Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, traditionally the municipalities and local authorities have acted as the agents of the Government in administering Bantu townships and, as they were earlier known, locations in the so-called White areas, but at the same time they had considerable latitude in exercising their authority. Almost 50 years ago the first Urban Areas Act was passed by this Parliament, setting out in more detail the powers of the local authorities. Over the years, especially the last 20 years, the Government has whittled away the powers of these local authorities and Ministers have taken more and more control into their own hands and have restricted the authorities from acting without the approval of the Minister. While their authority has been whittled away, they have had onerous tasks forced on them, compelling them to furnish services even for bodies outside their jurisdiction.

This Bill before us takes over complete control from the local authorities. Once this measure has been passed they will have lost all control over the Bantu living in their areas of jurisdiction. They will, however, still be liable to furnish services in certain instances and they are compelled to do so whether they like it or not. I should like to refer especially to clause 18 of the Bill on page 30, to show how onerous these duties can be and what can befall a municipality or local authority if it fails to carry out its duties to the satisfaction of the board. In terms of this clause, if a local authority neglects to perform any act which by or under the provisions of this Act it is empowered or required to perform in relation to a board, or performs any such act in such a manner that, in the opinion of such board, the purpose for which such act is so empowered or required is not achieved, then certain things can happen. It says, “in the opinion of the board”; the board will decide whether the local authority has carried out its functions to its satisfaction. If the board is not satisfied the Minister can intervene and then the board can undertake the work itself and collect the cost from the local authority. It can do so by going to court in the normal course, to which we have no objection, as I said in the Committee Stage. But it has the further power of levying a rate on all the rateable property of the local authority to collect the amount due, or it can grab the subsidy due to be paid to the local authority by some other authority. I say that this is very far-reaching. I know that there is a precedent for this. The late Dr. Verwoerd empowered the Resettlement Board to take the same line of action against the Johannesburg municipality. That does not make it right. This is an instance of just how far the board has power to act against the local authorities.

It is intended that the boards will finance themselves out of Bantu revenue. Therefore it may be contended that the municipalities should be pleased to hand over the responsibility to the boards. We know that certain municipalities had to finance capital works in their Bantu townships out of their own treasury. They have done it quite willingly in order to ensure that the facilities given to the Bantu living in the area are suitable. Despite the fact that this responsibility is going to be taken from the local authorities, they as a whole are not satisfied with this legislation. They prefer to keep the control in their own hands. The U.M.F. were certainly not unanimous in agreeing to hand over control of their affairs to the board. One of the reasons why the municipalities are not satisfied to hand over their control to the board is that the board is responsible to no one but the Minister, whereas the municipalities, the local councils and the local authorities are responsible to the people living in their areas, the people who elect them. They have a responsibility to their people to see that all the people living in their areas are made as contented as can be, and housed as suitably as possible and that health provisions and other duties of the local authorities are carried out to the advantage of all the people living in that area, as far as possible.

The Minister has said that the Bantu were consulted before this legislation was introduced. In Parliament he read certain telegrams he had received from urban councils. He read one from the urban council of Bloemfontein, which read—

Clause 26 protects the rights of the Bantu living in the urban areas given to them under section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. Naturally they are relieved to see that those rights are being protected. They support the Bill because they believe that they will have freer movement around the area of Bloemfontein and simultaneously have their rights protected. The hon. the Minister also read a telegram from Kimberley, which said—

They regard it as a major concession. The hon. the Minister also had a telegram from Potchefstroom. They said that the Bill implied major advantages for both the Bantu and the Republic of South Africa. What are the major advantages for the Bantu in this Bill? They have nothing to do with administration, because that is taken away from the local government. The advantages to the Bantu are that they are allowed to move from one area to another in the course of their work.

There are many other advantages, apart from that one.

But that is the advantage to the Bantu. They tell us here what the advantages are. They mention clause 26 and the fact that they may move.

They did not mention only clause 26; they mentioned others as well.

Well, the hon. the Minister did not read any others to us. I do not know why he did not. This is the same type of telegram that he allegedly once received from a man saying he supported his policy and at the same time asking for a licence for a filling station. He only supported the Minister’s policy in order to obtain a filling station licence. I cannot understand how the hon. the Deputy Minister can read this type of telegram to us and give the game away. They accepted this Bill because of the protection they get under clause 26.

The hon. the Deputy Minister denies that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is taking more powers to himself under this Bill. I do not know how the hon. the Deputy Minister can do that. After all, in terms of clause 11 (1) (e), all the powers exercised by a local authority are transferred to the boards. In the same clause it is laid down that all the powers exercised by a board in terms of the Bantu Urban Areas Act, can be exercised by the Minister. But in addition, there are, I think, about 17 other instances where the Minister is taking special powers. I should like to go through them quickly. On page 18 of the Bill, as it was discussed at the Second Reading, we find the following side-note in line with clause 11: “Object and general powers and functions of a board.” The board has all the powers of a local authority, the Minister has all the powers of the board and yet, in addition, the Minister is given a number of other powers in terms of this Bill. I just want to read the authority of the Minister in terms of this Bill. In terms of clause 11 (1) (a) the board shall “have power, with the approval of the Minister and subject to such conditions as he may determine” to acquire land. In paragraph (c) of clause 11 I it is laid down that the board shall have power, with the approval of the Minister to develop land or to hypothecate land, etc. I do not have to jump around to find the instances where the Minister is vested with such powers. I merely have to turn over each page and I find more and more powers given to the Minister. Lines 26 to 30 on page 20 reads as follows:

Lower down on that same page one finds the following words: “as the Minister may from time to time after consultation with the Administrator specify by notice in the Gazette. If one turns the page over, one reads of the powers with which the Minister is vested in regard to the labour organization. Line 59 on page 22 reads as follows: “shall, save as may be otherwise determined by the Minister”.

Those are all in terms of the relevant Acts.

No, they are not. Clause 11 (1) (e) sets out all the powers which the Minister takes in terms of a number of other relevant Acts. These are powers which the Minister has in addition to the powers which he has in terms of those Acts.

Clause 12 (2) gives the Minister a further power and it reads as follows:

Line 20 on page 24 reads as follows: “Shall, save as may be otherwise determined by the Minister in.” Lines 40 to 41 on that same page read: “in terms of this Act by a board, shall be determined by agreement between the Minister and the body by which those assets”. Clause 13 (1) (d) reads: “of any loans obtained by it with the approval of the Minister granted in consultation …”. Lines 65 to 66 read as follows: “and subject to such conditions as may be determined, by the Minister …”. In line 4 on page 28 we again have the words “be approved by the Minister”. Lines 54 to 56 on page 28 read: “such local authority to the Minister, whose decision thereon, given after consultation with the Administrator concerned, shall be final”. On page 30 we have clause 18, which deals with the powers of the Minister. In other words, in addition to all the powers to which I have referred, clause 18 gives the Minister further powers. On page 32 we have the same thing again. I can go on in this way. On page 34 the Minister is vested with a whole string of powers.

On top of that we have clause 22 (3) (f)!

Yes, on top of all that we have clause 22 (3) (f). The hon. the Deputy Minister is right. I am glad it has sunk into him what powers he really is taking for himself in terms of this Bill. This means that the board will merely become a tool of the Minister. It will be a rubber stamp. Nothing these boards can do is free of control by the Minister.

We also spent some time on discussing the question of the services levy paid by employers. That is of importance because the services levy funds are also handed over to this board. We expressed our concern about the fact that the board may transfer these funds to the Bantu Trust and that they would be used in the reserves. This would be contrary to the assurance which was given by Dr. Verwoerd when he introduced this scheme. Now, the Deputy Minister has given the assurance, and he has introduced an amendment to this Bill which makes it quite clear, that the existing laws will have to be observed. If, in terms of the law, the funds cannot be used at present in the reserves, the hon. the Deputy Minister has given the assurance that they will not be so used in the future either. However, at the same time he issued quite a long statement about what could be done and what could not be done. The suggestion is that these funds will be u ed outside the area of the local authority, provided the local authority itself takes the initiative in getting the consent of the employers’ representatives on the services levy committee to use the funds elsewhere. I still say that that will be contrary to the spirit of the legislation and the assurances that Dr. Verwoerd gave the employers at the time that it would not happen.

What is the bait which is offered for the acceptance of this measure? Why are we asked to accept it? We are told that there will be a more efficient administration and also that there will be freedom of movement by the Bantu. Everybody wants the Bantu to have freedom of movement. The Bantu themselves want it, their employers want it, but we contend that it is not necessary to introduce this measure to bring that policy about. The employer, the Bantu and everybody else would have been just as happy had provision been made for the freer movement of the Bantu and the administration left under the control of the local authorities. They have been given no choice. As far as the Government is concerned, they either choose freedom of movement and the taking away of control from local authorities, or no freedom of movement.

When this Bill has been passed the Minister of Bantu Administration will control the life of every African. He controls it in the reserves, and he will control it in the urban areas and in the rural areas. No matter where they are, the Africans will come under the Department of Bantu Administration to the exclusion of other departments. The only exception of course is that the Minister of Labour can prohibit them, by means of job reservation, from doing certain work. This hon. Deputy Minister now takes over control of where they can work, what work they can do, where they may live, and where they may not live. He will say that is not so, but with the powers which are being given to him he can in fact do these things.

You have a guilty conscience in saying that I will say it is not so.

The hon. the Minister says that we know him and that we should trust his honesty. He said that he will not do this and that he will not do that, but the Minister can do these things by exercising control. He says they will not do it. He will probably not do it, but what about others? I still say that it is a most surprising thing for a Minister to have to say in introducing a measure that they were grateful that their bona fides were trusted. I think it is a shocking thing that an hon. Minister has to assure the House and his own members that people trust him.

In the Second Reading debate I said that there was only one consolation. That is that after this measure has been passed there will probably not be any need for further legislation affecting the life of the Bantu. There is only one possible one that may still be introduced. They will not do it now, but they may in a few years’ time, and that will be to repeal section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. We are waiting to see that happen. Otherwise, there is no more necessity for them to interfere because with this legislation they can control the very lives of the Bantu. In their ambit they have embraced every aspect of Native life. We oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as of old the hon. member for Transkei has regaled us with his lamentations about what the Government envisages, according to his view. The hon. member says that this legislation is going to deprive local authorities of powers and that this Government is smothering municipalities and local authorities to death. I should like to quote from a speech by the late Dr. Verwoerd. It was delivered on 17th September, 1956, when he addressed the 5th congress of the Administrators of non-White Affairs about this matter. He said at the time:

I think the hon. member for Transkei would do so well to stop nagging about the story that he is fabricating, i.e. that the Government is taking the powers of local authorities away from them. The powers that local authorities exercise in this connection were delegated to them by the Government. The hon. member for Transkei also made a great fuss about the fact that the hon. the Minister, in his opinion, now has so much power. The Minister surely acts in terms of the law and in terms of the power the law confers upon him. He is now not invested with the powers of a dictator.

But why, then, is this legislation necessary?

I shall reply to the hon. member on that question. During the discussion of this Bill I gained the impression that the Opposition was not opposing this legislation on the grounds of principle, but because their political belief has always been attuned, and remains attuned, to greater labour integration. What is the principle at issue here? I want to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister said during his Second Reading speech. He said:

1. (a) greater mobility of Bantu labour;
2. (b) to establish effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu affairs; and
3. (c) to join in a statutory body, and on the basis of knowledge of Bantu affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned.

I wish the hon. Opposition would take this third point to heart this evening, because this is one of the basic objects of this legislation. I shall therefore repeat it: “On the basis of knowledge of Bantu affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned. That is what this Bill is about, but my impression in all the debates about this Bill was firstly that the United Party, through its actions, cherishes a silent hope and desire that White South Africa should be so overrun by Bantu that the Government simply cannot implement its policy of separate development. That is the impression I received, i.e. that it is the United Party’s desire that such difficult circumstances must develop in our country that the Government has to throw in the towel. That is why the hon. member for King William’s Town advocates … well, we do not have much respect for a man who relinquishes his Afrikanerdom in order to become a United Party member.

He did not relinquish his Afrikanerdom. [Interjections.]

That hon. member for King William’s Town now advocates that proprietary rights should be given to the Bantu in the White areas and that they should be allowed to come and live here with their families. They thereby want to create difficult situations in the hope that the policy of this Government will fail.

My second impression of this debate is that this Opposition has become a willing mouthpiece of the liberal Press, of those who advocate integration and of the interests of those industrialists who want only one thing, i.e. “create a Bantu labour pool for me in White areas that is as big as possible so that I can obtain Bantu labour whenever I want to and in whatever quantities I choose, irrespective of any social, socio economic and political consequences”. That is the impression I gained.

It is a political speech.

We are assembled in this House to talk politics, and the National Party has never been afraid to talk politics. I gain the impression that the hon. Opposition does not care how a Bantu labourer is displaced in South Africa. They do not care if their policy should again give rise to the development of Bantu hovels on a large scale, as in the past, as long as they have the Bantu labour working for them.

Nonsense!

I shall proceed to prove it. My third impression of this debate is that the hon. Opposition is throwing everything into the struggle of placing the Government, everywhere and at all times, under suspicion …

But of course.

… among the Bantu. Oh, the hon. member admits it. He admits that it is their task to place the Government under suspicion among the Bantu and in the world at large. Let me come back to the hon. member for Transkei, and now I want to prove what I said. [Interjections.] The “powder puff” must please keep quiet so that I can state my case. What did the hon. member for Transkei say? I said that I had gained the impression that the United Party wanted, everywhere and at all times, to discredit the Government. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Transkei said—

By implication the hon. member is telling the Bantu and the world at large that this Government acts inhumanely …

Hear, hear!

… that it oppresses and that it negates human rights. I hear the hon. member over there saying “hear, hear”. In other words, he admits that the hon. member for Transkei said that this Government is inhumane towards the Bantu, that it oppresses and that it negates human rights. In other words, they sing the same tune as the U.N. But what did the Deputy Minister say and what reason do you and I, Sir, have to doubt the hon. the Deputy Minister’s word? I shall quote to you from Hansard, Column 2409. The hon. the Deputy Minister said—

In the same column he states, in addition, that our policy can only succeed if it is applied in a fair, just and humane manner. When the Opposition says that this Government oppresses, is inhumane and negates human rights, they are surely playing with fire, because what are they consequently telling the Bantu and the countries abroad?

They are telling the Bantu that they are being oppressed by this Government and deprived of human rights. This legislation, so they tell the Bantu, is taking rights from them. But surely this is not true. On the contrary. If there has ever been a Government striving to maintain the human dignity of the individual, to develop an individual sense of identity and to activate Nationalism, it is this Government. This Government specifically believes in the human dignity and the identity of the individual; it likewise believes in Nationalism. If South Africa were ever to be plunged into the quagmire of revolution, one should blame not separate development, but the United Party which is prepared to place itself at the service of the integrationists.

The hon. member for Transkei said that another reason why he objects to this legislation is because “councillors are elected”. We know that councillors are elected, and it frequently happens that a person is elected as a councillor because he has promised to plant trees on one’s pavement or to have the street in one’s neighbourhood tarred. But is this Government not elected as well? Has this Government not been placed in power these past 23 years by the electorate on the grounds of a policy that it has presented to the electorate on a nation-wide basis? Under the circumstances I do not believe that the hon. member for Transkei’s argument in this connection is a valid one.

One of the results of this legislation would be greater uniformity in the application of Acts to the urban Bantu.

†May I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that all the regulations and proclamations with reference to the urban Bantu can be divided into six groups. To demonstrate the complexity of this problem, let me by way of argument show how this Bill will assist the Government in implementing the Bantu Urban Areas Act of 1945. Let me first of all enumerate these 6 groups in order to prove why it was considered necessary to proceed to the establishment of these administration boards. There are regulations dealing with the administration of the Bantu—19 sets of regulations in all. Employment and passes are governed by 15 sets of regulations, while residence and ownership are governed by 21 sets. On top of that 5 sets of regulations govern rights of association, 11 sets Bantu education and 3 sets the supply and use of intoxicating liquor. All these regulations cover a very wide field. All are aimed at ensuring method and order in the control of Bantu labour, influx of Bantu and the provision of amenities. Thus there are the regulations for the control and management of premises on which Bantu beer is being manufactured, for the control of meetings and gatherings in Bantu areas, for the control of premises licensed for the accommodation of Bantu, for trading, and to control labour, transport and certain other activities. I have only mentioned a certain number of fields covered by these regulations but I think I have given sufficient proof why it has become necessary to establish, these administration boards.

*I therefore say that one result of this Bill will be greater uniformity. It is known that all the existing Acts and regulations that must be implemented by many bodies, can create confusion and frequently embarrass the State. They can even have political repercussions that can cross our borders and land up in the international political arena. Opportunities can also be created for local authorities to evade the Government’s policy. Hence the sensitivity of hon. members opposite when Johannesburg is mentioned.

But this legislation will also bring about greater fairness towards the Bantu citizen —because Acts will now be implemented along strict lines, which in turn will lead to the protection of the Bantu worker. We accept that these boards will consist only of experts, people who also know the soul of the Bantu. As the Deputy Minister said, these boards will be able to deal with problems more quickly, apart from the fact that mobility in the labour force will be facilitated. In 1904 10.4 per cent of the urban population were Bantu. By 1951 the figure was already 27.1 per cent. The Tomlinson commission said that if the rate were to continue increasing as it did from 1910 to 1951, by the year 2000 there would be 10 million Bantu in the White urban areas. Fortunately we have a Government that is doing its best to stop the flow of Bantu and to establish them in their own homelands, and some success has already been achieved in doing so.

What is the task of a Government, specifically this Government in this country? It is, firstly, to develop our country in an orderly way; secondly, to maintain a sound growth rate; thirdly, to ensure sufficient labour; fourthly, to guard against unemployment; and, fifthly, to ensure that the available labour is used economically and efficiently. But apart from that, this Government also has a mandate from the electorate, a mandate to guard against White South Africa being engulfed by Bantu and to guard against the danger of integration. With this legislation, as with legislation in the past, the Government is implementing this mandate. But the Government also has a duty and a responsibility to the Bantu which it is honouring by trying to create just and fair labour conditions so that the Bantu can sell his labour on an economic bases. Through its policy this Government prevents overloading of the labour market which could entail a great deal of unemployment among the Bantu. Sir, I need not tell you of the dangers or the implications involved if we were to have large-scale unemployment. Thirdly, this Government also has another duty towards the Bantu, i.e. to create circumstances and conditions such that the Bantu labourer will not be unnecessarily frustrated by, inter alia, various interpretations and the inconsistent implementation of Acts. That is why this Bill, when it appears on the Statute Book and is implemented, will make a tremendous contribution towards eradicating any frustration among the Bantu. In addition, this Government sees the Bantu not only as a worker without a soul, without aspirations, without ideals and without his own tradition and character. No, Sir, this Government sees the Bantu as a person striving for human dignity, and that is why this Government is giving the Bantu what is due to him and what he wants in his own area.

With this government’s positive action, and this applies equally to this legislation before this House, the Government is specifically continuing to develop the ideal of establishing sound relationships between groups, eliminating areas of friction, eradicating illegal conditions—and believe me, Sir, many such conditions prevailed in United Party times—and of achieving a sympathetic approach by experts to what are at times emotional problems, experts who know the soul of the Bantu and do not regard him merely as a pair of hands performing a service, but as a person with ideals and a striving towards human dignity. Sir, I think that in the hands of this hon. Deputy Minister, who has handled this Bill with the utmost competence and sympathy and, I might add, with the utmost sincerity, and this embraces his attitude towards the Opposition, and in the hands of his Department, this Act will be safe. Notwithstanding the negativism of hon. members opposite, I think that this legislation is going to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to create, with the implementation and interpretation of existing legislation, something positive for the Whites and for the Bantu in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester has given us his impressions of this debate and he has also given us his impressions of the policy as carried out by the Government. I must say that what he has said has borne out what I have long felt and that is that hon. members sitting in this House who glibly pass legislation effecting the lives of the Africans never ever have any first-hand knowledge of the effect of such legislation on the lives of the people concerned. I want to tell the hon. member for Worcester that if he spent just one afternoon at the Advice Office of the Black Sash, watching them handling the people who are the victims of the laws which we pass in this House, he might perhaps have a different impression; he might then realize that it does not require Opposition speakers to inform the African people that they are being oppressed by Government policy. Sir, they know it better than anybody. The woman who is being endorsed out of the urban area because she is a superfluous appendage, in the words of a previous Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, the man who is not allowed to have his lawful wedded wife live with him, does not need to be told by anybody that this legislation and Government policy are in fact causing him hardship and distress. Sir, hon. members should not sit here talking about what the Africans want and legislating for what they believe the Africans want …

Do you know what they want?

Yes, because I take the trouble to talk to the people concerned.

To whom do you talk?

I talk to the ordinary Africans, not political people, but ordinary Africans living in South Africa who are grievously affected by the sort of legislation that the hon. member refers to in such sanctimonious terms.

The other thing the hon. member told us is that one of the great disasters would be if there were widespread unemployment among Africans in South Africa. I could not agree more. But what he does not appear to know is that there is widespread unemployment amongst Africans in South Africa. Has he ever visited the Bantustans, and does he know of the queues of people trying to get jobs as contract labourers?

Have you done so?

Yes, in fact I have and I know that there are hundreds of Africans in the Bantustans unable to come to the urban areas and for whom no alternative opportunities of employment have been provided in those Bantustans. That is unemployment out of sight, but it is still unemployment. The danger is as great if it exists out of sight as it would be if it existed in sight; in fact, I believe it is greater, because if it existed here under our noses we might in fact do something about it instead of shoving these people back and hoping that thereafter we can forget about them.

The hon. member also read out a speech by the late Dr. Verwoerd, in which Dr. Verwoerd said that the State determines policy and the local authorities carry it out. Well, that is true. That has been so since the passing of the first Urban Areas Act in 1923, but there are ways and ways of carrying out a policy. My contention is that in accordance with the ways of the local authorities, used to handling Africans and far more expert than any board which the hon. the Minister can set up, and far more accustomed to the local variations of which they should be taking cognizance, those policies are carried out in a far better way than can be done by a centralized board which cannot possibly take note of the different conditions existing in the different municipalities in the same administration area. I say again that the mobility of labour could have been organized without the takeover of the administration of Bantu areas which have been under the control of the local authorities for the past 50 years—this great tradition, as I say, which we always talk about in South Africa, but which we always abandon if it happens to suit the Government’s interests. Why should we think that there should be uniformity? What is so good about uniformity when it is applied to different localities which have different conditions? Surely there is some difference between Africans living in a town like Kroonstad and those living in the huge metropolitan area of Johannesburg, the largest concentration of urbanized Africans not only in South Africa but. I would say, on the Continent of Africa. There must be differences and some account should be taken of those differences. We do not want this dreary uniformity of which the hon. member for Worcester seems to think so highly.

Now, the hon. member has given us his impressions of this debate and I want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister my impressions of this debate. We have reached the last stages of this debate, and one thing I have noticed, which I think has been quite noticeable in this debate, is the anxiety of the hon. the Deputy Minister to allay all fears about the intentions of this Bill. It has been quite marked. In fact, what interested me was that he took complete charge of the Committee Stage of this Bill. As far as I can recollect, not a single other Nationalist M.P. spoke. [Interjections.] Am I wrong? How many spoke then?

It is not correct.

What has that got to do with it in any case?

I am coming to what it has to do with it. It may be that I have made a mistake and that one or two Government members took part in this debate. [Interjections.] But for the most part this debate was conducted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, who sat over there popping up and down like a rabbit out of a hutch every time anybody on this side of the House said anything. He took control of practically the entire Committee Stage. Why? I think it is because he was frightened that one of the other hon. members would do a Brakpan on him and he was determined that nothing should in any way affect the rather smooth passage which this Bill was having through the House. He was worried about what the hon. member for Barkpan said in the Second Reading debate, and he was right to be worried. As I see it, the hon. member for Brakpan again revealed the real policy of the Government in all its naked ugliness. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister now whether he is prepared to state quite unequivocally to this House that it is not the Government’s intention in future to tamper with section 10 (1), although this particular Bill, unlike its predecessor in 1969, did not affect the rights of the urban Africans under section 10 (1). I admit that I am delighted that this Bill did not do so. I ask this in all seriousness. I am not asking this for any political motives. I am asking this because I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister, by so doing, could do the finest bit of public relations work for good and harmonious race relations in South Africa.

If I do it, it will be for you and nobody else.

No, you will not be doing it for me. You will be doing it for good race relations in South Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister may not know it, but the urban Africans are living under the shadow of insecurity, because time and again the Government, be it in the form of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration or the utterances of the ebullient Minister of Community Development, or be it in the form of a speech such as the one given by the hon. member for Brakpan, is informing us that Africans in the urban areas are here as temporary sojourners. This applies even to those born here and those who qualify under section 10 (1) (a), (b), (c) or even (d). They are informed over and again that it is the intention of the Government to remove even that legislative protection which they presently have. This insecurity is doing us no good in South Africa. It is leading to seething discontent and anxiety among the urban Africans. The hon. the Minister now has a golden opportunity to allay those fears. I ask him to make use of this opportunity. Once and for all let us know that the Government has all the powers that it requires. In fact, I may say that the Government is probably hoping to be able to do de facto what it is perhaps hesitating to do de jure. In other words, the Government is not keen on the tremendous public outcry which the removal of section 10 (1) is going to engender. The Government would prefer, perhaps, to continue by persuasion to accomplish this de facto.

You are creating that suspicion among the Bantu. You are doing it by the very words which you are using in this House.

I am repeating Government policy. It is not I who put out this circular, Circular No. 25 of 1967, which to the best of my knowledge is being followed most religiously. It is particularly being followed in the Western Cape, where women are being weeded out of the urban areas. They are being persuaded to go. Even those who qualify are being given the option of going to the homelands with their children, or the children who may not qualify in one way or another are being endorsed out without them. Then they are told that they may be allowed to come in again as contract workers. This is an unusual thing for women, because, as everybody knows, the number of women who are allowed into the urban areas, even as contract workers, has been frozen. They are not allowed to come in. I did not put out this circular, which says that “it must be stressed that no stone is to be left unturned to achieve the resettlement in the homelands of non-productive Bantu at present residing in the European areas”.

Do you want them to stay here?

Yes, of course I want them to stay here. I want them to stay with their families. I want them to be treated the way every civilized society treats people who are old or widowed or women with young children who need care and attention. I do not want them to be shoved out to these miserable resettlement areas, where they live in loneliness and idleness. As I say, even those who qualify are being persuaded to go. There were families at Stellenbosch who qualified and they were persuaded to go, because no alternative housing was offered to them and they were put out of their existing shacks. They had nowhere else to go. The women and children were offered homes elsewhere, in Mdantsane or some other area, and the men could stay on as contract labourers. Families are being smashed up. We are deliberately creating a grotesque society for the African. I think that the hon. the Minister should take this opportunity of reassuring us that the Government has gone as far as it intends going, that it will continue only with the persuasive methods rather than the removal of the legal rights of Africans who qualify under section 10 (1). The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he was not going to coerce any municipal authority into coming into the administrative area. I wonder if there will be a single municipality not taken under the umbrella of one of these administration boards within the next three years. I am convinced that the Government will go all out to try and centralize the administration of the Bantu townships in the urban areas because they will have, as I say, this bargain. They will either enjoy mobility and come under the umbrella, or they will not enjoy mobility. It is all very well for some of these areas that will enjoy the siphoning off of funds from the Bantu Revenue Account such as Mdantsane or the area near Pretoria, or Umlazi, those areas next to an existing industrial area. They are going to have the money siphoned off and spent there. What about Johannesburg; what about the Witwatersrand which does not enjoy the luxury of having a Bantustan within week-end visiting distance? What will happen to the towns of those huge areas? This is what I should like to know.

They are all close by.

I should like to get this straight with the hon. member for Langlaagte. He says that there is a Bantustan near Johannesburg.

Yes.

Within visiting distance?

Yes, Hammanskraal.

What is the distance: 40 miles, 50 miles, 60 miles? I had to point this out in the Second Reading debate, but perhaps I should better mention again that we are not able to provide adequate transport from Soweto to Johannesburg.

I proved that that was not the case.

How are we going to provide transport for those Africans working in the urban areas to visit their families living at Hammanskraal, which, as far as I know, is at least 50 miles away from Johannesburg. (Interjections.]

Order! Does the hon. member for Langlaagte think he will shorten the debate with his interjections?

As it is, Government members who did speak during the Second Reading debate were horrified to find that in Johannesburg, for instance, the Bantu Revenue Account was not self-balancing. They were horrified to find that Johannesburg was actually subsidizing the townships as far as housing and other amenities are concerned to the extent of about R1.2 million. I say, from now on, not only is the Johannesburg Bantu Revenue Account going to be self-balancing, but it will find itself in surplus. It will find itself with a credit balance, because the hon. the Minister will continue with the policy of cutting down on amenities. It will only be much accentuated now, because he will have control of not providing the amenities in the urban areas so that he has a surplus of funds which can be spent on developing the homelands presumably at Hammanskraal, for the benefit of the Africans from Johannesburg who will have to live there. The hon. the Deputy Minister made it absolutely clear to us that the Government will not carry out any policy but its own. Of course, this is correct. One accepts that. This is the policy which I, personally, think is doomed to disaster. I think it is a policy which is bringing tremendous suffering to the African people. I believe that this Bill will not make things any better.

Before I sit down, I should like to come back to the original point I made. What would help enormously is if we could at least get in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply on the Third Reading debate an unequivocal assurance that from now on the intention that he, his colleague and the Government, generally, had to remove section 10 (1) from the Statute Book has now been shelved indefinitely and that instead the hon. the Minister will continue with his policy of what I call negative compulsion, or persuasion, if you like, to persuade the Africans to go back. That, I might say, is a euphemism since many of them have never set foot in the homelands. However, the hon. the Minister should rather continue with that policy, trying to achieve de facto what, so far, he was reluctant to achieve de jure. If we can get that assurance, then this Bill may perhaps have served one purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Houghton’s speech. At this Third Reading of legislation dealing with the administration of Bantu affairs in certain areas, it is necessary for us to have a good understanding of the background to that legislation. Probably one cannot expect the hon. member for Houghton to have a very good understanding of it. Since the Deputy Minister went a very long way during this debate and gave certain guarantees to the hon. Opposition and to the hon. member for Houghton, and since the hon. the Deputy Minister handled this legislation very sympathetically in this House, we can expect to get a realistic approach from the hon. Opposition during the Third Reading about the matter of fundamental importance that is involved, i.e. the fact that throughout the years the National Party has introduced legislation in respect of the Bantu and particularly in respect of those who are going to inhabit the future Bantu homelands. With respect to the standpoint that has been maintained throughout, i.e. that the administration for Bantu affairs in White areas will be dealt with by local authorities on an agency basis, several pieces of legislation have been introduced here through the years, as the hon. member for Worcester said earlier this afternoon. Throughout the years we have also seen that it has become necessary, not only with respect to the administration of Bantu affairs, but also in respect of the administration at other levels of Government, to think in terms of overall planning and the overall implementation of authority. That is precisely what is being done by this legislation before us today. I shall come back to the overall organization and administration. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that it is a pity that she alleged that the hon. the Deputy Minister had such a great desire to handle the Committee Stage of this legislation personally that he gave no other member an opportunity to take part in the discussion. In that case it is very clear why the hon. member for Houghton does not understand this legislation, because she must have been absent from this House on several occasions. It is not correct to allege that the hon. the Deputy Minister handled the Committee Stage of this legislation on his own.

Almost.

I can assure the hon. member that I also made a modest contribution in the Committee Stage, and there were also other hon. members on this side of the House who contributed during the Committee Stage. What does the hon. member for Houghton want to tell the world at large? She wants to tell the world that this legislation is being brought to Parliament by the hon. the Deputy Minister wearing a silken glove, as one of the Opposition members said. She wants to imply that there are many more things locked away in this legislation than there really are in this Bill. Many hon. members on the Opposition side have repeatedly asked why the hon. the Minister wants all the powers. Which powers? There is no Minister or department in this country that has more power? than a specific piece of legislation allocates. If, when this legislation is passed, there are more powers than there were when the administration fell under the local authorities, the hon. Opposition must come and point this out to us. Hon. members who served on local authorities ought surely to know, and to acknowledge honestly across the floor of the House that since local authorities at present handle Bantu administration on an agency basis, they have the responsibility of doing so under the Minister’s authority or under the authority of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Why the terrible fuss about the powers that are being withdrawn and about the fact, according to them, that the Minister is now suddenly appropriating all powers? The Minister has always had those powers. They are not suddenly being given to him now. At this stage it may appear as if there is more in this legislation, as the hon. Opposition would like to see it, but this is legislation that is consolidating certain aspects, bringing certain aspects together that were previously contained in other Acts. If the hon. Opposition had only felt like taking the trouble to look at all the other legislation dealing with Bantu administration, they would have seen this. The core of the responsibility for Bantu administration, whether in the homeland or in the local authority areas, has always been in the hands of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and not in the hands of any other department or local authority.

Unfortunately I cannot leave the hon. member for Houghton’s argument yet. The hon. member must remember that as far as the National Party’s policy is concerned with respect to the Bantu in our White areas and those now living in our Bantu residential areas, it has never been this Party’s standpoint simply to let those Bantu vanish into thin air or that those Bantu should disappear completely from the White areas. This legislation indicates specifically that we have now reached a stage where there will have to be greater co-ordination if we want to keep pace with the development in our metropolitan areas. In saying, as do the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. Opposition, that we must simply use section 40 of the Urban Areas Act in order to do this, we must also pay attention to the fact that the most important municipality concerned with these affairs, i.e. the Johannesburg Municipality, said that section 40 cannot be implemented as they would like to see it implemented. They said that that section could be used, it is true, but that one municipality must be in control and must have the say about what must be done in terms of section 40. This fact altogether contradicts the standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton when she says that Kroonstad, Johannesburg and other places do not have the same Bantu. I want to ask the hon. member if she is prepared to say that the Whites living in Kroonstad and Johannesburg are different? In what respects do they differ? Basically we have here a piece of legislation dealing with certain aspect, and the hon. member cannot move so far to that side. What the hon. member for Houghton again did not want to say here today is that there is no getting away from the fact that there is no longer a scrap of difference between her party and the United Party with respect to any rule, regulation or Act dealing with the Bantu concentrated in urban areas, and she would not like to be associated with the standpoint of the United Party. What it amounts to, as the hon. member for Lichtenburg indicated, is that now, with respect to this board, the United Party also wants to allow Bantu to sit here as the hon. member for Houghton states quite frankly. This differs completely from previous approaches to this matter. We are dealing here with legislation that is chiefly aimed at handling three matters. I want to quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his Second Reading speech in Hansard, column 1963 of 2nd March, 1971. He said that the object of the Bill is—

1. (a) to provide greater mobility of Bantu labour;
2. (b) to establish more effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu Affairs over a much larger area; and
3. (c) to join in a statutory body, and on the basis of knowledge of Bantu Affairs and a real interest in the Bantu labourer, as a worker and as a person, the best talents for the achievement of the objectives mentioned.

One thing we must not forget. Where we are dealing with the Bantu, whether in the sphere of labour or in whatever sphere, it is the National Party’s standpoint that the Bantu is a person. This assurance has also repeatedly been given to the hon. Opposition by the hon. the Prime Minister across the floor of this House. We cannot over-emphasize it. Proceeding from the standpoint that we have here an over-all measure with the basic, pre-determined object of treating the Bantu as a person, we want to make conditions more humane for this Bantu who finds himself, as the result of circumstances, in an urban Bantu area within a White area. I have sketched the circumstances for hon. members. When we did not have these large metropolitan areas it was perhaps quite a simple matter to treat the Bantu as a person on an ad hoc basis. But it is no longer quite so easy today. Today it is much more difficult to do this on an ad hoc basis. That is why we are anxious to consolidate the specialized knowledge we have gathered throughout the years in one administrative body that will prove itself worth looking up to, one that will have the necessary knowledge to also place the Bantu as a person in the right perspective and to treat him as such, and to deal with all these other matters for the Bantu. In speaking about the mobility of labour, we arrive at the one cardinal point that I also mentioned in this House some time ago in another debate. In the second reading debate the hon. member for Transkei stood up and said that we are agreed that the administration of Bantu Affairs falls short of the mark in many respects. He then goes further and says (translation)—

This standpoint of the United Party has already become a refrain: “We agree in principle, but we differ when it comes to method”. This is a refrain that runs through all the debates. Then the hon. member for Transkei goes further and says that with respect to this measure—he said this again today—those Bantu who evidenced their agreement, did so chiefly with respect to clause 26. What does clause 26 provide? It is specifically the clause ensuring a greater area of movement and labour mobility. But this clause also concerns the sustenance of the Bantu who are in the urban Bantu areas. If the Bantu agrees with that, if it is important to him, then surely it is significant for the Bantu himself to perceive and realize that the arrangements being made here mean more to him as a person. Then the hon. member for Transkei, in this same Second Reading speech of his, says that industry will not be concerned about whether Bantu Administration affairs are handled by these administration boards or by local authorities. He says it will make no difference, that it could just as well be handled by the administration board. I want to state today that our people in the manufacturing industry and in industry in general will specifically take note of the benefits that these administration boards are going to entail for them. This is one of the reasons why there must be mobility of labour and the National Party realizes this. We are not prepared to limit our view to the old boundaries of each municipal area. We are prepared to make that labour available more readily. But what is the Opposition’s answer to this question? They agree that there should be greater mobility of labour sources. But now they say that their solution to the problem is the implementation of section 40. They speak of the municipality which has the largest number of Bantu under its jurisdiction—in the words of the hon. member for Houghton. I do not think that the word “jurisdiction” is being used correctly, because they have no jurisdiction over the Bantu—they merely have an agency. An agent has no jurisdiction, he merely acts according to his instructions. That same municipality which asked the Government to implement section 40, which appealed to the Minister to introduce section 40, comes along and says it will do so, but it still wants to be boss; it will bring in other municipalities, but it still wants to be boss. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It is of cardinal importance to our businessmen, whether we like decentralization or not. If one just thinks of the country’s metropolitan complexes it becomes clear that we cannot really settle everyone in one area. There must be decentralization. And what would the business men of the East Rand and the West Rand say if the Johannesburg Municipality were to state that it would include them all, in accordance with section 40, but that it was going to give them no say, that it was going to remain the boss because most of the Bantu happen to be in its area? Is that the United Party’s solution? They say rather section 40 than the administration board. I do not believe it is logical to argue in this way. The Deputy Minister also said that it is an object of this legislation to create efficient administrative machinery for Bantu administration over a much larger area. Now the hon. member for Houghton may leave if she wishes; she may go and have a cup of tea if she wants to.

Thank you.

The hon. member for Transkei said that the Bantu were seeing visions. In his Second Reading speech he said that the Bantu are seeing visions as a result of this Bill. I do not think the hon. member will deny this. If this is so, it means only one thing, and that is that he sees the benefits that there are for him in this legislation. I have already pointed out the material benefits that this Bill entails for him, particularly those concerning the mobility of labour which clause 26 makes possible. But there will be benefits for them over a much larger area; in fact, the hon. member for Transkei himself said that in this legislation the Bantu are seeing visions, and that is so. The Bantu, who understand the drift of the National Party’s policy, now also understand that through this legislation a better means of communication is being created between his job and his place of residence, between the White urban areas and his homeland. I want to tell the Opposition that when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book they must sit down and think about the desirability of continuing to adopt the same standpoint towards national relationships in South Africa as they have done up to now.

Sir, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Christiana. He was at great pains to point out why it is impossible under section 40 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act to implement the very objects of the Bill that we are considering here this afternoon. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister was at great pains to consult people. He consulted far and wide. He went to a great deal of trouble to bring this particular Bill to the House in as well prepared a form as possible and I think we can commend him for that. But I also believe that if the same trouble had been taken to explore ways and means of using section 40 of that particular Act, it would have been possible to achieve many of the objects of this particular Bill. But I do not think that sufficient trouble was taken to see in what way that particular section could be made to work.

The hon. member says that we suggest that the hon. the Deputy Minister dealt with this Bill with a silken glove. Well, to a certain extent it is true. When I listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Second Reading speech he almost convinced me that he had quite a good case but he played his hand very close to his chest. Unfortunately during the course of the debate an odd card slipped out. The one card was the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, and this afternoon in the Third Reading debate another card slipped out. That was the speech of the hon. member for Worcester. In those speeches we came to see what the real object is that this Bill hopes to achieve. We on this side of the House have opposed this Bill that we are considering now for several very good reasons.

The Bill has reached this Third Reading stage. Although the Deputy Minister has accented certain amendments and introduced others himself, the amended Bill, as I see it, still contains all the basic principles against which we on this side of the House have taken such a determined stand. I believe that this Bill is just another instance of encroachment by the State in the field of local government. I believe that this is a situation that is perhaps going too far in South Africa today. The Government is encroaching into a field of government which has been the prerogative of the local authorities for very many years. One might quite rightly argue that this new tendency may well be an admission of defeat by the Government that in spite of the many laws dealing with the Bantu people in South Africa—and we certainly have many laws dealing with the Bantu—the Government has failed to achieve its objectives, and it must therefore intrude a new statutory body within the area of jurisdiction of the local authorities for the better carrying out of its will. I believe that this is really the main thought behind the measure which the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced.

The effect of this Bill is that the board’s functions and duties, formerly carried out under the various Bantu laws by the local authorities, are now vested in the hands of the Minister. I think the hon. member for Transkei gave us a very clear exposition of the extent of the powers that the Minister has. He may quite rightly argue that the boards are going to do some of the work that the town councils and city councils did formerly, but in fact these boards are appointed by the Minister and eventually they will carry out the Minister’s wishes. You see, Sir, geographically and economically the urban Bantu population remain and always will remain part of the city and its life. Whether this hon. Deputy Minister stands on his head, whether more legislation is brought forward, the Bantu who are presently in the big urban areas will remain there and will always be a part of the life of that city. But under this Bill the administration of this population is all of a sudden shifted to Pretoria.

Take the case of Port Elizabeth. In that city we have a Bantu population of some 196 000 people, and with the exception of 7 000 they all have vested interests in Port Elizabeth under section 10 (1), rights which they have earned; all but 7 000 of those 196 000 have those rights. Unless the Minister is going to change his mind about the section 10 rights, it is correct to say that this population of plus-minus 200 000 will be a permanent part of the population of the city and as time goes on and we near the end of the century, that population will probably have doubled. So many hon. members on the other side say that we stand for integration in all its forms. It is interesting to note that one of the very first Bantu locations ever established was established in Port Elizabeth in 1902, implementing at that time the policy for which this party stands. The vast Bantu complex that has today been built up by the City of Port Elizabeth had those small beginnings way back in 1902. The Xhosa people who have grown up in Port Elizabeth have probably enjoyed a longer contact with a White community than any other Bantu community in the Republic and I doubt very much whether these people will be at all happy to see the control of their destiny taken from the Port Elizabeth City Council and moved to a board controlled from Pretoria by this Deputy Minister.

Another point I must emphasize very strongly is this. All the comfort and the privileges that these Bantu enjoy today in these areas—and let us face it; they are few enough—have been provided by charitable organizations of the communities in which these people live. With the remote control which will now follow in the wake of this Bill, where all the authority moves away from the local council to far-away Pretoria, one wonders whether the comforts and the small privileges which have been built up in these areas will continue. The hon. the Deputy Minister says this board will be sympathetic. It will be interesting to see whether in future this Deputy Minister and his boards are able to give to the Bantu the same benefits that they have obtained over the years from the councils which now control their interests.

In Port Elizabeth we have school feeding schemes. Of the 29 000 school-going children in the Port Elizabeth Bantu townships, 12 000 benefit daily from the school feeding schemes. I would like to ask the Deputy Minister whether this kind of institution will be promoted as vigorously in future as they have been in the past under the new control of the boards.

Another problem one may well mention is this. There are 30 000 Bantu females working in Port Elizabeth who reside in the Bantu townships, and many thousands of these must be mothers whose children are left at home when they are away at work. To deal with these children 9 crèches are available to look after 900 children. This has all been promoted by the community of Port Elizabeth because they consider the Bantu community to be a part of the city, for which they are responsible. The need for more of these crèches and more of these facilities is urgent. I ask this question because on previous occasions the Government has spoken out on these issues. I have here a report of a speech made by a former Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, Mr. Blaar Coetzee. It reads as follows:

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to listen, because I should like a reply to this particular point. The report states:

I have raised this particular point because one of the reasons why we have so strenuously opposed this Bill is because we feel that if these Bantu boards become responsible for the future administration of these large urban townships which have been built up over many years by the councils, the facilities which the Bantu people enjoy there may taper off. I believe that one of the most important aspects of race relations in South Africa is that we should see that these people who are with us and who will never leave us, are provided with facilities to make their lot a more comfortable one. In Port Elizabeth we have provided them with swimming baths. They also have various other facilities such as sports stadiums, so that they will be able to conduct their lives in a civilized manner. I believe that it is essential that this progress should continue apace, even when this Bill becomes law.

When the hon. the Deputy Minister made his Second Reading speech he emphasized, as the previous speaker has pointed out, that the object of this measure is to provide a greater mobility as far as the Bantu are concerned. We on this side of the House have no quarrel with that. We believe that everything should be done to make it possible for the Bantu people to be able to sell their labour to the best possible advantage. We also believe that everything possible should be done to increase their productivity, for example by raising their education standards. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in his Second Reading speech, continued to outline the objects of this Bill as follows: “To establish more effective administrative machinery in respect of Bantu affairs over a much larger area”. We have no quarrel with that, or with the third argument he raised. However, when one reads a little further in this Second Reading debate, one finds the hon. member for Transkei posing the following question (Hansard, column 1973):

We then find the following reply by Mr. G. P. C. Bezuidenhout: “They are not carrying out our policy.” Sir, this immediately arouses one’s suspicions. We accept the points the Minister raised as being valid reasons for bringing a Bill of this nature before the House, but the whole story is spoilt when the hon. member for Brakpan lets the cat out of the bag, because we now see what the real end of this particular measure is.

I am grateful for the fact that we have come to the end of this extremely important piece of legislation that is now going to be placed on the Statute Book for the proper administration of Bantu Administration in our large metropolitan and other areas. The hon. member for Walmer said here that the hon. member for Brakpan had let the cat out of the bag in the speech he delivered here, i.e. that with this legislation we want to hold a knife to the throat of the Johannesburg City Council because we are dissatisfied at the fact that this council does not properly want to implement the ruling party’s policy. I want to say that that is one of the underlying reasons. I nevertheless think that the underlying reason here is to obtain proper control of the mobility of labour. That is the underlying idea. If we see the development of our metropolitan areas, of our industry, etc. it is surely logical and correct to have a sound administration and sound control over our Bantu labour, so that it can be done in a centralized way. In my Second Reading speech I also said that it should be done in a centralized way. We mentioned the example here of certain industrial areas being situated very close to the Bantu residential areas, but when those industrial areas just do not lie in the municipal area of those Bantu locations it means that those people must, at great sacrifice, travel from the far corner of that municipal area to where they are resident. If we now have control over our Bantu Administration in this way, we can make proper arrangements for transporting these people easily from their industrial area to their residential area situated very close to the industrial area. This is fundamental in this legislation. As far as Johannesburg is concerned, it is, after all, a fact that these people cannot claim autonomous powers over Bantu administration for Johannesburg. It was laid down in earlier legislation in 1923, and again in the Bantu (Urban Areas) Act of 1945, that local authorities are only agents of the Central Government for the implementation of this policy. With this legislation the hon. the Minister is not shouldering any sinister powers. No powers are being granted to him that he does not already have. The powers he had under the Urban Areas Act are the powers that he is now going to implement in this legislation.

What about all the extra powers?

What “extra powers” is the Minister adopting here?

Did you not listen to the hon. member for Transkei?

I did listen to what the hon. member for Transkei said. I think that the hon. member for Transkei was trying to make up time here this afternoon. This afternoon the hon. member for Transkei did not mention a single point to show that the Minister was adopting powers that he did not already have. The powers involved here are those which the Minister has had all the time.

What about the boards?

The only reason why he has appointed these boards is to make the control of the administration of Bantu labour very much easier and efficient. We know that there are town councils who try to make politics out of this and throw up a smokescreen to show the world how extremely liberal they are, how extremely accommodating, how they are making the utmost efforts to control the Bantu in these urban areas in a way that fits in with the liberal view of the United Party and of the hon. member for Houghton.

[Inaudible.]

I cannot hear what the hon. member is saying. Would he repeat it?

You are wrong if you are referring to me.

This is sound legislation. Its object is to continue the sound relationship between Whites and non-Whites that we want to create in this country of ours, South Africa. If that will be the effect of this legislation, we shall be grateful. But we want to remove politics as much as possible from the administration of Bantu Affairs in South Africa. That is why the hon. the Deputy Minister said that as far as the administration of this Act is concerned, he will go out of his way to keep it as far from politics as possible.

Only the Nationalist policy will be applied.

Let me tell the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District that as far as this Government is concerned, we shall insure that our policy is also applied in the implementation of this Bantu Administration. But we shall ensure that Bantu Administration is not made the puppet of liberal politics in South Africa, the only purpose of which is to tell the world at large: “Look, here we are, a lot of liberalists. This is how we shall rule the country”. No, we are grateful for the fact that this legislation is now passing through its final stage in this House. This is a future milestone for the creation of good race relations here in South Africa.

I also want to say that I hope that these boards will help us to implement policy further. What the hon. member for Brakpan said here is not beyond the bounds of reality. If we are given the opportunity we shall indeed ensure that the Bantu who are at present living in the White areas and who do, in fact, have homelands not far from their areas of work, will be taken to their homes on week-ends by express transport. This can be done.

You are living in a dream world.

These are not merely “pipe dreams” as the hon. member there has just said. It is within the bounds of reality. We are grateful for the fact that this legislation will be placed on the Statute Book. As I have said, this will contribute towards creating good race relations in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to enter into a lengthy argument with the hon. member for Lang-laagte. But I nevertheless want to say that I had it astonishing that a man with his experience of administration wants to make this House believe that under this Bill the Minister is not getting infinitely more powers than he already has. If it is true that the Minister is not getting more powers, I want to know from that hon. member why the Minister does not leave the matter as it is. At the moment the Bantu laws mentioned in clause 3 are being administered by the local authorities elected by the public of the local areas. Now, under this Bill the Minister is taking powers to cause those powers to be exercised by a board which will be appointed by him. If anybody now wants to suggest to me that in a case where a free, elected democratic body such as a city council is being replaced by a board appointed by the Minister, the Minister is not getting more powers, I can only say that it baffles me completely. In that case one does not know why all the powers which other people had under the Acts mentioned in clause 11, and in particular under the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, are now being transferred to boards appointed by the Minister.

In looking at clause 22 of the Bill, one realizes how extremely unacceptable the standpoint taken by the hon. member for Langlaagte is. Apart from all the other powers which are being conferred on the Minister, he also has the power to make regulations on a whole series of matters.

He has always been able to do so.

No. I want to help the hon. member a little. Clause 22 (1) reads—

Notwithstanding the provisions of section …

And that is followed by a series of sections—

The board does not have that power to do it. Who has it then? Then one looks at subsection (b), which reads as follows— any such power which but for the provisions of paragraph (a) …

which I have just read out—

The powers of the boards to make regulations, i.e. the powers which are now vested in elected city councils, are now being taken over by the Minister himself.

How many are they now?

That merely goes to prove how ill-considered the arguments of our hon. friends opposite are. The cardinal principle of the Bill is to take away from the local authorities certain powers in regard to the administration of the lives of Bantu in our urban and peri-urban areas, and to transfer those powers to the boards which are appointed by the Minister and certain of the functions of which will be exercized by the Minister himself. That is the principle of the Bill. By his argument the hon. member for Langlaagte is trying to deny the whole principle of the Bill. He is welcome to deny it; I do not wish to enter into an argument with the hon. member for Langlaagte. In all sincerity I want to turn today to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Before long it will be possible to regard this Bill as a resolution of this House, and then it will be transmitted to the Other Place for approval there. At every stage of this Bill the Opposition expressed its opposition to it. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that we did so in a calm but firm manner, without becoming emotional about it. This side of the House did so in a firm and calm manner, since in our opinion this Bill is a mistake which is being made by the hon. the Minister. This is a backward step in the administration of Bantu affairs in South Africa. It has often been said, but I just want to repeat it in order to make my point, that since the Union came into being in 1910, these powers have been entrusted to the local authorities. These powers have been exercised by them under our Constitution, and they have been doing so as agents of the Government. Even their Bantu administrators and the officials of the municipalities concerned with these matters, have had to be licensed by the hon. the Minister.

Nothing is static.

I think the hon. the Minister will concede that local authorities, according to their ability and the insight they have had, have done their best to carry out this very important administration work in a humane, sensible and responsible manner. I hope that the Minister, when he replies to this debate, will not fail to express his appreciation for the fine work done by the local authorities over the past 61 years.

I have said that repeatedly.

They have acted intelligently throughout, and then I want to make particular mention of the city with which I am best acquainted, i.e. Johannesburg. In the course of this debate Johannesburg was often criticized, but anybody who views and approaches the matter objectively, knows that in the administration of its Bantu areas Johannesburg has acted responsibly at all times. The City Council of Johannesburg often found it necessary, and did so successfully, to exert a cushioning influence on the Government and on the Cabinet.

Do I have the right to differ with you?

Of course. In fact, if that hon. member agrees, I have grave doubts about the validity of my standpoint.

I only wanted you to know.

It exerted a cushioning influence, and with administrative concessions, of which the Minister was aware since it acted as the Minister’s agent, it cushioned the hard impact, the bitter impact at times, of the less sensible Government measures on the lives of the Bantu concerned. The result is that we in Johannesburg …

Who shot them in 1946?

Who shot them at Sharpeville, you bloody fool.

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central must withdraw those words. I want to warn him that those are not words which he may use in this House.

I withdraw them, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Yeoville may proceed.

The result is that the race relations in Johannesburg are peaceful. We have in Johannesburg the largest concentration of Bantu in an urban area in Africa south of the Sahara. In Soweto alone approximately 600 000 Bantu have been concentrated, and peace has been maintained there. In Johannesburg there was no Sharpeville or Langa in 1958. Lasting peace prevailed there, thanks to the intelligent steps taken by the city council concerned and by other city councils, where similar circumstances had been created. However, the hon. the Minister is now taking these powers away from city councils and is now going to exercise them himself by means of appointed boards. In all sincerity I want to tell him today that we on this side of the House sincerely wish him success with the administration of this very important aspect of State action in South Africa. It is our sincere prayer that he will also succeed, as Johannesburg succeeded in preserving the peace for the largest White and the largest non-White community in South Africa in that cauldron, in that place of potential friction and potential trouble, especially in view of the transport position between Soweto and Johannesburg. The hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister will have to realize that the responsibility now rests squarely on their shoulders. The cushion between the severities of the Government’s policy and the implementation thereof is no longer there, i.e. the cushion provided by a sympathetic, humane, and sensible city council. This is now a direct responsibility of the Minister. From now on there will be direct contact in the administrative sphere between the Government with its policy and the people affected by it. We think that the Minister is making a mistake, but I nevertheless want it to be recorded today that it is our prayer that the Minister will be served with the intelligence, insight, judiciousness and humanity to implement this legislation and the policy in such a manner that it will be possible for peace and happiness to go on prevailing for the people of the cities who will be affected by this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, which has now had a very long passage through this House of Assembly and which has been discussed and thrashed out clause by clause for weeks almost, is symbolic of the dynamic third decade of National Party Government. It is symbolic of the fact that the Government is fearlessly implementing its policy in the realization that it must be done in a fair and just, yet humane manner, with recognition of the intrinsic worth of the Bantu as an individual, but also with recognition of the Bantu as a full-fledged ethnic being. That is what the discussion of this Bill during the past few weeks has brought to the attention. From the Opposition we had the usual. We had a negative attitude from them, but far more than a negative attitude. We had an attitude from them, such as that evinced by the hon. member for Transkei this afternoon, which has become so peculiar to the United Party, i.e. to criticize what is fine and good and which is aimed at improving relationships and which, as I have said so clearly over and over again, is aimed at improving administration; and to say things which I take the greatest exception to. The hon. member for Transkei said that these boards would be “a rubber-stamp of the Minister”, while he as a legal man knows full well that it is a statutory board.

The Minister has all the power.

Is Iscor a rubber-stamp of this Government? My point is that the United Party, in spite of the goodwill and the good words spoken here, is out to do one thing only, and that is to break things down to their very foundations. The finer the matter is, the more the United Party is prepared to demolish it in a demoniacal way. I say that I take the strongest exception to this soap-box oratorical way of coming along and saying here in the Third Reading stage, after hundreds of explanations to that hon. member, who is a man with legal training, that these boards would be a rubber stamp of the Minister. I say it is completely and absolutely untrue.

I say it is true.

Order!

I take the strongest exception to another statement that that hon. member made, also with only one purpose in mind. This is typical of the Opposition, negative, “no” to everything.

Must we keep quiet then?

But you must not act in this negative way as you did this afternoon. I say I take the strongest exception to a second statement made by that hon. member in this House this afternoon, as leader of the United Party in this debate. He said that through these statutory boards, “the Minister will control the life of every African in the Republic of South Africa”. I take the strongest exception to that, because it is not true.

But now I come to a point which I should very much like to bring to the attention of this House, because it links up with what the hon. member for Houghton said here this afternoon. Let me say this at once now: I think the hon. member for Houghton, in my humble opinion, made an extremely virulent speech, which holds nothing good for this country. That is why I now want to make the statement that it seems to me that there are organizations and persons in the Republic of South Africa who have in recent times had absolutely no scruples about marring relationships between Whites and non-Whites as much as it was in any way possible to do, in order to achieve one object, i.e. to get rid of the National Party Government in the Republic. I now want to level a direct accusation. It seems to me—if I am wrong, I would be very grateful for that— that the spokesman of these organizations and persons who are out to get rid of the National Party Government and who have recently gone out of their way, in season and out, to mar relationships between Whites and non-Whites, is sitting in this House, namely the hon. member for Houghton. She proved it this afternoon.

It is your policy.

I shall return to the hon. member. But now a very interesting thing has happened in this debate here. Although I lay it directly at the door of the hon. member for Houghton that she is the spokesman of organizations who have no scruples whatsoever about marring the relationships to any extent, with the object of getting rid of this Government, she has now found allies. This has been proved in these debates. There they sit—the Opposition! I think it is time it was placed on record that this kind of activity is taking place in South Africa. Personally I take the strongest exception to it. Here I find myself in the position of having to try to deal with the delicate matter of Bantu affairs in White South Africa. Hon. members were all witnesses to the fact that I went out of my way in all the stages of this Bill because I wanted to prove certain things. But what did we find this afternoon in this debate? The hon. Minister M. C. Botha has already pointed out how the Opposition, the United Party and the Progressive Party, are in four ways effecting closer and closer liaison with one another. I have now mentioned here the one example where this was proved, that they are busy effecting closer liaison with one another in this field. The hon. member for Lichtenburg pointed out very successfully what happened in regard to clause 3 of this Bill. On 12th March the hon. member for Houghton had an insertion on the Order Paper in respect of clause 3 (1) (e), i.e. that the urban Bantu councils which consist only of Bantu, should nominate one or more representatives to these administration boards. The hon. member for Transkei had another amendment on the Order Paper, but not with the same purport as that of the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. Three days later, however, he added a further amendment to the one he already had on the Order Paper on 12th March, in regard to which he must surely by that time have made up his mind, and it was precisely analogous with the one by the hon. member for Houghton. I would very much like to know what happened during those three days! All that he did then—he did not only say “one or more”—was to say that one member from the urban Bantu council should be nominated to this Bantu administration board. Now I just want to read out what the hon. member said. I am doing so because I think it is important to demonstrate this. He said—

Listen carefully now. He said “By that I ensure that Bantu will not dominate the board”. Whereupon I asked him: “In other words, your idea is that the representative should be a Bantu?” and then the hon. member got the fright of his life.

I explained it.

Listen now. I am reading the hon. member’s Hansard. He said: “By that I ensure that Bantu will not dominate the board.” But surely that means only one thing—that the Bantu themselves must have representation on that board. Because I wanted to be very certain that he was on the right road and that this was in imitation of the hon. member for Houghton, I then asked him: “In other words, your idea is that the representative should be a Bantu?” Then the hon. member got a fright and said the following: “He need not necessarily be a Bantu, but he will be nominated by the urban Bantu council.” But urban Bantu councils consist only of Bantu. But then the hon. member, as I said a moment ago, who got the fright of his life, went and said that it could be a White, [Interjections.] It is recorded like this in Hansard. I know it hurts.

You are talking nonsense now.

But another interesting thing happened in this debate. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should take cognizance of what happened here in his absence, how the United Party and the Progressive Party had become absolutely inextricable from one another. I say again that as regards the marring of relationships, they must be very careful of what they are doing because it seems to me there is something new going on here in an attempt to get rid of the Government. But we had another very interesting thing in this debate. In December this Bill was published for general public cognizance in the Gazette on 15th December. I have newspaper clippings here which indicate how the English-language newspapers carried on at the time about this Bill. Their only object was to present this measure in a suspicious light in order to mar relationships. One of the headlines read—

This was the caption to a long front page report in the Rand Daily Mail—

Another banner headline read: “Take-over Bill secrecy.” Sir, I have the headlines here which appeared in only two newspapers in a matter of only three days. We found the same thing in the Natal newspapers, and throughout the country: “Will Bill split more families?” That was one of the banner headlines. Another one: “Take-over Bill. U.P. finds more dangers.” Sir, the Opposition did not present the truth; the object was purely and simply to sow suspicion. The Star of 18th December had this headline: “Hard time ahead for Africans.” Another headline read: “Take-over Gambit.” Sir, I wish I had the time to read these reports. Then another quotation from a leading article in the Rand Daily Mail of the 17th: “Whites too must ‘ja, baas’.” That point was also made by an hon. member on the Opposite side. Another headline read: “Prog, views on Bantu Affairs Bill.” Unfortunately I do not have the time to quote these reports.

What has happened then, in the meantime? The Bill was then discussed clause by clause in this House and the English-language newspapers for 10 days wrote virtually nothing about the debates which were taking place here while the Bill was being discussed. Why not? When it came to the test and they received the replies— fair, humane and just, as we would like to see the policy being applied—then they were as silent as the grave. Sir, was that fair? Are these people who can charge us on this side of the House with what the Opposition again charged us with here this afternoon? I say it is not fair. The hon. member for Houghton stood up here this afternoon and spoke these words: “South Africa is building a grotesque society.” What does she achieve by that? For whose edification did the hon. member say that? Sir, with all due respect to that member, I want to say that I think that the hon. member’s speech this afternoon was calculated only to mar relationships between Whites and non-Whites and specifically between Whites and Bantu. I shall tell you in a moment why I am saving this. Sir. interjection.] The hon. member is now forcing me to mention certain particulars here. What is the position of these people in respect of whom she says we are building a “grotesque society” in South Africa? What did the population of Soweto spend last year on liquor and Bantu beer? On Bantu beer they spent R5 529 006 and on White liquor R6 304 426, a total of R11 082 000. The estimate is that a further R2½ million —and this is a conservative estimate—is being spent by the Soweto Bantu in the Johannesburg bottle stores, a total therefore of R14 million in one year by 75 000 families, made up as follows: 65 000 registered lessees and 10 000 boarders or a little more, i.e. plus-minus 75 000 people. If one analyses the figures …

inaudible.]

I know that the hon. member does not like these figures; that is why she is making so many interjections. Sir, if you analyse these figures, you find that the average family in Soweto last year spent R186 per annum on liquor, i.e. R15.50 per month. These are now the people who, as the hon. member for Houghton wants to make everyone believe, are so oppressed and suppressed by the National Party Government. Sir, surely this is unfair. How many members sitting here, spent so much on liquor? I am just mentioning these figures to indicate that the hon. member does not have a case. But these things are being concocted for other purposes. It is being done with one object only, and it is a political object, regardless of what the facts and the truth are. That object is to try to get rid of this National Party Government as quickly as possible. That is the object. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton may not remain seated and make one speech after another. She must allow the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply.

The hon. member for Houghton said that we could improve our relationships in South Africa to a considerable extent if I were to give an “unequivocal assurance” that section 10 of the Urban Areas Act would not be tampered with now, or in the future. That is the assurance she now wants from me. Now I want to tell her this, that the Bantu in the Republic of South Africa can sleep very easily in respect of section 10. in respect of what the hon. the Minister Mr. M. C. Botha said about it, and in respect of what I have said about it on various occasions. They need not be uncertain about it, as the hon. member wanted to imply here this afternoon. They need not be uneasy about it at all, because we have given the assurance, and I am giving it again this afternoon, that we will not try to shy away from section 10 in any other way than to go candidly and openly to the Bantu and then to come to the House to remove section 10 when we deem the time for that to be necessary and when we think it may be necessary. We shall, as far as section 10 is concerned, treat the Bantu very fairly. We know that this is a delicate matter among the Bantu, and the Bantu can have that assurance the Minister gave previously and which I am again giving here this afternoon. Therefore the hon. member need not in future make any further attempts to sow disaffection between Whites and non-Whites and between Bantu and Whites, specifically in regard to section 10. [Interjection.] I have finished discussing this and the hon. member knows what I said. This is plain language, and the Bantu understand it if the hon. member does not.

Before I go further, I just want to say to the hon. member for Walmer, in reply to questions which he put to me here, that of course the school-feeding scheme will continue under these administration boards. What is more, there are strong possibilities of these school-feeding schemes being extended and expanded. That is the reply to the first question. Then there is the question which the hon. member raised in regard to crèches, and the same applies there. Clinics and crèches are ways of meeting certain needs. There are also other ways of meeting those needs, but the fact is that the administration boards will continue to meet these needs in respect of the clinics, crèches and the other ways in which these can be met, and I want to express the hope that these may even in many cases be thus better, as far as is practicable, than they are at the moment under the present circumstances.

In regard to the other question which he raised, I just want to say that I have already, in respect of Diepkloof for example, given instructions to the effect that the standards at Diepkloof must be improved to bring them into line with needs as they exist today. I want to say that we are very realistic, and we want to be very realistic in respect of this matter. We know that just as there is a process of development in regard to us as Whites, so, too, there is a process of development among the Bantu. We are continually taking this into account, and we will therefore under the circumstances prevailing at the time and to the best of our ability try to meet those needs as well; and, after all, the deed is mightier than the word, and I gave instructions months ago that this should be done in respect of Diepkloof. The hon. member can go and look at the hostels, for example, in Alexandra. If he pays a visit there he will see that I am not treating this matter lightly when I say this. With that, I have replied to that hon. member.

May I ask a question? I referred to a statement made by a predecessor in respect of sports facilities and other things to make the Bantu’s lot more comfortable.

The same applies to sports facilities and other social amenities. As a matter of fact, in the Resettlement Board area in Johannesburg, there is today one of the finest sports stadiums in the country. The reply is therefore an unequivocal “Yes”.

What about high schools?

This is another matter now with which the hon. member wants to sidetrack me.

The hon. member for Houghton must please give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to reply to the debate.

Mr. Speaker, it does not happen every day that I find myself in the position where I am able to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville, but in one respect this afternoon, I really want to do so in a heartfelt way. I have in any case already agreed with him provisionally in his absence. I am now talking about my sincere gratitude and appreciation on behalf of this side of the House for the excellent work which the local authorities throughout the Republic of South Africa have been doing and still are doing in regard to Bantu administration. As I have said, I have already done this, but I want to do so again now. I am fully informed as far as this matter is concerned, that is why I am saying this. In fact, I want to go further this afternoon. I want to praise the Johannesburg City Council for the fact that they have over a long period in the Johannesburg area maintained peaceful relations between Whites and non-Whites under all circumstances.

Hear, hear!

We praise all the local authorities throughout the country that have succeeded in doing this. As I have said, I therefore find myself in the position where I as a reasonable person can express my appreciation for that, as I have previously done in this House.

This brings me now to an important point. Whatever way we look at this Bill, it is a fact that this legislation introduces a new era as far as the administration of the Bantu in the White areas of South Africa is concerned. It is symbolic of the third dynamic decade. It is true that this Bill is evolutionary, because it is the result of gradual development out of the specialized knowledge which has been acquired over the years. This is the culmination of a process of growth in which the White employer has moved closer to the Bantu employee, in the normal process of expansion. The problems which arose out of the everyday administration of these matters, will now be solved by these boards, which will consist of experts, and which will disseminate specialized knowledge of a wide front. Let me also state now that I want to express the hope, right at the outset, that these boards of experts will make an important contribution towards preventing unpleasant incidents and unfortunate events, which are often so unnecessary, or limiting them to the absolute minimum by means of the sound implementation of our policy of multi-national development on a fair, just and humane basis. These incidents are, as I have said, often unnecessary, and they do incalculable damage to South Africa’s name overseas.

We all feel unhappy about this. I think that we should all realize that incidents of this kind should be eliminated as far as possible, and that we should all co-operate in building and creating sound relationships between Whites and non-Whites. Surely this is a very logical conclusion, and I hope that these boards will, more than anything else, be able to do so. Viewed against the background of the accepted pattern of the administration of Bantu affairs up to the present, there is no doubt that this legislation is radical in its approach, but I think hon. members on the opposite side must agree that this Bill is realistic. It gives substance to the generally recognized need for labour mobility, without separating the labour aspects from the labourer as individual, which is essentially necessary for the maintenance and extension of these sound race relations and the elimination of incidents and friction. It defines the concept “administration” in sharper outline; a Bantu’s human requirements in the form of housing, health services, recreation, a better form for the settlement of his everyday domestic and other problems, and the sale of his labour, is now vested in a central body, whose full attention he will receive, and—this is the important, cardinal point which hon. members must realize—whose exclusive task it will be to do so.

At the same time it will also give the Bantu greater labour mobility over a much wider area. In other words, very great benefits are being given to the Bantu here. What seems never to have been recognized here, is that it will be the exclusive task of specific people to work on the implementation of this matter. There is therefore a great evolutionary process in progress in respect of the administration of Bantu affairs in White areas as a result of the fact that now, for the first time, we have reached the point where we are able to say that we are now setting aside people whose exclusive task it is going to be to busy themselves with this matter. Hon. members must then realize that there are certain requirements for the successful application of this Act. Some of these requirements have been written into the Act, mainly that the people who will be appointed there, will only be appointed on the basis of their acquaintance with and knowledge of Bantu labour matters with regard to agriculture, commerce, industry and the various pastures of industry, and on the basis of their acquaintance with and wide knowledge of local authority matters.

We will do everything in our power to keep to those requirements. But, no matter how important these requirements are which have been written into the Act, there is something which is far more important, i.e. that the disposition with which these matters are going to be implemented, should be the correct disposition. I conclude by saying that, what must be recognized, is that this framework creates new prospects and new possibilities, particularly for our young people in the Republic of South Africa to equip themselves to deal with Bantu affairs. A framework is now being created in which, when they have equipped, themselves for it, there will be adequate posts with excellent salaries for these young people to be absorbed into the service of Bantu administration in White areas. And even if that is all that can be said of this new framework, it must be admitted that this testifies to a new vision.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—89: Aucamp. P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.· Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon. J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof. P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux. J. P. C.; Loots. J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Marais, P. S.; Martins. H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer. P. H.; Morrison. G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller. H.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto. J. C.; Palm. P. D.; Pansegrouw. J. S.; Pelser. P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer. A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch. A. L.; Schoeman. B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel. J. W. F.; Treurnicht. N. F.; Van Breda. A.; Van der Merwe, c V.; Van der Merwe. H. D. K: Van der Merwe. P. S.; Van der Merwe. W L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder. J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk. A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster. Td. P J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers. G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—44: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to make a statement in regard to the recommendations of the Bamford and Van der Horst Committee, which dealt with the emoluments of members. The United Party and this side of the House have, after due deliberation, decided to accept the recommendations of the Bamford and Van der Horst Committee in regard to the emoluments of Members of Parliament, with two amendments.

Neither the United Party nor this side of the House can accept the principle of discrimination in regard to basic salaries between members of the Senate and members of the House of Assembly. It has therefore been decided that members of the Senate will receive the basic salary recommended for members of the House of Assembly.

Both the United Party and this side of the House feel that it is unwise to discriminate between members of the House of Assembly and it has therefore been decided not to accept the recommendation that members of the House of Assembly who represent constituencies with an area of more than 20 000 square miles should receive R1 000 per annum extra. This is of course no reflection on the Committee, which was sincerely convinced that this discrimination should be made. The amending legislation will be introduced after the Easter recess.

Mr. Speaker, last night I put several questions to the hon. the Minister in regard to the relationship which exists between employer and employee. I wanted to know in particular why the people who are being dealt with under this Bill do not belong to trade unions, and I also asked him what is being done to encourage those people who are eligible, to join trade unions. I am looking forward to the answer the hon. the Minister is going to give me in regard to this question.

Now, I want to spend a few minutes on clause 5. I think paragraph (c) of clause 5, whereby subsection (3) of section 12 of the principal Act is amended, is probably the most interesting part of the whole Bill. This subsection opens up some very interesting possibilities. I do not know whether these are intentional or whether they are unintentional, but the fact remains that they are there. Firstly, the Minister, through this provision, will divide the Republic into subsections for administration purposes. He is not only having different regulations for different provinces, but he is also having different regulations for different places in different provinces. Not only is he having different regulations in different areas of the provinces, but even on the same mine, it is possible for him to have different regulations dealing with different people. I said this may be intentional, and if it is the case, and even if it is not the case, the following circumstances may arise. It may happen according to this clause that an established mine like Crown Mines, for instance, may find that the Minister wants all the workers on the fifteenth level to be Bantu, right from the mine captain down to the ordinary mine labourer. On the next level there may be a purely White group of workers. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I do not think he means this. However, this is what it says here. It says—

That is the first point and then it says—

This means that he may do one thing in the one mine and another in another. He may do one thing in one class of mine and another in another class of mine. I quote further—

Then the hon. the Minister underlines the words “or for different working places or localities in or at mines”.

Now, what does that mean? It simply means what I said before, that in one mine the Minister may have these different groups of workers at different levels. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether it is his intention to have this or not. Perhaps the new subsection (c) inserted by clause 5 (c) is inserted to enable the Minister to employ skilled Bantu in mines in the homelands. We tie this up with the fact that the hon. the Minister himself admits here that he has workers who do not belong to trade unions and that it is for these people who do not belong to trade unions that he is catering for in other matters.

There is nothing to stop him from becoming a member.

What is going to happen if a Bantu works in a mine in a homeland? He cannot become a member of a trade union and the hon. member for Stilfontein knows that. He is catered for in this Bill, however, by having regulations made for him.

Are you talking about Bantu or European mineworkers?

Both. The hon. member for Stilfontein has not studied this clause. This clause does not make specific reference to White, Bantu, Coloured or Indian persons working on the mines. It simply says that “different regulations may be made in respect of different provinces …” The clause also goes further, and the hon. the Minister must remember this, and specifies that different regulations for different classes or groups of employees may be made. Where reference is made in the Bill to “groups of employees” does that refer to, for example, a group of truck drivers or to a group of people who constitute a group as the Government usually visualizes, for example a non-White group? Are these going to be non-White groups or groups doing specific work? These are interesting possibilities and we must know what the object behind this clause is. I do not know if the hon. the Minister himself realizes what he is doing here.

Yes, I do.

Will the hon. the Minister then explain to the House what he means by all this and whether it is going to apply to one specific mine where you may have a mixture at different levels or whether he is going to have these regulations brought into being in the homelands? I think it is very interesting because it may be a new pattern of employment that is being created in South Africa. South Africa may now find itself faced with the possibility of having different—and I am reading from the Bill now—“classes or groups of employees” actually working at the same place and doing the same work separated only by some line which the hon. the Minister will create in terms of the regulations he makes.

I think you are very suspicious.

I am not suspicious about all this. I think that this might be a very good clause, because I am not against this sort of thing. What I want to know is what the hon. the Minister means by it and whether the hon. the Minister knows what he is doing here. That is all I want to know.

Are you serious in quoting Crown Mines?

I only mentioned Crown Mines, but it can relate to a number of other mines. In answer to the hon. the Minister’s question I want to ask him, what measures can be taken to alleviate the position in some of the marginal mines? What would the owners of some of these marginal mines like to see? They would like a reduction in the salary pay-packets and they can do that if they employed people in terms of this subsection as I see it. The hon. member for Stilfontein shakes his head, but I say that there is this possibility and that we must get an answer from the hon. the Minister. Those are the matters, briefly, that I wanted to deal with. They are interesting. They open up, as I said, a new possible field of employment in South Africa. There are other members on this side who will speak on this Bill. As I said initially, we will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is merely a phase in the labour legislation in regard to our mines, if we take into account that as long ago as 1911 provision was made for an eight-hour shift. In 1956 this was taken further by the Act which is now being amended, and provision was made for a 48-hour week. If one wants to prevent stagnation in the labour legislation, one sees this as a further step towards the employee obtaining further representations and a greater say in matters relating to his work. So I foresee for example that in the far distant future the labourers will have a say in the board of directors of any mining companies. This immediately gives them this advantage that they can create a better understanding, just as this legislation is at present an attempt to create a better understanding between the employees and the employer.

Before I go further, I want to comment on what the hon. member for Rosettenville said. I just want to point out a matter which has just come to my attention, i.e. that there appears to be an administrative error in clauses 4 and 5. I am referring to the side-note. On page 4, directly opposite clause 5, the following words appear—

These sections of the legislation of 1964, 1965 and 1968 refer to the transport of explosives, safety of working conditions and the cessation or abandonment of mining operations. To my mind it seems that it would be fatal to view that section in this connection and then to say that clause 5 is an amendment of those sections. This question of the transport of explosives is extremely important. For me it is quite clear that this relates to other sections in those laws, and not to these specific sections. Section 4 of Act 42 of 1968 refers to section 10 of Act 27 of 1956, as amended by section 9 of Act 46 of 1964. It refers to the determination of working hours, minimum wages and paid and sick leave. To me it appears that it should, instead of section 6, be section 4 of Act 42 of 1968. While I am now dealing with this section, and arising out of what the hon. member for Rosettenville said, I should just like to refer him to section 4 (1). They say: The Minister may, after consideration … determine different hours of work for mines and works or for different mines or works or for different classes of mines or works or for different areas or for different working places in or at mines or works or for different classes of employees or for employees of different ages, or for employees in different occupations. Sir, this provision to which the hon. member for Rosettenville referred, is in fact the same as section 4 of the 1968 legislation. I simply cannot see why he is now coming along with all these suspicions and making the statements he made here and creating the impression that there are a tremendous number of misgivings, for the legislation was accepted in principle as long ago as 1968 and there is really no difference. [Interjections.] We can consider the other provision in a moment. This is merely a question of rephrasing. I do not know whether I should read it out to the hon. member again. There is actually no difference between this clause and section 4 of the Act of 1968. The principle has therefore been accepted already as far as this matter is concerned.

Sir, then I just want to refer to another aspect. It seems to me that there is an administrative error here somewhere. I am referring here to clause 4 where it is stated in the side-note: “Substitution of section 10 of Act 27 of 1956, as substituted by section 4 of Act 42 of 1968.” Sir, no reference is being made here to Act No. 46 of 1964, which has already substituted the section. To me it seems as if section 46 of the Act of 1964 still exists. I know that legal experts sometimes have a strange way of drafting things, but if I have to interpret this according to the side-notes, then the Act of 1964 still exists. It is not being stated here that it has been amended.

†I should like to refer now to what the hon. member for Rosettenville has said here. I think the hon. member has overlooked the important fact that an unparalleled world demand for a number of South African minerals has resulted in an average growth rate of sales of all minerals, other than gold, of about 14 per cent a year over the past five years. Statistics show an average increase in activity in base mineral mining, and those in the mineral industry see the future of mining as one of opportunity and challenge for South Africa, as the dawn of mining activities with no end in sight. It is a generally established fact that some of our mineral supplies are unlimited. This brings about considerable mine and mining differentials with all the accompanying wage, social and health hazards to which our legislation will have to adapt itself.

*Sir, I just want to say this, with reference to the suspicion created here by the hon. member. It is very clear that we have to deal with a variety of problems in the processing of our base metals, taking into consideration the variety of those base metals. Particularly since there are signs of an increase in the demand and in the scope of these activities, and owing to the international nature of the marketing of minerals on a basis of supply and demand, it is of course essential that we shall have to take this development into account in future. One must, from the nature of the case, adjust one’s legislation to one’s problems. Our legislation in the past adapted itself to the mining industry in the past, which was mostly concentrated along the Witwatersrand, and we who are actively involved in the mining industry in places other than merely the Witwatersrand, have always said that any person who comes from the Witwatersrand and who becomes involved in the mining industry in the Barberton District or the Murchison Range or Leitzdorp vicinity for example, suffers from “Randitis”.

†What we meant, of course, was that he was suffering from all his years of acquaintance with the mining problems in working conglomerate gold-bearing reefs. The geological formations and the geological aspects of mineralization in these areas are altogether different from these on the Witwatersrand because there you have not got that consistency that you have in the Witwatersrand mineralogical formations.

*For this reason it is obvious that any legislation which is made, must take into account the situation which has arisen during the last four to five years, during which time we have had a growth rate of 14 per cent in our base metal industry. This outward movement from the Witwatersrand, from the goldmining industry, to base metals, or if you like, from the sandstone, the quartzite and shale formations of the Witwatersrand to the norite and the dolite and other base minerals of the Bushveld complex, the platinum and nickle mines, means that one is dealing here with completely different problems in the mining industry. I am thinking for example of the chromium, the vanadium, antimony, copper, lead, zinc, manganese, asbestos, iron and diamonds, all of them with different mother loads. Sir, these differences in scope can be tremendously great differences, and you can imagine, Sir, what bulky legislation it would require if one were to deal with all these matters in detail. That is why these powers are being given to the Minister; in fact, in principle it was already accepted in 1968. We foresaw at the time what the development was going to be, particularly in the base metal industry, and that is why that legislation was passed at the time. This legislation which we are now discussing, makes only a minor adjustment to the 1968 legislation, and what it amounts to is simply a rephrasing of that legislation.

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that he supports this Bill. I take it that he and his party support it.

†This has come to me as quite a surprise because a very important principle is involved here, a principle which the hon. member and his party have picked as a bone of contention with this side of the House. The principle involved is government by means of regulation proclaimed by the State President. Clauses 4 and 5 make provision for government by regulation proclaimed by the State President. This principle is contained in other legislative measures passed in this House and also in measures which are still under consideration. I have listened with tremendous interest to what the hon. member for Transkei had to say in this connection. He was all the time complaining, and everybody was complaining, about the bigger control which is being handed over to the hon. the Minister in connection with the provision of labour. Now this principle has time and again been rejected by the hon. member and his party. It has been hailed with acclamation as evidence of a dictatorial tendency on the part of the Government. I submit that this measure, with the important principle included in clauses 4 and 5 and supported by the hon. member and his party, puts considerable power into the hands of the hon. the Minister.

Did you listen to his explanation?

Now hon. members will note that section 12 of the principal Act, if now adopted as amended, will consist of paragraphs covering all the letters of the alphabet with the exception of X, Y and Z. According to these paragraphs—I should like to stress this—the Minister can just about manage to run the West Driefontein Mine.

No, he cannot, because there is an agreement between the employers and the employees.

I am very glad that hon. members opposite think the Minister is competent enough to run the West Driefontein Mine and other mines and that he will not abuse the power given to him in sections 4 and 5. This of course is contrary to their attitude of last year, when the hon. member of course wanted the Prime Minister to fire the hon. the Minister of Mines. [Interjections.] Now all of a sudden the Minister of Mines is such a wonderful chap.

Who said that? We didn’t say that.

But you give him all the power he wants. You said that you were supporting this measure. [Interjections.]

I would like to conclude by saying that the inconsistencies of the party opposite are just tremendous. I refer to these matters simply because the inconsistency in the arguments of the hon. members is simply outstanding. I have now indicated to the House that the principle involved here has already been agreed to in the 1968 legislation and I cannot see how the hon. member for Rosettenville can object to it. In other respects I agree with the hon. member about the anomalies in regard to the penalties in this connection, because to me it is something bordering on absurdity. Being in my time active in mining, I really feel that some good explanation should be given in this connection, and I am in agreement with the hon. member for Rosettenville here.

I am glad at the outset to say that the hon. member for Etosha has made some points with which I can fully agree and I will proceed to do so in due course. There are, of course, a few other points he made with which I am not in agreement and I will also explain my differences with him in due course.

I would like to start by saying that we on this side of the House have of course indicated through the hon. member for Rosettenville that we do in general support this legislation. We support it because the hon. the Minister has already given us certain assurances as to what his intentions are with this legislation and we have accepted his assurances. The hon. the Minister has also given us the assurance that he has consulted the parties concerned, that is to say, the employers of mine labour and the mine labourers’ unions themselves. This, at least, is how we understand the position. He has taken advice on this matter and he is satisfied that the parties concerned are themselves satisfied or will not be prejudiced by this legislation. On this basis we are prepared to co-operate with the hon. the Minister as best we can. However, we find much in this Bill which is obscure and untidy and which, in parts, lends itself to inelegant legislation. As an Opposition, therefore, we feel that we should like to assist the Minister to ensure that the Bill will become more intelligible and have greater clarity and that it will in fact achieve the purpose which the hon. the Minister has in mind.

I should like to start with the question of clauses 4 and 5. Clause 4 purports to amend section 10 of the principal Act. Now section 10 of the principal Act deals with limitation of work hours and conditions of employment. Clause 4 of this amending Bill quite rightly deals with the same subject and relates to section 10 of the principal Act, which deals with a similar subject. We find the same principle applied in other amending legislation, for example in Act 42 of 1968, where quite properly amendments relating to conditions of employment are in fact brought about as amendments to the original section 10 of the principal Act. But then we grow more and more puzzled as we go on, particularly when we come to clause 5 which purports to amend section 12 of the principal Act.

If we look at section 12 of the principal Act, we find that this is the famous section which lays down working conditions and health and safety regulations. This section has indeed been a valuable asset to the conduct of mining in South Africa. It has laid down principles for the safe working of mines. This section has in fact been amended from time to time by amending legislation which has always, as far as I have been able to discover by looking at the previous legislation, dealt with such things as health and safety on the mines. But to our astonishment we find that into this section 12 has been introduced a set of conditions or regulations which relate to conditions of work, the minimum number of days of paid leave, wage conditions, etc. This is most astonishing, because it has nothing to do with health or safety on the mines. Quite properly, clause 4, which deals with such things, contains an amendment to section 10. Section 12 deals with precisely the same sort of thing, and in fact these two clauses are closely related; the one links with the other by cross-reference in the body of the text. The one which deals with wage conditions, conditions of employment and leave is in fact introduced as an amendment to section 10, quite rightly and entirely consistently with all previous legislation. But clause 5 purports to amend section 12 of the Act which deals with safety regulations. As I pointed out, these amendments or additions brought in here are concerned with conditions of employment and have nothing to do with safety. It seems to me to be a gross inconsistency, what I have described before as most untidy and inelegant legislation. We would be grateful to hear if the Minister has special reasons for introducing this inconsistency into the legislation, but I still say it is a confusing inconsistency because the ordinary person who works and lives by this Act as his Bible, as many miners do, would look under a particular section for the conditions relating to employment of mine labour. Hidden in another clause dealing with safety regulations, he would then find the rest of the regulations dealing with that particular subject. I do not believe that this is an elegant way in which to legislate, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will have another look at this.

One then comes to another feature. We find that clause 4 of the Bill is not fully intelligible unless one first reads clause 5. I have no particular objection to that, because one manages to find one’s way through the maze as one goes on, but as I have said, clause 5 introduces certain additions to the conditions of employment. I feel that this is wrong. We then find, when we go back to clause 4, that the Minister has certain powers in relation to those new regulations. One of those powers is that the Minister may, after consultation with the Minister of Labour, and after due notice to the employers, impose certain wages and conditions of employment on certain employees on a mine, if one of two conditions applies. The first condition is that the minimum rate of remuneration and other conditions of employment are not regulated by means of an agreement between the employer and one or more trade unions. In other words, the Minister may only act, even after he has consulted these people, if he is satisfied that there is no agreement with a trade union.

That is only in the case of the smaller mines.

Yes. The clause then continues to state the other condition, namely if the Minister is of the opinion that the minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions of employment “are less favourable than the minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions of employment prescribed in terms of regulations made under section 12 (1) (u) or (v)”, the Minister may act if either of these conditions is fulfilled. That is what the Bill says, and I have construed this very carefully. The Minister may act either if. there is no agreement between the employer and one or more trade unions, or if the conditions of employment so agreed do not meet the requirements he has laid down under clause 5. That is what this clause actually says. It may not have been the Minister’s intention, but one cannot read this clause and apply a plain construction to it without coming to that conclusion. If I am wrong, I am quite sure that everybody who reads this clause after me, will also read it the wrong way. They will also come to an equally wrong conclusion. If it is intended, as is now stated in this clause, that the Minister may intervene if either of these conditions applies, then of course it does mean that he may override an agreement entered into with a trade union. Let us assume that a wage agreement is arrived at between a trade union and an employer. The Minister can then, in terms of clause 4, say: “Since such an agreement already exists, I may not intervene”. But then he reads on and he finds: “or these conditions are less favourable than those which I have laid down in terms of section 12 (t), (u) or (v)”. He then finds that that agreement in fact does provide for conditions which do not meet the requirements he has laid down. He therefore feels obliged to intervene. This means that he will have to step in and override an agreement duly arrived at after deliberation between an employer and a trade union. If this is really the Minister’s intention, I am most surprised. I do not believe it can be his intention. It would certainly undermine one of the basic principles of industrial negotiation in South Africa, if the Minister could arbitrarily do that. But, Sir, this goes even further. The new section 10 (2) reads as follows:

He does not even have to wait to consult the hon. the Minister of Labour or to send notice to the employer. He can disregard the existence of a previous agreement between the trade union and the employer, because he has found the one condition which satisfies his basic requirement, namely that the existing wages are less than those which he has elsewhere applied under the proposed new paragraphs (u) and (v) of section 12 (1). This is the logical construction one must place on these clauses as they stand. I would be very happy to accept from the hon. the Minister the assurance that this is not what he intends, but I must point out in all seriousness and in fairness to the hon. the Minister that this is how I genuinely read the clause. I was so astonished that I read them again repeatedly until I came to the conclusion that there was an error in the construction of these clauses and that the hon. the Minister could not seriously intend what the words seemed to indicate.

Like the hon. member for Rosettenville, I also have my doubts about the intentions of the Minister, not concerning his honourable intentions, but what his purposes actually are in the introduction of references to different “classes” or “groups”. These words in South African legislation have become loaded words. They have different meanings in different contexts. We would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would define precisely what he means by classes or groups in clause 5 (c) and in what circumstances these distinctions between classes and groups have been made. Are they in fact racial classes or groups, as is the case in some other legislation, or is he referring to groups or classes of employees? It would be helpful if this could also be clarified to our satisfaction.

In the course of my argument I have, of course, dealt with some of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Etosha. I agree with him that the phraseology of some of these clauses is confusing. I also agree with him concerning his reference to some of the penalties. This is a matter which has already been raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. Therefore I do not propose to repeat what he has said, but I should like to introduce a new mathematical element, if I may, which I hope will simplify the matter when the hon. the Minister comes to consider some of the inconsistencies which we find in this Bill. Let us briefly run through the Bill and let me apply my mathematical factor to it. In clause 2 a penalty of £5 is converted to R30; in other words the penalty has been multiplied by a factor of three. £5 becomes R10 and, with a factor of 3, R10 becomes R30. This in itself is not exceptionable because, after all, £5 is R10 and the value of money has greatly eroded over the years. If it is necessary to increase the fine to make it equally effective, maybe a factor of 3 is right. In clause 3 we find that £10 becomes R50. So the factor there is 2½. If we read on we find that, in the same clause, one month becomes three months. Here, again, we have a factor of 3. I am quite prepared to accept that £’s are converted to R’s by doubling and that, as the rands themselves have devalued, a factor needs to be applied. I can however not believe that one month has eroded to such an extent that it is worth only 10 days. This is what seems to be implied by the equivalents which have been introduced in this particular clause. Some would say that, as the modern society evolves, one month in goal becomes longer and longer. It does not get shorter and shorter.

It is an inflation of time.

Money inflates but, I think, time in gaol deflates as society advances. If we go on, we find that in clause 6 a factor of 5 has been applied, since £5 becomes R50. We also find that half a month becomes three months. Here we have a factor of 6.

In the new clause 15 which is proposed by clause 8 of this Bill, £250 become R500. That is a factor of only one. It is static. The imprisonment period of 12 months stays 12 months, also static; and £500 become R1 000, again a factor of one, but surprisingly, although throughout this clause the monthly penalties have been static, we suddenly find that 12 months become 24 months, a factor of two. The hon. the Minister may well have reasons for this, but it seems to us to be quite illogical that the factor applied to the monetary value of these penalties should vary all over the place and that, at the same time, it should be felt necessary, where in fact the intention seems to be to apply a static standard, adapted to the changes in money value, and to keep the penalties at more or less the same level over a period of time, that nevertheless, the penalties in terms of months, should undergo these startling changes by varying these factors as well, in two cases, by the factor of three.

I will deal only briefly with the remaining remarks of the hon. member for Etosha. As I say, I agree with his earlier remarks as regards the untidiness or the obscurity of this legislation. I agree with him also as to the nature of the changes in the penalties imposed. Where I find it difficult to follow him, is when he accuses this party of having suddenly changed its tactics and, after being opposed to delegated legislation in the case of the Bantu Areas Administration Bill, that we have now suddenly veered around and become strong supporters of delegated legislation in that we are supporting the hon. the Minister in the introduction of this Bill. The kind of authority which is delegated to the hon. the Minister under this Bill, is of an entirely different kind from that which the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education was assuming. In this particular Bill we have the hon. the Minister asking the House to agree that he should extend certain regulations. We have expressed doubt about a few of these regulations as to the manner in which they will be applied, particularly where trade unions agreements already exist. I am quite sure the hon. the Minister will give us an explanation on this point.

For the rest, the alterations relate to safety regulations, the number of hours, the number of shifts, conditions of employment and so forth which really have been a matter of practice within the mining industry for a great many years. Minor variations take place. Not only this hon. Minister, but other Ministers too, take power from time to time to fix minimum wages and to fix conditions of employment in various trades. This is a commonplace; we find this in every industry. It does not in any way affect the principle which we fought for when previous legislation was being discussed, namely that we do not like to see discretionary powers being taken from this House and given to a Minister. I believe that the hon. member for Etosha has missed the entire point of this whole conflict of opinion about delegation of legislative authority to Ministers. We are quite happy with these regulatory powers which the hon. the Minister of Mines is claiming under this Bill, always provided that he gives us assurances on those points which we have brought to his attention. Until then we reserve our position. In principle we support this Bill, but we seek satisfaction on those points which remain obscure, untidy and inelegant in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Von Brandis said in his analytical lecture he has just given us on this entire piece of legislation. What I find quite interesting, is that the United Party gave their support to this legislation. It is the same party which, in the country districts where there are many of these smaller mines to which this legislation applies, says that it is the patron of the White workers in South Africa, but they said nothing about the White workers of South Africa today. I am speaking now specifically of those in the smaller mines for whose protection certain steps are being taken by means of this legislation today. Yesterday the hon. member for Rosettenville raised certain matters here pertaining to membership of mineworkers’ union. I shall furnish proof later that by doing this he actually showed that the United Party and he, as the main spokesman of their party on matters of this nature, have no idea whatsoever as to what the position of the mineworkers is, how they live and what their problems are. In his speech before this House the hon. the Minister of Mines made it quite clear that the amendments in clauses 4 and 5, as far as the principles were concerned, did not differ from the legal provisions of 1968 in regard to the minimum rates of remuneration in respect of overtime and the minimum number of days paid leave and sick leave. Since the Department of Mines has had to cope with certain technical problems which prevented them from giving substance to the principles and the objects of the 1968 legislation, I want to thank the hon. the Minister on behalf of the large number of workers in the smaller mines in my constituency and in the Northern Cape for the amendments proposed in this legislation. These amendments merely change the modus operandi to make the objects of the 1968 legislation more easily attainable.

The hon. member for Rossettenville said in his speech yesterday that clauses 4 and 5 were applicable to mineworkers who did not belong to unions. He also made the following statement, and I quote from his speech he made yesterday—

I should like to correct the hon. member for Rosettenville in this respect. It seems to me that he does not know very much about the membership of the Mineworkers’ Union. I do not take this amiss of him either, because he and his party do not know what the needs of these people are and what their problems are. Some of the mineworkers at these smaller mines do, in fact, belong to the Mineworkers’ Union and other trade unions, but at these smaller mines one sometimes finds that there is no agreement between the Mineworkers’ Union and the employer who is not a member of an organization such as the Chamber of Mines. The result is that when the mineworker at the smaller mines has any problems, he cannot negotiate with his employer in regard to these problems. I can furnish the hon. member for Rosettenville with examples of where the mine management prohibits mineworkers from belonging to a trade union. It is for this reason that mine trade unions are requesting the hon. the Minister for this legislation. This was done so that the mine-worker in the smaller mines will also be afforded some protection against possible exploitation.

By taking these steps the hon. the Minister and the Government have proved once again that they are the friends of the mine-worker in South Africa. By that the Government furnishes proof that it is prepared to protect every mineworker. Since Kuruman is the largest producer of Cape blue asbestos in the world today and since quite a number of these smaller mines are situated in the constituency as a result, I am grateful for the fact that it is being provided in this legislation not only that the number of working hours can be prescribed but also the number of shifts that workers may work during a particular period of time. I am very glad about this, because asbestos dust is exceedingly harmful to the health of a mineworker. It is very bad for him to have to inhale this asbestos dust for a long period of time. We want to express our gratitude towards the Minister for the greater measure of uniformity which is being brought about in the entire mining industry by means of this legislation in regard to minimum rates of remuneration for overtime, the minimum number of days paid leave and sick leave, and so forth. I want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister today and express the hope that uniformity will also be brought about in the near future in regard to pensions paid to mineworkers by these smaller mines and that it will be possible to make arrangements at these smaller mines for the pensions of employees to be transferable from one mine to any other mine. There are quite a number of these smaller mines in my constituency. A mineworker may be employed at one particular mine for a period of four or five years where he builds up a pension for himself. He is then transferred to a different mine but his pension cannot be transferred. His pension contributions are refunded to him and in the majority of cases this money is spent. Such a mineworker may carry on in this way until he reaches the age of retirement when he has nothing to fall back on. I therefore want to advance a plea with the hon. the Minister today on behalf of the mineworkers of the Northern Cape and I believe on behalf of all other mines, that uniformity should be effected in regard to pensions and that arrangements should be made that the pension contributions of a mineworker can be made transferable from one mine to another.

We want to thank the hon. the Minister once again for the protection in regard to remuneration, leave, security and health he is affording the employees in smaller mines in terms of this Bill. We shall always support him when he adopts measures for the protection of the mineworkers, these people who have to do their work under unfavourable and unhygienic conditions, and by doing this, render a major service to the development of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kuruman has made the point that the object of this legislation is to protect the employee on the small mines who is very often exploited by the employer who also forbids him to belong to a union. I wonder if the hon. member is fully aware of the words he has spoken, namely, that employers forbid their employees to belong to unions. We understand that that is not entirely so. I think the hon. the Minister must give us a reply in regard to this particular question. I would prefer to have the assurance from him that the reason why he appears in this role of providing for the conditions for mining employees through regulation is because they are forbidden to belong to any trade union and so have no chance of representation. One of the reasons why we on this side of the House have accepted this legislation, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Rosettenville, is because the hon. the Minister has given the assurance that the principle has already been accepted in 1968. The extraordinary thing is that—and this is why certain questions have been asked— the present section 10 of the principal Act is a section which was substituted for the original section of the Act of 1956 by the legislation in 1968. It has not taken more than two or three years for the hon. the Minister to entirely reconstruct that particular section and to incorporate a portion of such section in the regulations and a portion of it in the actual body of the legislation. For that reason it is quite natural that one would like to ask questions whilst accepting the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the principle has been accepted. For instance, in the 1968 legislation provision was made that before any of these determinations were made by the hon. the Minister he would give notice in the Gazette to all persons who are interested, so that they could make representations to him. That is not provided for here. All that the hon. the Minister has to do is to consult with the Minister of Labour and give 30 days notice of his intention to the owner of the mine. After listening to his representations, he can intervene in respect of two sets of facts, namely that the conditions of employment of this particular mine are not regulated by any agreement or secondly, are less favourable than certain minimum rates of remuneration and other conditions prescribed by regulation. He would then make certain determinations by notice to the owner. But this practice of notice, generally, to the public, or to anyone who may be interested, has fallen away. So there are certain matters on which one would like an explanation. One does not lightly oppose a Bill which we know in many respects does conform with something which was accepted some years ago.

Then we would very much like to know —this is a very serious question that has been put—has the hon. the Minister discussed the change with the Mineworkers Union itself? That is a very important matter. He might not have done so. In many senses, this is enabling legislation, and so it does not directly affect them at this stage. It might be a matter in which they would take an interest later. It might be something to which their attention may be drawn later with the necessity to make certain representations. But on the face of it, it is purely enabling legislation, and we would like to know whether this legislation was put before the union and considered by them. That is a factor which is important, because the hon. the Minister has constantly to be in touch, and to have discussions with the Mineworkers Union.

Now, I come to clause 5 (c). Here there has been a broadening of certain of the aspects in respect of which regulations may be made, strangely enough, by extracting a portion also from section 10 as it was originally, and adding it now to the new subsection (3) of section 12 of the principal Act. Now, questions have been put to the hon. the Minister, regarding which we are entitled to have an explanation. As has been pointed out, there are a number of smaller mines all over the country springing up constantly. In addition, there is a very important factor which has arisen recently, namely the question of the development of mines in the homelands. We know, for instance, of two or three important platinum mines, platinum being a very important base metal in this country, which enter into the picture. One does not know what the Minister has in mind. One is asking him not in a sense of carping criticism, but with the object that Parliament and the country should know whether the Minister is contemplating, perhaps on a much more imaginative basis, certain developments by regulation in respect of the labour problems of these various mines. I think it is a perfectly fair and honest question to ask the hon. the Minister. It is in that sense and in the sense of understanding the intention of the hon. the Minister that we are directing these questions. Beyond that, we support the Bill. I may say that there are many others factors that enter into this matter which I discussed with employees and employers on these mines, but I do not think they arise at this stage because the purpose of the Bill is to give the Minister certain enabling powers. If the Minister will give us these answers, it will make us very much happier in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support and contributions in regard to this Bill. However, I must say that the support which came from the Opposition side was of a very carping nature. The hon. member for Jeppes and other hon. members know that the legislation now before this House does not differ at all in principle from the amending legislation of 1968. On the one hand, legislation came before this House specifically after prolonged discussions with and at the request of the trade unions and the parties concerned. On the other hand it originated from our desire, with the support of the Opposition, to supplement certain deficiencies which existed in respect of our smaller mines. As hon. members know, in the smaller mines there were no trade unions which could conduct negotiations, and on the other hand the owners of those mines did not belong to the Chamber of Mines, to the Transvaal Coal Owners’ Association or to De Beers. This is the reason, and therefore there is nothing sinister behind these alterations. These alterations are now being made in order to change the modus operandi and in order to make these measures more capable of application in practice, which has not been the case since 1968. I cannot take the responsibility for that, because our legal people have their own way of drafting legislation. Sometimes it appears subsequently that this creates problems in regard to its application, although its principle is not affected. These matters came to light specifically as a result of discussions and negotiations with the mine trade unions. It came to light that certain steps they would like to take in practice in regard to the determination of hours of work and paid public holidays could not be taken because the machinery was so involved and cumbersome.

In regard to the homelands, I want to give hon. members the assurance that these matters have nothing at all to do with homelands. I shall come to that later. I know it is a matter which the Opposition are very keen to raise. It is also a matter on which I should very much like to know precisely what their standpoint is, but it is not relevant now, and therefore I do not want to take up the time of the House with it.

I shall now go down the row in order to reply to hon. members’ questions. At the same time I shall reply to the questions of the hon. member for Jeppes, because other members raised the same points. I really think the hon. member for Kuruman is one of the members in this House who can talk about this with authority and great sympathy, because he in fact represents a constituency for which this legislation is of the greatest importance. It is a constituency which has small mines where the owners do not always have the interests of the employees at heart to the same extent as is perhaps the case at the larger mines. I am therefore very glad that he has participated in this debate. I have paid a visit to his constituency and I know that there is a good relationship between him and his people. His people in particular, and others as well, have been looking forward since 1968 to this legislation not only being placed on the Statute Book, but also being applied in practice. I want to say today that since we are making the modus operandi easier and since we can provide certain benefits for these people such as minimum wages and certain paid public holidays, we shall take reasonable demands into account, and shall always do so. We shall also bear in mind, however, that one must not take steps which will kill these smaller mines, because that would not be in the interests of those employees or employers.

In regard to pensions, which the hon. member also raised, I want to say that the question of transferability is a very important matter. It has nothing to do with this legislation, of course, but I am mentioning it merely because it is of importance. We in the department are already paying attention to this matter to see whether we cannot provide more assistance in this regard.

I now come to the hon. member for Von Brandis. The hon. member referred in the first place to the penalty clauses. Sir, as he outlined the provisions here, they sounded extremely involved and extremely pettifogging. The one penalty is three times heavier, the other is two and a half times’ heavier; the one is one month and the other three months. Neither I nor the Department of Mines is essentially responsible for that. All we have done here is, firstly, to convert pounds into rands and, secondly, that we have brought the fines and the sentences which may be imposed into line with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1959. This is a matter on which I am certainly no authority, but I can tell the hon. member exactly how it was put to me when I made the same inquiries he made. Section 333bis of the Criminal Procedure Act, which was inserted in 1959, provides that—

Our monetary unit was still the pound at the time. I have been given the assurance that all we are doing here is to bring the provisions into line with those of the Criminal Procedure Act. The hon. member mentioned other points in this regard as well.

Look at clause 8.

I shall come to that in a moment when I reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville. I also want to give the hon. member for Von Brandis the assurance that there is nothing new here. I want to reassure him in this regard as well. He spoke about “obscurity and untidiness”. Sir, this is not untidy, but this is a complicated matter. It is complicated in the sense that one may make provision for all possible circumstances without having to come to Parliament every time. In referring to circumstances, I am referring specifically to circumstances which may bring the needs of employees at smaller mines and those of the trade unions to the fore and which may differ from one mine to another, from one specific group to another or from one specific work to another. The hon. member said that section 12 dealt with health and safety and that it was untidy to add the matters that we are adding here. This is not quite true. Section 12 already grants authority for the promulgation of regulations, and these are merely additions of further regulations which may be promulgated. They need not necessarily be regulations dealing with a certain matter, but include all regulations, and these are now being added here.

The hon. member also referred to clause 4. I can understand that he has some difficulty with it, because he did not read the clause far enough. The hon. member indicated that, as he read the clause, it was still possible for the Minister, whoever he may be, to make certain determinations, although an agreement existed. I just want to read the relevant part of the clause to the hon. member—

And now we come to the hon. member’s problem—

The hon. member said this was his problem, because it was the one or the other. But he need only read further—

These regulations under (u) and (v) cannot be made where there is an agreement. In other words, the hon. member may be right if one reads the proposed new section only up to where he stopped, but if one reads further, one sees that it is only these regulations, and that regulations in regard to matters mentioned under (u) and (v) cannot be made at mines where an agreement already exists. I can therefore reassure the hon. member that not only is it not the intention, but that according to the law advisers it is not provided in the Statute Book that existing agreements may be interfered with as far as these matters are concerned. In fact, it must not happen, because we do not want to interfere with existing agreements at all. It applies only in cases where there is no agreement. I may just add that the addition of the provision in regard to consultation with the Minister of Labour is in fact aimed at enabling the Minister of Labour to keep an eye on it in order to ensure that existing agreements are not interfered with in any way. For the hon. member’s sake I shall have this matter specifically re-examined by the law advisers and my department, so that in the Committee Stage we can once again give the hon. member an assurance in regard to this matter.

I now come to the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member actually had one problem, and that is that in clause 8 the period of imprisonment is being increased from 12 months to 24 months. If the hon. member looks at clause 8, he will see that it provides for R500 and 12 months, while in the next case it is R1 000. In the previous legislation it was R1 000 and 12 months. This is merely an adjustment. In terms of the old Act it is £250 or 12 months, and in the second case £500 or 12 months. These provisions were not in accordance with one another. What is being done here now, is that the £250 is being made R500 and 12 months is being retained in that case. But in the second case the £500 is being made R1 000, which is the same, but instead of 12 months it now becomes 24 months, which brings it into line. For R500 it is 12 months and for R1 000 it is 24 months. In other words, it is an adjustment. Let me read this to the hon. member—

In other words, R500 and 12 months—

Previously it was 12 months; this was wrong and we are now rectifying it. I think the hon. member may now feel reassured. I have already replied to his question in regard to the matter of consultation. The hon. member also asked how the minimum rates of overtime remuneration would be determined. This entire matter naturally originated from representations made by the mine trade unions. The hon. member must not forget that some of the persons working at the smaller mines are in fact members of a trade union. There is only one way of doing these things, and that is to determine these matters by means of discussions and further consultation, provided we do not impose unreasonable requirements on the owners of these smaller mines.

In addition, the hon. member for Rosettenville stirred up some suspicion here in regard to the wording of clause 5, particularly paragraph (c) thereof. Let me tell the hon. member that the reference to classes of persons and groups of employers was contained in the previous legislation as well. It does not relate to Whites and non-Whites; it relates to different classes of work. Let me give an example. Payment in respect of overtime may be justified and it may be desirable to determine it for underground workers, but not for surface workers, for clerks. This is what is meant by this. The hon. member was totally wrong in mentioning the example of Crown Mines, because the hon. member knows that Crown Mines, like all other gold mines, falls under the Chamber of Mines, but in those cases there are agreements and bargaining. Consequently they are not affected by this Act. The hon. member may therefore rest assured that this is not at all applicable in those cases.

Somebody mentioned the platinum mines at Rustenburg as well. Those mines do not fall under these provisions either, because agreements exist which cannot be interfered with in terms of this Bill. I think these are all the question raised by hon. members, and, with the one or two undertakings I have given in regard to the Committee Stage, I shall leave the matter at that.

May I ask a question? In regard to the Minister’s last observation, where he said that these regulations in terms of clause 5 of the Bill would not be applicable to mines such as Crown Mines because they fall under the Chamber of Mines and the working conditions are therefore regulated by agreements between the Chamber of Mines and the employers, is it not a fact that clause 5 …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to make a speech now.

My question is whether clause 5, which relates to section 12 of the principal Act, actually falls under those circumstances; is it not merely a regulation?

Regulations in regard to this matter may be made only where there are no agreements.

Even under section 12?

Yes, where no agreements exist. The whole intention is not to interfere in a matter where an agreement does in fact exist. But I think we can perhaps settle this point in the Committee Stage. I want to give the assurance now that it is not at all the intention to interfere in any situation where an agreement exists.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Time.

Because of the diverse opinions expressed over the years as to the value or otherwise of the activities of chiropractors, seen from a health and scientific point of view, or both, the Government appointed a commission under the chairmanship of Dr. H. O. Mönnig, scientific adviser to the Prime Minister, with the following terms of reference—

1. (a) whether their work may be a useful and essential addition to ordinary medical services;
2. (b) whether it may otherwise constitute any danger to the health of the public; and
3. (c) if it does in fact have definite advantages, whether the recognition of chiropractors as a professional group is justified and on what conditions, if any, such recognition is to be given.

The commission’s report was released recently, and I take it that those who are interested in this matter have studied it carefully. Accordingly I shall confine myself to the main points of the report.

The first thing I want to do is to read out to hon. members the findings of this commission. I want to say in advance that everything I am going to say in this connection will not be based only on the findings of this commission, but for the sake of the record and for the sake of discussion I think it is essential that we take a very close look at the findings. The findings are the following. They appear in Chapter 15, Replies to the Terms of Reference. The first question posed in the terms of reference is whether the work of the chiropractor may be a useful and essential addition to ordinary medical services. The reply is—

This was the first term of reference. The second was to determine whether it might otherwise constitute any danger to the health of the public. The reply was—

The third term of reference was to determine, if it did have definite advantages, whether the recognition of chiropractors as a professional group was justified and on what conditions, if any, such recognition was to be given. The reply to that was—

In other words, conditional recognition is not possible either. These were the findings of the commission.

The findings of the commission are based on two main points, i.e. whether the philosophy on which chiropractic is founded does, in fact, have a scientific basis and, secondly, whether the training which is undergone is adequate. As far as the first point is concerned, i.e. the scientific basis, the commission clearly found that no scientific proof whatsoever had been advanced in support of the statement of the chiropractors that all disease conditions were caused by a vertebra which had slipped and was causing abnormal pressure or tension on the nerves. In this connection I want to emphasize that noted scientists throughout the world have conducted investigations and have always found that there is no scientific basis for chiropractic.

Now, as far as the training of chiropractors is concerned, I want to give the main findings of the commission. They found, firstly, that training schools were limited to the U.S.A. and Canada, and, secondly, that training was inadequate, for, inter alia, the following reasons: No pre-chiropractic training at college level is required before admission to a school of chiropractic. I shall return to this later. Secondly, the schools of chiropractic do not provide the same standard of training as the medical schools, and as an example it is mentioned that it is fundamental that lecturers who teach basic sciences at a professional level should at least have a bachelor degree. The finding then reads as follows—

1. (iii) the training period is too short (four years as against seven years in the case of basic medical training) to acquire a general understanding of medicine in order to be able to make a fairly accurate diagnosis.

I just want to emphasize the word “diagnosis”, because I shall keep on returning to it—

1. (iv) the chiropractic student undergoes virtually no practical, clinical training and no school of chiropractic has any affiliation with hospitals;
2. (v) teaching takes place mainly in the classroom through lectures, and practical work is done in out-patient clinics;
3. (vi) no in-patient training in hospitals is available.

The commission regards the limitation of the chiropractic students’ experience to outpatients attending chiropractic clinics (and who, from the nature of the case, will represent a fairly limited group of diseases and disturbances) as the most important shortcoming in the training as a whole, because whereas the medical student during his clinical training—i.e., during the last four years of his training—has to deal with the diagnosis and treatment of all kinds of sick people in the wards of a training hospital every day, the chiropractic student has no opportunity whatsoever of even seeing such in-patients, because there is no affiliation with hospitals.

Considering these serious shortcomings in the training of chiropractors, the commission expressed the view that the chiropractor is not adequately equipped to be able to decide which cases may be treated chiropractically by him. In this connection the commission emphasizes that “the dangers of chiropractic are contained mainly in the lack of diagnostic knowledge”.

In all these circumstances there can be no doubt why the Commission recommended, inter alia—

1. 1. That no statutory recognition be granted to chiropractic as a professional occupation in the Republic of South Africa.

2. 2.

   1. (a) That those already practising chiropractic in the Republic of South Africa be allowed sufficient time to qualify themselves either in medicine or so that they will comply with the requirements for registering as physiotherapists, and
   2. (b) that after a certain date no other person be allowed to set up a practice of this kind.

These then are the unanimous findings and recommendations of the commission that investigated the whole matter.

I may say that the composition of the commission was rather interesting. There was only one medical doctor on the commission. The commission consisted of the following persons: Dr. H. O. Mönnig, who is a doctor of veterinary science and has a D.Sc. degree; H. E. Brink, D.Sc., professor in physiology at the University of Stellenbosch; L. M. Jonck, B.CH.D., D.Sc., who is a senior lecturer in the Department of Anatomy at the University of Pretoria, the only member with both medical and dental qualifications; J. E. de Wit, who is professor in zoology at the University of the Orange Free State; Dr. Danie Craven, whom we all know, of the Department of Physical Education at the University of Stellenbosch; and Dr. W. G. Sutton, former principal of the University of the Witwatersrand, who holds the degrees of LL.B., B.A., B.Sc. (Engineering), etc. In other words, it was a scientific commission, which had only one member with medical training.

To come to the Bill itself, I want to refer, firstly, to the Press statement I released on 24,th February, in which I indicated that I had had further discussions with the duly authorized representatives of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, from which new points of view and suggestions had emerged.

After these discussions it was decided to withdraw the previous Bill and to introduce the present one. Before this was done, the representatives of the Chiropractic Association, of which 113 out of a total of 118 chiropractors in the whole of South Africa are members, had indicated in writing that, although the new Bill did not comply with all their wishes, they supported its contents. They have now once again stated these wishes, but have not withdrawn the previous letter. In referring to the wishes which have once again been stated, I may say that they are embodied in the latest circular. I think hon. members must have fairly thick files of circulars by now. I have repeatedly discussed the wishes expressed in the new circular with them. When they stated in their letter that they did in fact support the contents of the Bill although all their wishes had not been complied with, they referred to those specific wishes. I should like to read the letter to hon. members. It is written under the official letterhead of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa and is dated 22nd February, 1971. The letter is addressed to me. It reads as follows—

Dear Dr. De Wet,

This was just after I had had discussions with them—

Yours sincerely,

R. A. N. Nicholson,

President of the Association.

I may just say that this is the Bill now before this House.

The Bill under discussion provides that from a date six months after the date of commencement of the Act chiropractic may be practised in the Republic only by persons who submit proof to an officer of the Department of Health that they were practising for gain as chiropractors in the Republic on the last-mentioned date, or that they were South African citizens studying chiropractic on that date, and that the Chiropractic Association of South Africa has recommended that their names be entered on the list the said officer shall keep. In other words, the names of persons who on or prior to that date were practising chiropractic here or who were South African citizens studying chiropractic, and who are recommended by the Chiropractic Association of South Africa, will be entered on such list and may practise chiropractic for gain in the Republic in the future. Here now, for the first time, there is official recognition of the Chiropractic Association of South Africa.

Any person who feels aggrieved because the Association has not recommended his name for inclusion in the list concerned, may appeal to the Secretary for Health who may, after consultation with the Association, order that such person’s name be entered on that list. This is to prevent the association from unnecessarily withholding people’s names from the list. This also means that no chiropractor is under any obligation to become a member of the association. This is a very important point. Any person whose name appears on the said list is exempted from the provisions of section 39C of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act (No. 13 of 1928) in so far as they relate to the performing of acts usually performed by chiropractors. I may just say that this provision has been specifically inserted at the request of chiropractors since the matter became known last year. This is how the whole matter came to notice.

It may indeed be asked why the commission’s recommendation that no person be allowed to practise as a chiropractor in the Republic after a certain period has been departed from. The reason is that it is only fair and just that the 118 persons practising in South Africa at present, as well as the young South Africans already studying abroad, should be given the opportunity of continuing their practices. They commenced their studies in good faith. South Africa allowed it, and hence it is only fair that their vested right should not be prejudiced. Last year already I gave such an undertaking to the representatives of the chiropractors, and for that reason we are now inserting it into this legislation. Although certain standpoints I necessarily have to adopt and have adopted are not acceptable to the chiropractor without reservation, and although this Bill is not exactly what they wanted, I want to make it clear that I am on the best of terms with these gentlemen and that I have been negotiating with them all these years. We understand each other. I have never misled them in any respect as regards my standpoint or the standpoint of the Government, as embodied in this Bill. On the other hand I want to say that they have always put their cards on the table and have never made any misrepresentation in any respect to me. I also wish this Bill, and consequently I am making this request, to be discussed in a spirit which will not allow the discussion to degenerate into a vendetta against the chiropractors. Their vested rights must be recognized. There must be no vendetta against them as a group. Neither can this Bill be seen as such, but this is the best that can be done, with due regard being had, on the one hand, to rights and, on the other hand, to the Government’s obligation not to expose the public to inadequately qualified persons. I want to say that in this regard it is, furthermore, my duty to give a very clear picture of how I see matters, on the basis of the information I have in front of me and as I am trying to give an unbiased analysis of it to this House. I am doing so in a spirit for which I ask the patience and attention of hon. members, because we have to do here with a major public agitation. The newspapers also made their contribution and in doing so not only created confusion, but also placed me as a person and the medical profession in an unfavourable light. There are also signs that for the first time an attitude is being adopted in regard to health matters on the part of the Opposition which, as they see it, may bring them political gain.

If you introduce this type of legislation you must expect this.

I am also doing this because there has been an agitation by means of telegrams, letters, telephone calls, interviews and the stirring up of public opinion. This has now been done in South Africa as it is being done all over the world, particularly in America, with regard to the actions of chiropractic and of chiropractors. I do not think there can be any doubt about that, and therefore I am asking hon. members to bear with me in what I still have to say about this matter. I want to deal with the matter on the basis of specific questions which I think should be answered. I think the first fair question that may be asked, not only by my chiropractor friends, but also by this House and by people who have been treated by them, is why permanent recognition is not given by the Government to chiropractic as a profession. Why is the opposite being done, i.e. that chiropractic is not being given permanence? There are two reasons for this, with which I shall deal at length. The one is that chiropractic has no scientific basis whatsoever. The philosophy of chiropractic, as seen by the whole scientific world, is false. The second reason is that the training is quite inadequate and that there is in any case no control of any kind over the training of chiropractors. Why am I now making the statement that there is no scientific basis or that the philosophy or premises of chiropractic are false? In the first place, I want to refer to their own definitions and statements. Before coming to that, however, I want to read out the definition given in Webster’s New English Dictionary. It reads as follows:

The definition of the International Chiropractors’ Association is as follows—

I must add to this, however, that even among chiropractors themselves there is a tremendous disagreement. It is said—

This is what chiropractors themselves say of the profession. In other words, it is a philosophy which is based on pressure being exerted on the nerves of the spinal column. I do not want to go into the details of the matter now, but I want to say clearly that no proof whatsoever has been found in anatomy for these definitions and for these things the chiropractors say. No visible or tangible proof has been found of such situations in any of the dissection rooms all over the world where anatomy has been studied over thousands of years. Not one single professor of anatomy, and I think the hon. member for Rosettenville will agree with me, is prepared to state that he has ever been able to see or to observe, either by looking or by dissecting, in dissection rooms in which spinal columns have been dissected, that such a thing is possible. In other words, it has never been found. By way of example I want to read to hon. members what was said by one of the great anatomists of the world—

Prof. Bensley, director of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Chicago, also a very great figure in anatomy, said the following—

Surely these are statements we should take note of. I shall now proceed to give the opinions of the medical profession, and I shall not be doing so in the air. I want to remind the House of how the medical profession has been functioning over the past 2 500 years. It is inherent in and part and parcel of the profession of the hon. member for Rosettenville and myself that any new discovery must be shared with the rest of the world. This is the difference between the medical profession and many other professions. No doctor patents a discovery. This is inherent in the profession.

May I put a question?

No, let me just finish dealing with this point. You will get your chance. Hon. members sometimes forget that it is inherent in the medical profession that whatever a doctor may discover, whatever operation he may develop, whatever remedy he may discover, it is made available, without one cent of compensation to him, to all mankind and to every country in the world, behind the Iron Curtain as well. The only way in which it is made known universally, is that it is published in the medical journals for all to see. Take the example of Prof. Chris Barnard. If this had happened in most of the other professions, it would have been patented and would have been an enormous financial asset. All that happens in the medical profession is that his operations are described in the medical journals for everyone to copy, without any compensation. Proof that this is the case in South Africa is to be found in the fact that the medical profession in South Africa is only too keen to investigate thoroughly, and to have thorough investigations conducted into, any matter which may perhaps be of assistance in curing disease. We have just established the Medical Research Council. There is not a single person in South Africa or in the world who can come forward with any matter which the Medical Research Council will not investigate thoroughly in the hope that that may provide some relief for mankind.

The Medical Council already has a list of 28 para-medical services, which specifically enter the field of medicine—but which we welcome with open arms—to perform supplementary services. That is why they are para-medical services. We have just passed legislation to legalize them so that they may pursue their own professions and so that the public may be protected against exploitation. Lists are kept by the Medical Council of para-medical services which are supplementary, but with the reservation that those services must be scientifically based, that they must really be aids to the medical profession and that there must be no danger attached to the way in which members of that profession will act, and that an absolute assurance is given that they will act only within their sphere.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.