move the following amendment:

The hon. member who moved this motion has given us a political harangue as to why this has become necessary. I must say that I have never yet heard so many inconsistencies from any member proposing a motion from the Government side. He started off by saying that “die Staat bepaal die beleid”. That is quite right, and we all agree with him. It is common cause that the State determines policy. The State also lays down by regulation and other means how its policy will be carried out and certain bodies exist to carry out that policy. In the past the local authorities have been responsible for this and we hope that they will continue to be responsible for it. This is traditional of South African life. It is not something new or something which the United Party thought of. It is traditional that the municipalities undertake the administration of their own affairs in their own areas. He also went on to say that the head official is licensed by the Government and that he gets protection from the Minister should he run foul of the municipality. That we know too, Sir. The Government licenses these senior officials who are responsible for carrying out the policy; the Government has approved of them all. I remember an occasion some years ago when one of these officials misbehaved at Paarl. He was found guilty of corruption, and when we asked the then Minister to withdraw the licence he refused to do so and that official was allowed to continue in that occupation where he had been brought into disrepute by the Bantu themselves and found by the court to have been guilty of corruption. The hon. member himself has said that he can vouch for the fact that the majority of the head officials carry out Government policy, and that in fact is true; the hon. member agrees. If that is so, then why all this fuss? If they are in fact carrying out Government policy, why this hullabaloo here this afternoon? The hon. member also says that it is in order to avoid clashes that he proposes that these boards should take over the administration, and then in the next breath he tells us that we have peace and order. He is proud of the fact that for 20 years under the rule of this Government we have had peace and order. If that is so. why does he want to bring about a change? If the present system is working so satisfactorily and he is so proud of it, why does he want a change; why does he take a chance? Why not leave the present position undisturbed? He then went on to say that the S.A.P municipalities …

“Sap” is juice.

That is the sort of clever remark that I expect to hear from that Minister. He is beginning to realize that the “Sappe” have a lot of juice and that they are using that juice to the discomfort of this Government. We on this side are not dead wood; we are full of “sap”. Sir, who is responsible for the state in which we now find ourselves, a state which was eulogized by the hon. member? He is quite right; the credit belongs to Sap councils. You cannot in one breath talk about all the amenities supplied by the Sap councils and then attack them in the next breath. The hon. member tells us that Nationalist members of the council of Johannesburg have warned of dangers and have pressed for a change, but it is the Johannesburg S.A.P. council which is responsible for the peace we have and for the progress made in Johannesburg. Sir, in his long speech this afternoon the only council with which he could find fault was the Bloemfontein council and who governs there? Bloemfontein is governed by Nationalists. That is what happens when you hand a town over to the Nationalists. The best thing that Bloemfontein could do would be to get rid of the Nationalist City Council at the next election and to elect a United Party Council. Sir, after the speech made here this afternoon by the hon. member, Bloemfontein will be full of “Sappe”.

The only other argument the hon. member could advance in support of his contention that boards must take over from the municipalities, was that Mr. Borquin. who is the responsible official in Durban, criticized a Bill. In other words, what the hon. member is saying is this: He is the expert to advise the Durban Municipality; how dare he have the cheek to criticize a Bill which is coming before Parliament? Sir, have we reached the stage now where nobody can criticize? Must the whole country simply accept what this Government wants to do? The hon. member attacks Mr. Koller for criticizing a measure which has been passed and he attacks Mr. Borquin for criticizing a Bill before it has been passed. When must these people express their views; must they all remain silent? If Mr. Koller thought that things were going wrong, if he thought that it was necessary to warn that the administration must be changed, what better place to do so than at a conference? What was the purpose in calling that conference? Surely it was not just to give everybody an opportunity to pat the Government on the back. Are these conferences of heads of departments not called for the purpose of enabling people to voice criticism? Have we not had criticism of Government policy from members of the agricultural staff of this Government? Surely we cannot, merely because people happen to criticize what this Government is doing, say that we must change the whole system of government.

Thehon. member, to my surprise, referred to opposition from the United Party to certain improvements which they wished to make with a view to eradicating slums. He knows as well as I do why we opposed the Sophiatown movement. He knows that we did so to protect the rights of owners of property. He knows that very well. It was made quite clear at the time. Sir, we have heard a lot this afternoon about Soweto. The hon. member says that members of the United Party take pride in showing oversea visitors what is being done in Sophiatown, Soweto and in Port Elizabeth and other areas. It is quite true that we are proud of what our municipalities have done; we are proud of what our S.A.P. municipalities have done. But, Sir, it is not only United Party members who take visitors around the country to show them what has been done. Government representatives are the first people to take visitors to places like Soweto and Port Elizabeth to show them what development is taking place there. When they want to impress visitors, they take them to United Party-controlled municipalities to show them what is being done there. They are quite justified in doing so, and I want to pay tribute, as I have done in the past, to this Government for the support that it has given to municipalities in providing more housing in these townships. We have never been critical of the Government in this regard; in fact, we have given credit to the Government for making funds available to help these municipalities to provide housing.

You are beginning to see the light.

I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister of the difficulties that the United Party Government experienced when it sought to provide funds for Bantu and Coloured housing. I would like to remind hon. members opposite of the opposition that we encountered when we spent money on the Bantu. When this Government spends money to that end we on this side are not critical; we encourage them to do so. Sir, let us take Soweto and let us see what this Sap municipality has done. Soweto was started 35 years ago. [Interjections.]. Sir, I would welcome speeches from hon. members opposite when I sit down; I do not know why they are becoming so excited. If they think they have a bull point surely they would get up and state it at once; they would not sit there shouting interjections. Sir, what did the municipality spend there during the year ended 30th June, 1965? We find that the municipality spent R53,488,569.

Where do they get the money?

They borrowed the money. They were able to borrow the money because people had confidence in this Sap municipality and their credit was good. I am not going to analyse the entire expenditure, but on buildings alone they spent R27,773,749. Included in this amount spent on buildings, there is a sum of R2,723,516 spent on erecting hostels. The amount spent on housing schemes was R23,678,704. That is what they spent on building these houses of which the Government is so proud to-day. Sir, think of all the facilities they have given to those people; think of what they have accomplished in this short period; they accommodate over 500,000 people there.

Why does the Johannesburg municipality not clear up Alexandra?

He does not know where Alexandra is.

Sir, if the Johannesburg municipality has been failing in its duty, there is provision in the Urban Areas Act for the Minister to take action. Why does the Minister not do something about it?

Alexandra is not in the Johannesburg municipal area, it is a periurban area.

In that whole area on the Rand you have a population of over 700,000; in Soweto alone you have 500 000. The municipality has supplied all sort of facilities to these people. They have supplied beer halls, recreation grounds, sportfields, two golf courses and swimming baths. They have provided all the facilities which these people need. Admittedly they can do more and they are spending more and more and developing the town further, but then there is all this uncertainty as to the Government’s future policy. They want to expand further; they want to provide more facilities, but they constantly have to hear threats from this Government that the Bantu are going to be removed at the rate of 5 per cent per year. At one time it was said that the figure may not necessarily be 5 per cent but there is a state of uncertainty amongst these municipalities as to what development should take place. Take Port Elizabeth, for example. There is a state of uncertainty as to what they can spend and what development can take place there. The hon. member for Brakpan says in support of his motion that the Government is going to spend the Bantu back to their homelands, but what has that got to do with these Bantu boards administering the affairs of the Bantu in that area? If we hand over control to the boards, how does the hon. member know that these boards will do anything better than the municipalities have done? As you know, Sir, we are governed to-day by boards; we have boards in all walks of life.

Jobs for pals.

Yes, jobs for pals. Those boards, however, do not all operate satisfactorily. The hon. member will be the first to agree with me.

Much better than the municipalities.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks that, then let me ask him whether the banana growers are as satisfied with their boards as the people in Johannesburg are with the municipality? [Interjections.] The hon. member who introduced this motion says that the people in Johannesburg and the other large towns are not going to tolerate the present position any longer; that they are clamouring for the Government to take over the administration of Bantu affairs in these areas. Sir, if there is such a clamour, then there is quite a simple solution. All the ratepayers have to do is to get rid of their present city councils. If the ratepayers thought that the members of these councils are not doing their job satisfactorily, then surely they would get rid of them. The mere fact that these Sap councils continue to remain in power, indicates that the ratepayers are satisfied with the way in which these townships are being administered. The city councillors know what their people want and that is why they are elected. Sir, it is traditional in this country to have democratic institutions. It is not traditional in this country to hand everything over to bureaucrats, and that is what would happen if you handed over the control of Bantu affairs to boards. It is against all the traditions of our country. Why do we have municipalities and village management boards and provincial councils? I want to assure the hon. member and the Government that we on this side of the House will continue to fight to retain the right of these local authorities to administer their affairs, in terms of the law, in their own areas.

The hon. member for Transkei has almost succeeded in getting me into the right mood for this debate. The only pity is that he was not convincing enough. I really felt that this debate, because it is such an important matter could be conducted on a much higher level. All debates on race relationships and our relation politics should be conducted on a high level, but now the hon. member has caused that level to drop a little. I find it remarkable that there are only two hon. members sitting in the House here this afternoon who represent Johannesburg constituencies, and at the moment there is only one. I am going to concentrate mainly on Johannesburg now, and I expected the Johannesburg representatives to be here in this House, because Johannesburg is the largest public authority in the country which has the greatest number of Bantu under its jurisdiction. But now they are conspicuous by their absence, and the hon. member for the Transkei is talking about local authorities that have to retain control over the administration of Bantu affairs because they have specialized knowledge of the local conditions. But the difficulty is that although they have specialized knowledge of local conditions, they have no specialized knowledge of the Bantu, and that is why we can no longer leave this task in their hands.

The hon. member kicked up a great fuss about what the Johannesburg City Council was doing, and he said that a start was made with Soweto 35 years ago. I also arrived in Johannesburg 35 years ago and quite by chance I established myself on the boundaries of the present Soweto. And that is where I want to begin this afternoon, namely with the influx of Bantu into the Johannesburg area during and just after the war, and the growth of slum areas on a large scale, when the Johannesburg City Council did not care two hoots for the welfare of those Bantu, but were only concerned about the cheap labour which could be made available for the employers, in this way Sophiatown and its environs came into existence, as well as Alexandria and, last but not least, the shanty town of Moroka, where the present Soweto is situated. There the hon. member informs us that a start was made with Soweto 35 years ago, but 21 years ago three policemen were murdered in the most horrible fashion in the shanty town of Moroka, and then there was still no sign of Soweto. I really do not know whether the hon. member knows his history. Those conditions continued to exist in that large municipality, the richest and the largest in the country, until the late Dr. Verwoerd became Minister of Bantu Affairs. Because he was acquainted with the conditions and because National Party representatives had been pleading in season and out for the clearance of those conditions, and rightly alleged that our policy of separate development was not discriminatory against the Bantu, but in fact uplifting, and because it was proved that the City Council of Johannesburg, through its tacit allowance of those conditions, did not care two hoots for the welfare of the Bantu, the then National Party representatives in this House as well as on the City Council of Johannesburg, pleaded that justice should be done in regard to these people so that the relations between White and non-White there could be improved. Now the hon. member for Transkei will recall that Dr. Verwoerd could not obtain the co-operation of that City Council and had to come to this House to introduce legislation to compel them to give him that co-operation, and to have Sophiatown and its environs cleared up, where to-day there is a proud white suburb, Triomf. It had to establish the Resettlement Board, to establish and develop Meadowlands. What is more, when the development of Meadowlands was under way, the agitators of Johannesburg, supported by prominent members of the City Council of Johannesburg, incited the Bantu of Sophiatown against the removal without let up. They made use of the most terrible things in order to incite the Bantu, not only against the Government, but against the Whites in general. What happened then? That dynamic Resettlement Board, which had been established by a dynamic Government, which had come into power through the agency of a dynamic National Party, tackled that task with the greatest dedication. When the first removals were made, we recall how people like the Reverand Scott and Huddleston marched along in their long gowns there in order to try and incite the Bantu further and to prevent them from moving. But when the first few had moved, and had seen under what conditions they were going to live, and came and told their friends in Sophiatown about that, there was an influx of Bantu to the offices of the Resettlement Board to ascertain when they too were going to move to Meadowlands. And that in spite of the opposition in the Johannesburg City Council and the incitement by certain elements in Johannesburg. When the City Council of Johannesburg saw that they were now going to be faced with a problem, they began to bestir themselves in Soweto. But still they did not want to do anything, and then Dr. Verwoerd told them that he was going to force them, and if they did not want to make a move, he would have those Bantu resettled by the Resettlement Board as well. Then he came forward with his plan for the site and service scheme. To maintain that that scheme had its origin in the United Party City Council of Johannesburg, is the greatest nonsense and is not true. That plan came from the late Dr. Verwoerd, and the site and service scheme was the foundation stone on which Soweto was built. As a result of that we accommodated the Bantu in Johannesburg properly.

But what is happening now? Now we find that the policy, as laid down by the Government , is not being applied properly. This entails that plus-minus 150,000 to 200,000 Bantu are illegally present in Soweto to-day, because the City Council of Johannesburg refuses to apply influx control consistently. On the contrary, they are doing everything in their power to sabotage that policy. They come along in season and out and plead for more Bantu in Johannesburg. In support of the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan I want to quote what he said here, namely that if that policy is not applied, we cannot achieve success in our race relationships. He quoted here what certain people had said in support of this opinion. All the legislation which has up to now been placed on the Statute Book by this House in order to apply that policy properly has been opposed and attempts have been made to torpedo it. When the Physical Planning Act was before this House last year, Johannesburg came forward with a report, and under banner headlines the Rand Daily Mail stated “New African City Needed”, and I want to read what is stated here—

He then goes on to say—

Here they are making propaganda for the admission of more Bantu, while they know that it is the Government’s policy to stem that influx and ultimately to bring about a return to the Bantu homelands. [Interjections.] They go further in the report and say—

This is another indication that these people are not concerned about the policy of the National Party. They are not concerned about the welfare of the Bantu. They are not concerned about race relationships in South Africa. Their only concern is cheap labour to benefit their own people. It states further—

We can continue in this way. In addition I want to make the assertion that these people, in spite of everything are doing all in their power to make our task difficult for us in Johannesburg. I want to refer to the legislation which was passed by this hon. House to limit the number of resident household servants to one. We in Johannesburg accepted at that time that a concession had been made for permits to be granted for more than one resident servant until such time as the City Council of Johannesburg had made provision for the accommodation of those servants. But up to now nothing has been done about the provision of that housing. The permit system is being extended there from year to year. What is more, permits are being issued to Bantu women with children, to live and work in backyards. I want to go further and say that Johannesburg City Council is to-day supplying transport to bring those who are illicitly sleeping in the back-yards of the residential areas to the central part of the city where those illicit sleepers work. In the mornings those buses coming out of those residential areas, including Houghton, are packed. The hon. member for Houghton is so eloquent with her interjections here this afternoon. She should rather listen to what I have to say. Illicit sleepers are, inter alia, also being transported each morning from Houghton to the central part of the city of Johannesburg, and every evening they are being transported back again by means of public transport, which is subsidized by the white taxpayers of Johannesburg, to the residential areas, and there they creep into the back-yards to go and sleep there.

I am sorry I do not have the time to elaborate further on this matter, but for the above-mentioned reasons I want to support the motion of the hon. member for Brakpan. In conclusion, just this. We are dealing with a serious matter here. The future of our race relationships is bound up with how this policy is going to be applied by local authorities. Because this is so, I believe that this responsibility cannot be transferred from the Government into the fickle hands of a lot of United Party city councils.

Mr. Speaker, I am very disturbed indeed by the mood displayed by hon. members on that side in supporting this motion. The hon. member for Brakpan, who introduced the motion, claimed that we have had peace and order in South Africa through the years, and he ought therefore to pay tribute to the great part played by those councils not supporting the Government side for their share in preserving that peace. But if one listens to the cry from the hearts of hon. members opposite who spoke in support of the motion one can only infer that this motion arouses deep emotion in them. If one analyses what has been said in support of the motion, one can be even more disturbed at the situation. We have not heard chapter and verse proof in support of the motion. We have heard the argument that many people are to-day illegally in urban areas—this is the basis of the whole case put up by that side. I want to say the Government should look rather in their own eye to find the beam there rather than look for the mote in the eye of the councils. I should like Ministers to listen to this. The reason why the people are in the urban areas illegally has nothing, or very little, to do with the councils. The following are, in my view, the reasons why those people are there illegally. Firstly, they must get work in order to live. They must obtain money with which to buy food and survive. The people who are illegally in the cities are there because otherwise they would starve. I do not believe the problem is quite as extensive as was stated by hon. members on that side, but the fact is that that is why they are there, and they are prepared to run the risk of prosecution in order to be able to earn the money with which to keep body and soul together.

The hon. member for Brakpan mentioned Sea Point. I want to say I believe the unsatisfactory situation in Sea Point, as far as it does exist, is again the fault of the Government. The reason is this. The people in Sea Point about whom complaints are made are no doubt people, firstly, who have no home to go to, and the reason for that is largely because the Government has not supplied sufficient money for their housing. Secondly, it is partly due to the fact that many of those people, if they are Natives, are illegally in the area. The reason why they are there illegally, and do not qualify for a house, is because they must come here to work in order to live. More and more we are finding all over the country that people are ignoring the various influx control laws in order to be able to live. As poverty grows in the reserves, as conditions get worse, and as, because labour is being forced out of places like Cape Town, wages rise, so the magnet is stronger and more and more people will be prepared to face the risk of prosecution and go to places where they can earn a living. Apart from that aspect, the only other authority concerned is the police, because the police must in these difficult circumstances do their best to try and control people who are illegally in urban areas. So I suggest it is quite unjustified to blame the city councils for the situation. Let me in passing say there is only one United Party-controlled council among them all, and that is the Council of Johannesburg. As has been said. Johannesburg is a showpiece as far as Native administration is concerned.

I suggest that hon. gentlemen must look far deeper. They are giving vent here this afternoon to their frustration at the failure of their own policy to work. They are absolutely frustrated because it does not work, and they are therefore looking around for a suitable seapegoat. The nearest one to hand is some of these councils; so they proceed to blame them.

Where the councils are being blamed, it would be very interesting to know exactly what comments they made to the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development. Recently there were meetings of the United Municipal Executive in Cape Town and it would be very interesting to know from the hon. the Minister exactly what attitude they adopted in regard to this matter. My information is that they were unanimously opposed to the taking over of the control of Bantu Administration by these Bantu Labour Boards. Let me say at once that the United Municipal Executive does not consist of United Party supporters mainly, or even to a very great extent. It consists of representatives of all the municipalities throughout the country. It would be very interesting to know what the attitude of some of those councils is, councils in areas which sent Nationalist members to this Parliament. I ask the Minister, when he gets up to reply, to tell us what their attitude was and what their reasons were, and I believe he will have to admit Sap and Nat were against this mooted change.

Another big argument against the taking over of the labour administration by the boards is the fact that there will then be divided control in important matters. The Bantu Boards will control the movement of Natives, and the municipalities will control housing. In the past where there has been such a split control, it has led to very unfortunate situations. We had the case where the Bantu Affairs Commissioner allowed excessive numbers of Natives to come into an urban area whilst sufficient housing was not available. This procedure was then changed, and since then there has been a definite improvement in that regard.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what staff it is proposed shall administer the regulations, etc., on behalf of these boards. Is it intended that the staff of the non-European Affairs Departments of the various municipalities are to be taken over holus bolus to administer matters on behalf of the board? It is quite a different thing for a person who has entered the municipal service suddenly to find himself in the service of the Central Government. I want to know from the Minister what is the plan here? Is it proposed to offer them higher salaries to attract them to this work, or is it simply proposed to co-opt them, so to speak, into the service of the department?

At present, as has been said, most of the officials in question employed by the municipalities, are more than adequately controlled in their work by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. If they do not do their duties to the satisfaction of the department their licences can be withdrawn. In countless other ways they are obliged to carry out the instructions of the department. That being so. let the hon. the Minister tell us in which respects the present system is not working satisfactorily. Let him quote us chapter and verse. If he can do that, will he tell us whether his department has gone with these complaints to the municipalities concerned and tried to iron them out? There is machinery; there is every opportunity for these matters to be discussed. The necessary steps to rectify matters can be taken without the necessity for taking over and changing the whole system.

I dealt with the Sea Point complaints. The hon. member for Langlaagte referred to the fact—so he claimed—that there are 200,000 people living in Johannesburg illegally. Hon. members spoke of the slum clearance that has already been done. I concede certain slum clearance work has been done, and we on this side welcome it. But let no-one overlook the fact that a considerable number of slums have come into being under this Government. Round Cape Town, for instance, we have extremely serious slum conditions in the divisional council area. There are places such as Elsies River, Parkwood Estate, Rondevlei, and various areas in the direction of Strandfontein where there are far too many shanties arising. These shanties are arising for the same reason as I indicated, namely that people must work to live and they must sleep somewhere if they are working. If they cannot qualify for a house in terms of Government policy they merely put up their shanties in the places I mentioned, and elsewhere, and they are very bad ones.

What is the position at Hammarsdale? Hammarsdale should be the showpiece of the Government. It is a relatively small industrial area on a virgin piece of land, and when one goes to the adjoining Native residential area, one finds that this area is as bad as any slum can be.

When were you there last?

I was there about a year ago.

A lot happens under this Government in a year.

That industrial area was established, at a guess, about 1962. If a lot happens in a year under this Government, we have waited for six years to see nothing happen in the region of Hammarsdale. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate, how many houses have been built there to date for the Bantu. It would be very interesting to know. I know that there is talk of building houses in the future, but we should like to know how many houses there are, bearing in mind that there are approximately 40,000 Native people in that area and living under conditions which are quite as bad as any that were ever present in the wartime. Mr. Speaker, one does expect a government with a Minister and two Deputy Ministers of Bantu Affairs in 20 years to do something in the way of clearing up some of the slums in the country. What is most distressing, is that these slums are still there to-day and getting larger rather than smaller. It is a very sad state of affairs that there is more and more disregard of these regulations, by the workers and even by the employers. The reason is obvious. They are quite unrealistic. One finds to-day that in many places, when workers are on the job and a labour inspector comes around the corner, the labour vanishes, because they are not entitled to be working there. Later, after the inspector has gone, they return. This is just a further illustration of the fact that the law is unrealistic and it is not providing the answer. I said at the outset that I was disturbed at the attitude evinced by hon. members opposite. Instead of saying: Let the industries and the factories be established in these Native areas which can suck back these people to good employment opportunities, they simply wish these people to be banished from our towns and are quite unconcerned. [Interjections.] That was the effect of what the hon. member for Langlaagte said. The fact remains that, when the Government policy has been best expressed, it has been stated that these people should be sucked back by the employment opportunities. We have noticed in what has been stated here to-day that there is an appreciable departure from that line. We heard nothing from the hon. member from Brakpan pleading for the establishment of industries in the reserves and on the borders of the reserves. We heard not a word of that. He was concerned with the people who are living here illegally, but he was not pressing his Government one bit to undertake any of the necessary expenditure and activities to give them employment opportunities there. It is up to Government members and Government organs, if they are in any way sincere in this matter, to press their Government hard and not to refrain from doing so because it might not be popular to do so.

Mr. Speaker, if this motion was designed to promote a freer flow of labour in the main employment areas, it would at any rate have had that merit. I did not hear it mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan. He knows only too well that a freer flow of labour on the Witwatersrand and other places where it is much needed would certainly be an improvement. because there are stupid and unnecessary obstacles in the flow of labour across various prescribed areas. When I say freer flow, I am speaking of a flow within a labour area. I am not speaking of influx. I am speaking of movement within a defined area.

Mr. Speaker, in moving to a conclusion, I want to stress that already in terms of section 40bis the Government has power, with the concurrence of the local authorities, to establish management boards. I believe that they have done this in one or two places with the concurrence of local authorities. I do not doubt, that if those boards are a success, it is because they have secured the concurrence of the local people.

It is all very well for us to stand up for the rights of our own constituencies as we do, but when it comes to the rights of other areas which are under local control, we can gladly sweep them aside and simply claim that Pretoria must run everything. It will be a sad day when all matters of local government are run from Pretoria.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech the hon. member for Pinelands asked for proof of local authorities that are not exercising their authority in accordance with the policy of the Government. But, if the hon. member had listened carefully, he would have heard the hon. member for Langlaagte quoting him chapter and verse in respect of the Johannesburg City Council to prove in what respect that City Council had in fact been a major offender in this regard.

I find it very tragic that there is not one representative of the great City of Johannesburg here at the moment who can defend the United Party’s conduct there, but that they have left it to a member from the south. Previously there used to be at least two ex-mayors who were always able to defend the activities of the City Council of Johannesburg. But the only United Party member from that area, namely the hon. member for Orange Grove, has just walked out.

I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands, since he is taking such a great interest in this matter, to investigate the situation here in the Cape a little. He should get in touch with the City Council of Cape Town and ask them not to leave Bantu affairs in the hands of a committee on which a Coloured is also serving. I do not know whether this is still the case, but it was so in the past. One of the Coloured city councillors of Cape Town is apparently still sitting on the Non-White Affairs Committee. The Committee also deals with Bantu Affairs, and I think that this can only lead to racial strife. It is really an undesirable situation.

The motion of the hon. member for Brakpan, as it stands here, contains a very strict proviso. This is contained in the words “wherever considered desirable”. In other words, it is clear that, where the control and the management of Bantu administration of a local authority is sound, pure and correct and in accordance with the laws and the policy of the country, there can be no question of there being any need to interfere. Everybody knows that some local authorities did not in the past and even now still do not want to co-operate of their own free will with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I feel it is absolutely essential that such authorities, who in season and out are deliberately evading and disregarding the laws of the country, must be punished with a measure such as the one moved here by the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, in my view the essential background to and reason for the hon. member for Brakpan’s motion is the continual influx of Bantu from the rural areas and the reserves to the urban areas, and the unwillingness, and sometimes even the summary refusal, of certain local authorities to co-operate in controlling or stemming the influx. The essence of the South African racial question is undoubtedly the presence of the hundreds of thousands of Bantu in the urban areas. Consequently it is the fixed resolve, as everyone in this House knows, of the Government to prevent this influx of Blacks into the metropolitan areas, even if it has to be done by means of additional legislation. Last year the Government introduced the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act which, as you know, was aimed in the first place at decentralizing industries and in the second place in reducing the attraction of Bantu labour to the large urban areas. I now want to maintain that under its present leadership positive steps have never been taken by the United Party to bind the Opposition to support the Government in this regard. The Opposition has never wanted to bind itself to support the Government in its serious attempts to control influx and to control the increasing numbers of Bantu in cities. In the same way as his predecessors, in the same way as the late General Smuts and Mr. Hofmeyr, the present Leader of the Opposition in the United Party has, as far as I know, consistently adopted the attitude that the presence of the Bantu in the urban areas should simply be accepted as unavoidable, and that the Bantus are here to stay. In respect of the influx of Bantu into the urban areas, the Opposition to-day is still adopting a laisser faire—let things take their course— attitude.

Since the Opposition and its Leader have adopted this attitude, one can readily understand that a United Party-controlled City Council, such as that of Johannesburg, should imitate this attitude and even put it into practice. Those hon. members asked for practical examples. At the end of March of last year two high-ranking officials of the Johannesburg City Council namely the City Engineer and the manager of non-White affairs, drew up a report in regard to the increase in the Bantu population in the ensuing decades up to about 1980 in the area over which the Johannesburg City Council has control. This report and the recommendation it contains, which has been approved by the majority of the City Council, was in many respects diametrically opposed to the Government’s policy. Where the Government accepts as principle that the numbers of Bantu in the urban areas must be decreased, this report adopts the principle that the numbers should be increased. In this way it is recommended in the report that an additional Bantu group area of at least six square miles should be established in the vicinity of Johannesburg. What it also amounted to was that a plea was made for work to be supplied for the Bantu who are born in the urban areas. It is the principle of this Government that in white areas opportunities for employment should be created for Whites. But here this principle is obviously being disregarded. Here that principle is being diametrically opposed , and the policy of the Johannesburg City Council is that work should be created for the Bantu in the white areas. We know that the ratio in the Johannesburg industries between White and non-White is 1 to 2.2. That is to say, for every 2,200 Bantu workers there must be 1,000 white workers. We also know that the white workers are not available. In other words, the Bantu workers will steadily increase and the existing ratio will be disturbed. Then one basis of the United Party’s policy will once again be that certain Bantu can do the work of Whites.

The report which I have just referred to, and the fact that it has the approval of the majority of the Johannesburg United Party City Council members, is a practical example of the way in which an attempt is being made to oppose the policy of the Government—that is to say, proof of an absolute disregard of the Government’s policy. This runs counter to the policy of the Government and is proof of how strong this body deems itself to be. The report to which I referred, also confirms the fact that Johannesburg is actually an imperium in imperio—it is a state (or kingdom) within a state—and it would like to stay that way. Such a situation cannot be tolerated. It is not simply that it is prejudicial to the Johannesburg area, it is prejudicial to the Republic as a whole. We know that the migration of Bantu from the reserves has been accelerated owing to the attraction of the mines and the industries. To-day millions of Bantu are living in the most important industrial areas in and around our cities. As has already been mentioned, this is the essence of our comprehensive ethnic problem. We know that it results in the creation of a proletariat which could cause us difficulty in future. What definitely aggravates the situation is the fact that there are Whites and city councils who only think of to-day, but who close their eyes to to-morrow and the future because it is economically advantageous to-day to do so, as the hon. member for Langlaagte also put it, and because it is a paying proposition simply to bring in as many Bantu as possible as cheap labour. It is for this reason that certain individuals and local authorities do not deem it necessary to think about what the future is going to bring.

In this connection it is necessary for every individual in this country, every housewife, every manufacturer and every local authority to co-operate in stemming this influx and, if possible, eventually getting those Bantu to return to their homelands. We must associate this major and important task, which has already been commenced, with the name of Dr. Verwoerd because he—at that time as the Minister of Native Affairs—was the first person to begin to implement this policy in a practical way, although the National Party had from the outset, i.e. 1948, made a tentative start with this policy. We therefore honour him for that great task with which he made a start.

My concluding question is this. In an orderly, well-run state, can any local authority be allowed—and can it be tolerated that it should—to exercise so much power that it does not deem itself to be bound by the policy of the Government and does not feel itself compelled to implement that policy? Mr. Speaker, my answer is no. Such a local authority must be restrained. It can definitely not be allowed or tolerated that any local authority should exercise powers which neutralize the policy of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with more than ordinary interest today to what was said during this debate, waiting for some indication as to what the problems affecting all these municipalities are, and what remedy this motion is intending to apply. It did not take long for this debate to deteriorate into a criticism exclusively of the Johannesburg City Council. I think that the motion as it stands is not quite truthful, as every speaker has referred only to the Johannesburg City Council.

I have had a lot of experience with town councils and city councils, stretching over a period of 30 years, and I have also had experience in the provincial council with municipalities. I want to say a few words in the defence of municipalities. We are, if I am permitted to say so, entering into a crazy world. I can recall the time when, not many years ago, there was a tremendous amount of anxiety on the part of the Government over the fact that people on the platteland were flocking to the towns. There was no talk in those days of having influx control over these people, although every member of the Government and every member who represented a platteland seat, was concerned because the platteland towns and the platteland itself was being denuded of its population. Commissions were appointed to find out what the reasons were. Recently we have had the situation where Coloured people from all over the platteland were also coming into the towns. This movement of population is a phenomenon which has been going on throughout the world for the past 20 years. When we take the Bantu, we find that they are doing exactly the same, because it is now their turn to come to town, to look for a job, to make, as the hon. member for Pinelands says, a living to feed their families and to keep the wolf from the door. The Government has failed on its Bantustan policy, because the facts of the matter are that if you want to get the Bantu back into the Bantustans, or to get them to go there in the first instance, which will be the experience of millions, you must make it attractive for the Bantu. As the attractions grow the Government can send people, or they will go there of their own accord, thereby filling the jobs and doing what the Government wants done. Once you start with compulsory measures, you will get resistance. For every action there is a reaction. Let us look at influx control. As far back as 1942, the Native Urban Areas Act made provision for influx control. The reason for this was that the municipalities of the day could not cope with the housing requirements of the people coming into the towns. That was the beginning of it. The country was beginning to develop. These people were coming into the towns and houses were built. The Government of the day, succeeded by the present Government, thought that sub-economic housing was the answer to this problem. The basis of sub-economic housing was that the local authorities had to take a loss to an extent which was equal to the loss suffered by the government. It was not very long before, in regard to Bantu housing, it was found that local authorities were getting beyond the limits of their capacity to pay. As a result we had the introduction of other schemes, amongst which was the site and service scheme. The Government’s attitude was that if you gave a Bantu a piece of ground he would build his own house. Then the late Dr. Verwoerd, off his own bat, made Bantu housing economic. Municipalities took advantage of that. It did not matter that the Bantu had to pay a higher rent, because his wife and his children went to work, resulting in the housing situation for Bantu in the municipalities becoming an economic proposition. I would think that the hon. the Minister would give credit to the municipalities, and not jeer and scoff at them about what has been done and what has not been done, because thousands of houses have been built by local authorities. Local authorities have also provided amenities on a scale which I think the hon. the Minister himself is not happy about. I am happy to see the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education here. I want him to tell me whether it is true or false, that he thinks that municipalities providing these amenities, are doing too much for the Bantu in the urban area, and that by doing that, the Bantu will not go back to the Bantustans, or go there in the first instance, which will be the case of many millions. We have the situation where local authorities have officials to carry out their work.

My experience of municipalities is that they set to with a will to make conditions better for the Bantu. To my knowledge every municipality got down to the job and made conditions as good as they could for the Bantu. And they had trained staff. In order to protect the official the municipalities had consultations with the Government years ago and licensed these men. They were licensed and given protection so that they could not be sacked if they carried out their jobs. The same thing applies to town clerks, because they sometimes have unpleasant things to tell councils. Now we find ourselves in this situation as a result of the enormous population of people coming into the urban areas. The hon. member for Brakpan says that everywhere there is “rus en orde”. Everything is wonderful, marvellous and magnificent. If this is so what is he getting excited about? What is all this about having to move people away again? And now, finally, I want to know where we stand in regard to municipalities as to who is going to do this job. I want to remind hon. members on that side of the House that the Department of Bantu Affairs has its own offices in all the urban areas whose job it is to deal with this question of labour as well as the question of endorsements, the endorsing out of people. To my knowledge nearly all these offices are understaffed. They have not the people and they cannot even tackle the job on the farms, let alone getting into the big cities. The hon. member for Brakpan talks about setting up a board. What sort of a board is this going to be? What sort of powers is it going to have? Are we going to have two authorities within a local authority? Are we going to have a lot of nominated stooges put onto these boards, merely to do what the officials are already doing? What the hon. the Minister or the hon. member does not say is this.

Have you ever heard of the Resettlement Board?

Yes, I have heard of the Resettlement Board and the reports are bad. The hon. Ministers do not talk about providing any money to municipalities to do anything. All that they talk about is this question of reversing the trend of the Bantu in the urban areas. Much was made at the beginning of his speech about Sea Point. I want to deal with Sea Point in a little more detail. There are people living in Sea Point who employ these people. That is the first point. Where can these men and women congregate or see each other in legitimate and legal circumstances? Nowhere.

Do you want that to happen at Sea Point?

I put it to you as a simple elementary question. A man and a woman work at Sea Point and have time off and want to talk to each other. What do they do? Go out to Langa? It is so ridiculous. And that is what is wrong with the whole of this Government’s policy in regard to the Bantu. You are not dealing with cattle.

Can you tell us whether that is United Party policy?

You are not dealing with cattle. You are dealing with people. I am not talking about United Party policy. I am telling you how bad your policy is, because you have been going for 20 years and are still producing stop-gaps. That is so because you have not the answer. That is the whole essence of it. Session after session amendments come here for the introduction of some new control of one kind or another affecting the Bantu. We have heard a lot of talk about what has been done to this, that and the other thing. If the Bantustans were so attractive why do the Bantu not go there? This is the sixty-four dollar question. The reason is that it is more attractive here.

Why not a million dollars?

Well, if the hon. member has a million dollars I will take him on. And, the bet I would like to make is that time will show your policy to be wrong. It will fail as it has failed up to now. A point was made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort that the whole idea of introducing or getting or leaving Bantu labour in towns is that one day they will be able to take the job of the white man. What a sorry state of affairs we have reached ! We hear in this House that everything in this country is at peace and that there is goodwill between man and man, tribe and tribe, race and race, and between people and people. Yet here we get an hon. member, who incidentally has grey hairs in certain parts, making a statement which is the most elementary political statement which can be made by a Nationalist aspirant candidate in his first election. I think it is disgraceful that the Bantu in the urban areas, who is as anxious and as worried as any member of Parliament sitting here about the future of his own family and children, is now going to be subjected to yet another board which will ensure that he is driven away into the reserves. Because that is What is going to happen. The endorsing out programme has failed. There is nobody left to endorse. But the Government presses on regardless. We have three or four Ministers or Deputy Ministers of Bantu Affairs and they still have not resolved the problem. They do not look like resolving the problem. They got nowhere near a solution. All that these hon. gentlemen do is to make speeches at public banquets. It is easy to stand up at a banquet and say what you are going to do. But it does not happen. When we reach the situation where these boards are set up and they take over these functions, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister and the hon. member who is going to reply in a minute, what sort of staff these boards are going to have. Are these boards going to be part of the Public Service? Are they going to be part of the provincial service or the municipal service? Are these boards to have their own medical officers of health? Are they to have their own departments of public works? Are they to have their own departments of water affairs, electricity, treasury and administration —all these services which are rendered to-day by the authority which controls the particular Bantu township? Are we going to have all these additional things thrust upon us? I can assure you that the town council can use every one of those men in its own service. Who are the men that are running Bantu townships or its administration? They are usually higher qualified people who can speak a couple of Bantu languages. But, at the most they are two or three in a reasonable sized municipality. The balance of the staff are Bantu. Every municipality to my knowledge runs a bureau for labour. I cannot see what the force of this particular motion is at all, unless it is a direct attack on the city council of Johannesburg. I have had so much experience in political work to know that as we have had here in the Cape …

What an experience.

My experience is a lot longer than yours and a lot more honourable. I think that if the hon. member would omit his interjections he would do a lot better. These are the points that exercise the minds of the hon. members on this side of the House. I ask the hon. member who introduced this motion, whether by giving an individual a licence—which licences him to work in Bantu administration—is that man precluded for all time from having views of his own? May he not express himself in public? Is the licence held over his head as a sword of Damocles? And, if he does not carry out the Government’s policy, is he to be fired and his licence withdrawn and his livelihood taken away from him? These are the things which we want to know. We have not had an answer. All we have had are two attacks on the Johannesburg City Council and half an attack on the Johannesburg City Council by the hon. member who introduced the motion. I want to deal with Bloemfontein. To my knowledge, in the municipal world, Bloemfontein is a fairly well run municipality. It stands very high. If there is any difficulty in Bloemfontein about Bantu being in town. I think there is a curfew to take care of that. What is the police doing? Why do they not get on with the job? What are they paid for there? One might well ask why the commandant of the Police at Bloemfontein saw fit to make statements in the paper. One might well ask these things. In the same way that the Bantu administration official at George is to be precluded from expressing his opinion, surely the man on the other side of the fence must be precluded from expressing his opinion. I do not accept that there is anything wrong at Bloemfontein at all. I do not think there is anything wrong anywhere else. I think that this is merely the dying efforts of a bankrupt administration trying to focus attention on itself, because the Bantu policy of the Government has failed and is failing and will fail. It is impossible of application or implementation. It cannot thrive and it cannot prosper and it will not survive. These people have been talking for 20 years. I say this quite plainly, as I have said often enough across the floor of this House: Why do you not get on with the job? You have talked long enough. You have said what you are going to do. You have made all sorts of wild promises and worse allegations. But we still sit with more Bantu in the urban areas to-day at this very moment, than we did 20

years ago, despite all the machinery, all the threats and all the, shall I say “kragdadigheid”, which is the correct word in Afrikaans. So I make an appeal and I say it sincerely to these hon. members: Forget for one moment that you are dealing with black people. You are dealing with decent, straightforward and honourable citizens who only want to make a living. If there are criminals among them, put them in goal. It is no crime to go and look for a place where a man can make a living to keep his wife and family. [Interjections.] I regret to hear that what I have said in my last few remarks is falling on very deaf ears. Because I say to you that if you keep on going the way you are going, you are building up for us—that means both of us and all of us—a reservoir, a flood, which will one day fall upon us. We will all be engulfed and it will be your responsibility and only your fault.

I regret that I have to tell the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, and who is considerably older than I am, that it has been a long time since I listened to a worse lot of nonsense than that which he spoke here this afternoon. He spoke about influx control here as if it was a mortal sin, and as if his party did not want it. England is now being forced to apply influx control against the West Indians and against the Indians in Kenya. Sir, I want to object most strongly to the hon. member’s calumniation of South Africa. He must not sit there pulling faces now; he is the one who said: “You are not dealing with cattle.” I shall not tolerate this from him, and I shall not tolerate it from anybody else. He now wants to suggest to the rest of the world that we are treating the Bantu like animals. It is nothing less than an absolute disgrace. Why does he say, “You are not working with cattle?” Because we want separate residential areas. I now want to ask the hon. member whether it is the policy of his party to allow all the Bantu who are working in Sea Point to live there? Is that his party’s policy? “Do you want those cattle to stay there?” We want them to say in Nyanga and Langa and those places; they want the same thing. But because we want to implement that policy properly. the hon. member comes here with the disgraceful remark, “You are not dealing with cattle.”

Shame!

I know that we are dealing with decent people. The only difference between that hon. member and us. as far as the treatment of the Bantu is concerned, is that we as the governing party have to accept the responsibility, while they can merely come forward with lip service.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate three hon. members on this side of the House who participated in the debate very sincerely on the thorough contributions they made. I am sorry I cannot say the same of hon. members on that side of the House, because who on that side participated in the debate? The greatest problem in this regard is the problem of the Bantu in Johannesburg, the problem of the Bantu in Soweto, in Meadowlands, in Diepkloof and those areas. That is our greatest single problem, but not one member representing a Johannesburg seat dared to participate in this debate. They were hardly ever in the House and now there are only two members sitting here who represent Johannesburg seats. I think it is very clear why that should be the case. It is because they cannot defend the control over the Bantu in Johannesburg. The hon. member for Pinelands complained about Hammarsdale. The land in Hammarsdale did not belong to us; it belonged to individual Bantu. We cannot go and build houses on other people’s land. It took us a very long time to trace those people, and we were unable to trace them all. My colleague was then compelled to expropriate that land. The hon. member maintained that we are not clearing up slum conditions. What about Umlazi? What about Mdantsane in East London? What about Garan Kwna; what about Moletsi in Pietersburg? During the past few years we have built 56,000 houses for the Bantu in Bantu townships alone. During the past 20 years we have built more houses for Bantu than have been built in the history of South Africa, and then the hon. member states that we are doing nothing in regard to slum clearance.

This motion, which the hon. member for Brakpan introduced in such a capable manner, naturally deals with the subject which has often been discussed in this House and elsewhere over the past 20 years. Over the past 20 years the Department of Bantu Administration has given very careful attention to this problem. I am referring to the problem of the control of the Bantu, particularly in White areas; the control of the influx into the white areas; and the control in the white areas themselves. It is without doubt one of the most difficult and biggest problems in South Africa. In the past the Department of Bantu Administration has given very serious attention to this matter, and is at present giving very serious attention once again to the matter. I am referring to the question of the control of the Bantu in the urban areas. We have appointed a departmental committee, which is now making its report, to institute a comprehensive investigation into this entire question of the control of Bantu in white areas. This report has been fully discussed on a departmental and on a ministerial level and certain resolutions have been reached. Draft legislation has been drawn up, and this has been sent to the United Municipal Executive and to the officials of the non-White Affairs Departments of local authorities. I just want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that we consult the United Municipal Executive and the Municipal Department of non-White Affairs in regard to every important piece of legislation. We consult them and we listen to what they have to say.

Then you must not criticize them.

Why not? We shall come just now to the question of whether city councils should be criticized or not. I have already received the comments of these people on the proposed control measures. Last week I received a deputation of the United Municipal Executive, together with representatives of IANA. We discussed the whole matter, and it appeared from that discussion, as we already knew, that this problem is fraught with tremendous difficulties and that there is no easy solution. We shall continue during the recess to hold further discussions on the entire question of influx control and of the application of section 10 and all the difficulties associated with that. It will not be possible for us to introduce legislation this year because the matter has still to receive further discussion.

As the hon. member for Brakpan did, I would also like to lay down a few general principles, from which the Government will under no circumstances deviate. The first principle is that the policy in respect of the Bantu—and this applies in every respect as well to the Bantu in Bantu residential areas in the white areas—is laid down by the Government and not by any local authority. Obviously we would find ourselves in a chaotic situation if we were to allow local authorities to lay down policy. The second principle—and this is what hon. members on that side do not like—is that the local authorities must implement the Government’s policy in respect of the Bantu, whether they like that policy or not. If they do not want to do so, then we shall see to it that they do in fact do so, and that is why we have this motion of the hon. member for Brakpan here before us to-day. Where local authorities have in the past been disinclined to implement the Government’s policy, the Government simply said. “Stand aside; we will implement the policy for you.”

And if the policy cannot be implemented?

It can be implemented. Sir, I do not want to create the impression that we are experiencing great opposition from the local authorities with the implementation of our policy—this is not the case at all. I want to talk to-day with the greatest appreciation of the attitude of more than 95 per cent of the local authorities, some of whom are not favourably disposed towards us in the political sphere, but who co-operate with us in all respects in the implementation of our policy.

Including Johannesburg?

To a large extent it has been impossible to improve on that co-operation.

Johannesburg as well?

Yes, Johannesburg is also co-operating now, now Chat we have compelled them to do so and now that they know they can do nothing else. They are also co-operating now, but not at all as they should co-operate, but the cooperation from that 5 per cent has improved considerably. The local authorities must realize that as far as Bantu Administration is concerned, they are not acting as autonomous bodies. They are merely acting as agents of the Department of Bantu Administration. All their senior officials in their Bantu Administration sections must be approved and licensed by the Minister. We conduct regular inspections to ensure Chat the work is being done properly. In addition the Minister of Bantu Administration has full control over the Bantu Revenue Accounts of the local authorities and the local authorities may not spend any money from the Bantu Revenue Accounts, nor may they collect any money without the express approval and consent of the Minister. When local authorities refused in the past to co-operate in implementing the Government’s policy, the Government did not hesitate to take over that work from them. The hon. member for Orange Grove can say what he pleases, but there was a time when the Johannesburg Municipal authority was just as stubborn as it could possibly be, and I am very grateful to the hon. member for Langlaagte for having exposed, in such a brilliant way, the irresponsible attitude of the local authorities. What was that irresponsible attitude? It consisted of an absolute refusal on the part of the Johannesburg City Council to clear slum conditions in the municipal area. Now the hon. member for Transkei has come forward with this nonsense that they opposed it because the Bantu there had proprietary rights. Did the Bantu have proprietary rights in the squatters’ camps round Johannesburg? They were squatting on other people’s land.

You were one of us then.

No, I was not one of you then. We opposed you, and we gave you a harder drubbing than the Nationalists did, precisely in regard to this matter. A E. P. Robinson was one of them, and we gave him such a drubbing once that he almost burst into tears. We then established the Resettlement Board through an act of this Parliament, and that Resettlement Board did brilliant work in the establishment of Meadowlands and Diepkloof. In a very short time they cleared Sophiatown, Martindale, Newclare and all those places and they accommodated and resettled 140,000 people. Now it is being said that these boards cannot work. We have another resettlement board, to clear up the mess at Evaton, to remove all the compounds from Vereeniging, which they have already done. They have cleared Meyerton completely, and they are at present clearing up the over-occupation of the Bantu residential areas of Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark such as Sharpeville and Bapholong, as well. These two boards, both under the chairmanship of Mr. Willie Heckroodt, have done brilliant and outstanding work, and I want to pay great tribute to-day to Mr. Heckroodt and all his board members the way in which they have done their work.

I go futher. I maintain that those resettlement boards—I want to confine myself to the resettlement boards of Johannesburg only— have done much better work than the Johannesburg City Council. Does the hon. member for Orange Grove want to deny that the Bantu Revenue Account of the Johannesburg City Council operates at a loss every year, and that it is one of the few municipalities in South Africa whose Bantu Revenue Account does operate at a loss? Why? Because it is spending a lot of unnecessary money and because it will not listen to us and collect economic rents. It is working at a loss, but next to them is Meadowlands and Diepkloof, and they are working at a considerable profit, at surplus. If we were to hand over Meadowlands and Diepkloof to the Johannesburg City Council today, we would be giving them a present of R5 million, and if we were to hand over Soweto to the Resettlement Board, it would be saddled with a tremendously great burden. So, these boards are doing outstanding work. I want to issue a gentle warning to the Johannesburg City Council to-day. They must kindly comply with our instructions in regard to the collection of economic rentals, because all they are doing at present is to take the white Revenue Account and subsidize out of it because they are not doing their work properly.

I am glad the hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to the Future Planning Report, No. 4, of the Johannesburg City Council. Then they come forward here with grandiose schemes. They want to purchase a further 1,800 morgen. They talk about building up into the air, and they talk about importing thousands of additional Bantu from outside to work there in 1980. I want to warn the Johannesburg City Council that if they continue with this course they will run into trouble. There is no doubt about that. We will not allow that development to take place as the Johannesburg City Council apparently wants it to. One of their senior officials came along and advocated in his annual report at the congress at George—and I will not be told that this is his idea only; I think it is the idea of the United Party in the Johannesburg City Council—this nonsense that Soweto should now be converted into a Bantustan, as he called it, a Bantu homeland. If those are the lines along which the Johannesburg City Council are thinking, they are most definitely going to run into difficulties with this Government. I just want to tell the Johannesburg City Council this: Instead of building these castles in the air and instead of trying to oppose the Government’s policy in this way, they would be much better advised to go and take a look at the backyard-occupation to be found there in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg and in the other suburbs. I agree with the hon. member for Brakpan that the Government will, in the further implementation of its policy, and also as it is contained in the Physical Planning Act, not tolerate any city council to impede the implementation of that policy.

Now I want to touch upon one last point, and that is the development of the advisory boards in the Bantu residential areas in the white areas. In general these councils are functioning extremely well, and one is dealing there with decent and responsible Bantu. These local advisory boards, almost without exception, are 100 per cent in favour of the implementation of the policy of separate development, and we are grateful to them for that. Now a new, similar board is going to be established in Soweto. In the past we have so far had no difficulty with those boards, but it is gradually becoming obvious that there is a group of agitators who want to make use of these boards to agitate and to incite the Bantu against the Government’s policy of separate development. And they are going much further than that. I now want to express the hope that the advisory board of Soweto, which I shall have the privilege of opening one of these days, will continue as in the past and oppose any attempt made to exploit them in order to cause agitation in Soweto; and that they will oppose any attempt made by any city councillor of Johannesburg who wants to make use of those boards in order to make propaganda against the policy of the Government. I have no doubt at all that we will obtain their co-operation.

This sounds a lot like interference in non-white politics.

Is this the sort of nonsense one must reply to? We will not allow any white city councillor to interfere in the politics of those people.

And a white Minister?

White Ministers will not interfere at all, but the white Minister will do his duty just as this Government did its duty when it dealt with the agitators, and that is why we have had this peace and quiet during the past few years in South Africa. We will most certainly do it, and if any attempt is made to take advantage of those things, we will take very serious steps against those people.

I want to conclude by saying that this problem of the control of Bantu labour in the white cities, particularly on the Witwatersrand, in the Western Cape, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, is one of our most difficult problems. To a very large extent we are still experimenting. We have the co-operation of most of the city councils, and to-day to a large extent that of the City Council of Johannesburg as well. We are continually in consultation with one another in order to find out what the best methods are to make that control as efficient and as streamlined as possible. If, in that process we find it necessary to establish other boards which are able to do the work more efficiently we will most certainly do so. This is no attack on local authorities; it is simply an attempt to tackle a very difficult problem in the most efficient way. If this Government can find a more efficient formula, in conjunction with the bodies to which that has at present been entrusted, the Government will not shy away from doing what the hon. member for Brakpan in his motion asked that we should do. The Government and the Minister and his two Deputy Ministers are fully aware of how difficult this problem is, and we will not, as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg did, say that it is insoluble; we shall solve it at all costs.

With the consent of the House, after having heard the hon. the Deputy Minister say that he is prepared to accept certain parts of this motion, and because I am confident that he will carry out these steps, I am asking leave to withdraw this motion.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.