Mr. Speaker, in regard to the business for next week, I want to say that on Monday we shall dispose of the Second Reading of the Post Office Appropriation Bill. On Tuesday and Wednesday the House will proceed with the Committee Stage and the Third Reading of this Bill. On Wednesday the House will probably deal with the Railway and Harbour Purchase Bill and the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Bill as well. These are two small measures which have to be disposed of before 31 March. Thursday and Friday will probably be spent on disposing of what will have remained of the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Bill and dealing with the Newspaper Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to furnish a few more replies to matters raised by hon. members during the Third Reading debate. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the formula which the Railway Administration applies to determine productivity. He asked me to furnish further particulars in regard to this formula. Naturally this is a complex matter, and I doubt whether this is the appropriate time to discuss it in detail. The formula which the hon. member indicated here was basically correct. That is the formula which the Railway Administration applies for determining productivity.

The hon. member for Langlaagte requested that the Railway Administration should sell houses, houses in which Railway officials are living. He wanted the houses to be sold to the officials. The Administration is prepared to sell houses in cases where it is not essential to retain them. Of course, such transactions can only be concluded if the necessary loans are granted.

The hon. member for Port Natal referred to Bantu in the employ of the Railway Administration, and more specifically to ethnic grouping. The Administration is placing the various ethnic groups in employment in the manner proposed by the hon. member. The hon. member will understand that it is difficult to keep a precise record throughout of the numbers of the respective ethnic groups. It is extremely difficult to keep such a record constantly up to date, because the numbers of these groups of employees vary all the time. As a result of that I am not able to furnish the precise numbers. The hon. member went on to express his concern about the number of Bantu who are in the employ of the Railway Administration, particularly here in the Western Cape. I have been informed that the numbers to which the hon. member referred related to contract labourers and that the position would improve again in future. It is in fact the policy of the Administration to employ only Coloureds, as far as possible, in the Western Cape.

The hon. member for Maitland only discussed those few subjects which I pointed out to him in my reply to the Second Reading debate. I drew his attention to them and said that those were the only aspects on which a meaningful debate could take place, that they were the only aspects on which there could possibly be a difference of approach. The hon. member referred, firstly, to the amounts paid into the Sinking Fund and secondly, to the increased depreciation contributions. In addition to that he then dragged in the R17 million which we are repaying into the Betterment Fund. What the hon. member’s argument amounted to was: Why is it being done at this particular juncture? Later on I shall discuss the capital position briefly. I think that it will then become clearer to the hon. member why we feel that it is in the best interests of the Railways that we do these things now. Because a query was placed against this, I want to go into it. I want to tell the hon. member that I am repairing the roof of the house now, whether it is raining or not, so that he and I may in future sit in a house of which the roof is no longer leaking. When we considered the capital estimates we envisaged making provision for an amount of R956 million from loans. We wanted to negotiate with the Treasury for this amount to enable us to proceed with the projects on which we were already engaged, as well as with the new projects which we wanted to set in motion. We then realized that, in view of the economic circumstances, there would have to be substantial cutbacks in Government spending, and consequently we reduced the amount which we initially wanted to request by way of loans from the Treasury from R956 million to R630 million, a reduction therefore of R326 million.

I now want to indicate what we considered to be works of the highest priority on which we could not cut back, and where we did in fact effect the cutback of R326 million. As I have already indicated before, we accorded the highest priority to the export projects and consequently there were no cutbacks in respect of export projects, for example Richards Bay. The spending on these projects remained unchanged because, as the highest priority, they had to continue. Secondly we cut down on already existing contracts, delayed the delivery of rolling stock, and introduced an amended payment schedule by means of bridging finance. Under this heading we effected a cutback of R35 million, i.e. 12%. This was, in fact, done in respect of already existing contracts. Already existing contracts is therefore an item on which we made substantial cutbacks. The third item on which we cut down was containerization. We pruned the expenditure on this programme by R16 million. This amounts to a cutback of 16% on what we originally wanted to spend. We cut back on suburban projects, including the Mabopane/Winternest project, the Mitchell’s Plain project and others, by R28 million, or 45%. Other items were cut back by an amount of R247 million, or 58%. In this regard it may be mentioned that these items are being replanned for future execution, and this includes, inter alia a new hangar for the jumbo jets, the Hex River tunnel, the compound at Umlazi and the Ellisras line. There were no funds available for the construction of a building for a simulator to the value of R2,1 million either. I want to dwell on this for a while. The simulator is really a wonderful piece of equipment, and I wish hon. members are afforded an opportunity of going to look at it one day. The simulator is exactly like the inside of the cockpit of an aircraft. All the instruments, etc., which one finds in a cockpit, are duplicated in the simulator.

Our pilots undergo a large part of their training in the simulator. I was afforded an opportunity of going to see one personally. One sits in the cockpit, which is precisely the same as that of an aircraft, and one sees a screen in front of one. Instructions to move in specific directions are given to the pilot and subsequently one sees the runway in front of one, the aircraft picks up speed and takes off. It is very realistic. Everything appears before one on the screen, and eventually one lands precisely as though one were in an aircraft. If the pilot makes an error, the same reaction follows as would have done if he had made an error while piloting a real aircraft. We obtained the simulator as part of the agreement for the purchase of the Airbus aircraft. The simulator is worth more than R2 million. It is not here at the moment, but it is available. Since we do not have the necessary funds to construct the building in which the simulator has to be accommodated it means that we shall either have to send our pilots to France to receive part of their training in simulators there, or they will have to receive all their training here in actual aircraft. Naturally this is considerably more expensive for us than it would have been if they could have received part of their training in a simulator.

I am mentioning this merely to indicate to what an extent we have cut back and were compelled to cut back. As I said there was a total cutback of R326 million on the original amount of R956 million. We are now receiving pleas from the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. members for Pretoria, but this cutback does not mean that we are doing nothing about the urban transportation projects. In fact, provision is being made for an amount of R34,6 million for, inter alia, the Pretoria complex, R3,3 million, the Durban complex, R7,7 million, the Cape Town complex, R1,8 million, and other complexes, RO,7 million plus R21,1 million for additional rolling stock. This gives a total of R34,6 million. Mabopane, Mitchell’s Plain and the marshalling yard are set down as the highest priorities.

We have not discussed the central marshalling yard at the Rand complex in Bapsfontein before, but as far as the Railways is concerned, this is one of the highest priorities. I put this complex third on my list of priorities. Right at the top of the list is the Mabopane/Winternest project, which is now being delayed; after that comes the Mitchell’s Plain scheme and then the central marshalling yard at Bapsfontein. I have tried not to delay these three schemes. It would have required an additional amount of R22,81 million for the coming year; R9,20 million for Mabopane, R4,92 for Mitchell’s Plain and R8,69 million for the central marshalling yard. After considering the economic circumstances, the available loan funds, etc., we decided that it would be preferable to delay the schemes. I am sorry about this, and understand the pleas which were made in this regard, but unfortunately we cannot do otherwise. Partly as a result of a relatively low level of net self-financing—this is approximately only 5%—and the restrictions on the free application of the various funds at our disposal, the Railways was compelled to cut down drastically on its net investment programme for 1977-’78, i.e. by 34%. Hon. members will understand that many of our projects will suffer in the process. However, we shall have to live with this. I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland in particular that what I have just pointed out, i.e. the reduction in the net capital expenditure of 34%, and the fact that we had to do this under the circumstances, once again emphasizes that it is essential that the financial policy of the organization be adjusted in such a way that there is a greater measure of liquidity. We hope to obtain such a greater measure of liquidity by, firstly, a greater measure of net self-financing—which we are now introducing—secondly, the application of inflation accounting which we envisaged, and thirdly, a freer application of the various funds at our disposal. By these means we hope to obtain a greater measure of liquidity on the Railways, something which we consider to be imperative. It is also for those reasons that we feel that it is now essential to proceed with these things.

I believe that in this way the foundations may be laid for effecting a better balance in the financial structure of the Railways, the benefits of which we shall reap in future.

Sir, I now feel almost like the actor, like the stage performer who has to remove himself from the stage. However, I am not asking for applause from the audience; I just want to say thank you for the patience, for the positive comments made about the Railways, and for the constructive proposals. In particular I want to say thank you very much for the support which I received, particularly from this side of the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of a strict interpretation of section 3(2)(a) of the Admission of Advocates Act, 1964, a person can only be admitted as an advocate if he has successfully completed courses in the Afrikaans, English and Latin languages included in the LL.B, or other bachelor degree. However, some students obtain the LL.B, degree without having passed the language courses. Despite passing courses in the requisite languages subsequently at a university, they cannot be admitted as advocates because the courses were not included in the study course for a degree.

In the case of Ex Parte Viljoen, 1976(1) S.A. 923(T) it was decided that the legislation did not regard the stage at which the language requirements were complied with as important. An equivalent or higher qualification, no matter when obtained, would satisfy the requirements of the Act. It does not necessarily follow, however, that other divisions of the Supreme Court will follow the Transvaal decision.

In order to avoid prejudicing certain students as against others, this Bill is being introduced in which it is made clear that the language requirements may be complied with at any time.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches understand the problems outlined by the hon. the Minister and are prepared to give this Bill our support in order to get the matter clarified. There is only one problem we have with the Bill and that is what will happen to students who at present are taking courses which will not be the same as those prescribed in terms of this Bill. Will there be some measure of protection for those students who have already embarked upon other courses? Subject to an assurance on this, we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we find this Bill acceptable—in fact, very desirable. It clarifies, at least technically, the somewhat anomalous position created by the wording of the Act. I assume that courses in legal Latin—special Latin courses offered by some of the universities, for instance the University of the Witwatersrand—will qualify in terms of this amendment. I must also say, if I may, though this is not the appropriate moment to debate the matter at length, that the hon. the Minister ought once again to give consideration to re-opening the debate on the necessity at all for law students to have to study Latin as a prerequisite to being able to qualify as attorneys. Perhaps on a more appropriate occasion this matter ought to be given our consideration. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill merely clarifies the conditions under which a person can be permitted to practise as an advocate. The conditions are no more onerous than before and we shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Griqualand East, I have to point out that the existing position will remain exactly the same. The only thing envisaged by the Bill is to ensure that a person who did not satisfy the language requirements in his studies for the LL.B, degree, but did satisfy the requirements in respect of other courses, will be placed on the same level as a person who did satisfy the language requirements. All other existing privileges that people have at the moment as a result of courses they are doing at the moment, remain the same.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On 15 January 1974 the Secretary-General of the UNO drew the attention of South Africa’s Permanent Representative at the UNO to a resolution of the General Assembly in terms of which countries which had not yet joined the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1958 were invited to consider joining this Convention. In the light of the uncertainty prevailing in our law regarding the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the matter was referred to the South African Law Commission. The Commission recommended that the Republic should join the Convention and legislation was proposed to give effect to the provisions of the Convention.

The Law Commission pointed out the following: Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, 1965 (Act 42 of 1965) provides that an award may, on the application to a court of competent jurisdiction by any party to the reference, after due notice to the other party or parties, be made an order of court. An award which is made an order of court, has the same force and effect as a judgment. In terms of our common law, an arbitration award is enforceable, either by way of judgment on application to a competent court to have it so declared, or by way of action. In a magistrate’s court, however, an award can only be enforced by way of action. Uncertainty exists in regard to the enforceability of arbitral awards. The Arbitration Act makes no provision in this connection. Neither can such awards apparently be made an order of court on application in the Republic. Whether they can be enforced by action is not a foregone conclusion. No authoritative judicial decision could be traced in this regard.

Should our courts not be prepared to enforce a foreign arbitral award by way of action, the party wishing to rely on the award would be obliged to obtain judgment in the country where the award was made and then follow the procedure for enforcement of a foreign judgment. Such procedure is, of course, expensive, cumbersome and time-consuming. In addition, it is questionable whether the award could as a matter of course be made a judgment of the court in the territory where it was made. It may happen, for instance, that a party in England concludes a contract with another party in Germany and that the parties agree that any dispute arising out of the contract will be subject to arbitration in France. Here the principle must be borne in mind that a court does not accept jurisdiction where it cannot give effect to its judgment.

Foreign judgments are enforced ex comitate in our courts if they comply with certain requirements. The most important requirement is that the judgment must be final in the sense that it can be made of force and effect in the country in which it is given. Therefore, although foreign arbitral awards may be enforceable in our courts in a roundabout way, that is to say, by obtaining judgment in the territory where the award was made, the position regarding the enforcement of local arbitral awards in foreign territories is completely uncertain.

†From documents submitted to the commission, Mr. Speaker, it appears that there is a need for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The South African National Committee of the International Chamber of Commerce submitted representations to the Department of Commerce that consideration be given to accession to the 1958 Convention. It was mentioned that the uncertainty relating to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards does not encourage foreign trading relationships. A case was mentioned where an Italian court refused to give effect to an arbitration clause in a contract between a South African company and an Italian company because South Africa is not a party to the Convention.

South Africa’s Instrument of Accession to the Convention was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 3 May 1976. In terms of article 12 of the Convention, published under Government Notice No. 1028 of 18 June 1976, South Africa’s accession came into force 90 days after 3 May 1976, namely on 1 August 1976.

The Convention provides that contracting States shall recognize an agreement in writing under which the parties undertake to submit to arbitration all or any differences which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not, concerning a subject matter capable of settlement by arbitration. Each contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon, under the conditions laid down in the Convention. This is provided for in clause 2 of the Bill. There shall not be imposed substantially more onerous conditions or higher fees or charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards than are imposed on the recognition or enforcement of domestic arbitral awards.

To obtain recognition and enforcement, the party applying for recognition and enforcement shall supply the original award or a certified copy thereof and the original agreement or a copy thereof. If the award or agreement is not made in an official language of the country in which the award is relied upon the party applying for recognition and enforcement shall produce a translation. Clause 3 of the Bill refers.

Recognition and enforcement of an award may be refused in the circumstances provided for in clause 4 of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill because we believe that it guarantees to South Africa’s trading partners that arbitral awards will be enforceable in South Africa and therefore will encourage trade between South Africa and our partners. It will also have the effect of encouraging further trade with those that are not yet our partners. We therefore feel that this is a very good measure, and we give it our full support.

The provisions of the Bill, as the Minister has pointed out, cover most of these eventualities which might occur. I notice that they even cover the eventuality of a devaluation having taken place, in that the amount which will be awarded will be the amount which was due and payable at the rate of exchange at the date of the award. This therefore takes into consideration the fact that any subsequent devaluation should not affect the value of the award.

There is one point that I am not quite happy about in clause 3 of the Bill, where the procedure to obtain an order of court is laid down in some detail. I suppose that it could be argued that when reference is made to an application, that application means an application, as we know it in court terminology, on notice of motion, but it is certainly not clear. I wonder whether there is any reason why it is not clarified. One would have thought that this clause would have said that application for an order of court would be made after notice to the party against whom the award is to be enforced. Those words do not appear here and I wonder whether there is any particular reason for this. If there is no particular reason, then I am perfectly satisfied, but if there should be a particular reason then I believe that this House should know what that reason is. There should be no difficulty at all about giving notice to the other party, i.e. the party against whom the award is to be enforced. In most cases such a party would be a South African citizen or a company domiciled in South Africa. There may be occasions where the party is not a South African citizen, but where the award has to be made an order of court in South Africa. I would imagine, however, that they would be very few and far between. It therefore seems to me that it is important that we should know that the party against whom the award is to be enforced by means of an order of court, will receive due notice. This is particularly so, because if one refers to clause 4, one will see that in subsection (1)(b) it is specifically mentioned that the party against whom the enforcement of the award concerned is sought may prove certain things to the court. If he proves them to the satisfaction of the court, then the court may refuse to grant the order. So it seems to me that it is contemplated that the party shall receive notice, and I would like to know why it is in fact not mentioned in so many words in the Bill.

Another aspect which at first blush seems to be slightly out of line is also in the clause which I have just referred to, i.e. clause 4, in which the grounds upon which a court may refuse to grant an application for an order of court are set out. One would have thought that the court had a certain inherent jurisdiction in deciding whether to find that certain aspects of that award are not in order.

Clause 4(1)(b) states that a court may refuse to grant an application if the party against whom the enforcement of the award concerned is sought proves certain things to the satisfaction of the court. I do not know whether this is a procedural matter that has been inserted because of certain difficulties. In principle I have no objection to this, but it does rather look as if an added onus is being placed upon the party against whom the award is to be enforced. If there is a particular reason for that, and this reason is reasonable, then I am quite prepared to accept it. If it is, however, to place an onus on the party against whom the award is to be enforced, quite unnecessarily, I believe that the words that are stated there should be scrapped, and it should be left to the court and its inherent jurisdiction to decide the five matters which this Bill, as it now stands, says the party against whom the award is to be enforced, must prove to the satisfaction of the court. With those few remarks, we on this side of the House support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should be interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Wynberg. Let me say that this Bill as a whole brings South Africa into line with international commercial practice. Its provisions are to me quite clear and, from what the hon. the Minister has said, I think it fills a gap in South Africa’s law which will be most helpful. We shall support the Bill at all stages.

Mr. Speaker, South Africa is anxious to expand its international trade. Obligations and rights flow from contractual obligations and it is absolutely imperative that the international community should have certainty in respect of foreign arbitral awards. In order that this matter could be rectified, UNO in fact, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, invited South Africa in 1974 to join the relevant convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. We believe that this legislation will enhance our image in the eyes of our trading partners overseas and the international community, and in the circumstances we shall not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me just reply to the hon. member for Wynberg. As regards clause 3, he will remember that last year amending legislation was passed by the House to provide that there would be no more petitions to courts. Therefore, other than in respect of ordinary court cases, the only way in which one can come before a court nowadays is by way of application; that is to say, by notice of motion. That notice of motion is of course subject to the rules of the courts which make provision for the other side to be notified. Therefore it is unnecessary to make provision for that in the Bill since it is subject to the rules of the courts. That is the answer to that question.

The hon. member also raised questions in respect of clause 4(1)(b)(i).

No, just paragraph (b) and specifically the words: “the party against whom the enforcement of the award concerned is sought, proves to the satisfaction …”.

That of course applies in the case where the party concerned wishes the court not to make an order. As far as that is concerned, the provision contained in paragraph (b)(i) accords with the normal situation in international law. As the hon. member knows, a person can evade the judgment of a court if another court has already passed judgment on those very grounds. This is really just a rehash of that particular aspect of the law.

It is just the question of the onus I was worried about.

Well, in a civil case the onus is always on the party which alleges that it is not part of their law. In that case he must prove that with expert evidence. Alternatively, if he alleges that he is under age and that therefore it is not applicable to him, the onus is on him to provide proof of his age in the normal way by means of a certificate. I think that that will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In a registration of deeds at least two copies of each deed are lodged with the Registrar of Deeds for registration. After registration, one copy is returned to the transferee. In the case of notarial deeds the third copy is filed in a notary protocol. These various copies have the same evidential value.

Some time ago a start was made on the microfilming of documents as part of a mechanization programme for the deeds offices. In order to derive optimum advantage with regard, inter alia, to space saving, it is necessary for only one copy of a deed to be lodged which is then microfilmed immediately after registration. The deed will then be returned to the party concerned and the microfilm kept in the Deeds Office as the duplicate registration.

In order to eliminate misgivings in regard to the system, a comprehensive investigation of the proposed system was undertaken in conjunction with the National Film Board. The conclusion was reached that such a system was in fact much safer than the existing one. The procedure envisaged will have the effect whereby the microfilm copy which is made by the Registrar of Deeds and certified as a true copy, will have the same evidential value as the present registration duplicate. Provision is being made in this Bill for the legislation of the proposed procedure, which should contribute considerably towards having a more efficient registration system.

I have received a letter, dated yesterday, from the Association of Law Societies of the Republic, which I should like to quote to hon. members—

Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate now that the department did give such an undertaking to the Association of Law Societies.

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. the Minister’s speech I came to the conclusion that the reason for this Bill was the question of saving space. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would indicate to me, by nodding, whether that is so, whether that is how it all arose.

More than just that. The space is just one of the reasons.

Well, I should imagine that saving space is probably the most important. We all know that deeds registries are becoming fuller and fuller with volumes of paper and documents year by year and that in due course there will be less and less space for these documents. We must also remember that we have been collecting documents in deeds registries since 1652. The deeds registries office in Cape Town contains documents that date from the year 1652. Some of those documents are now housed in the Archives, but a very large number of documents, going back for a hundred years or so, are still stored in the deeds office which, as we all know, is in Marks Building on the opposite side of Parliament Street, and have been housed there for many, many years. What I think one must deal with in this Bill in the first instance, is to ascertain whether the saving of space is so important that one has to destroy a magnificent system of registration merely for the sake of saving space. This, I think, is the cardinal principle in this Bill. We have heard the hon. the Minister say that microfilming and the storage of microfilms is safer than that of deeds in registries as they are stored at present. However, I do not think that that is a very great consideration, because it is not on record anywhere that any document has ever been destroyed in a deeds registry. As far as the deeds registry in Cape Town is concerned, that is certainly not the case. The documents that have been stored there over the last 300 years and more, have not at any stage been destroyed.

I think the whole question now is one of a saving of space. It is a question of the cost of space versus the cost of microfilm and attendant costs. I believe microfilming is still in its infancy. We know that information has been obtained about microfilming, information that leads one to believe that microfilming is indeed the way in which to preserve records in future, and that it should be the exclusive means of preserving information in future. However, we on this side of the House are not so certain that this should just be attempted without any further inquiry. There are millions of documents in the Cape Town Deeds Registry—and I can speak of that with a certain amount of knowledge because I have had quite a lot of experience in that Deeds Registry—which could be destroyed right now, documents like mortgage bonds that have been cancelled, simple documents which have no further value to anybody at all. With proper authority they could be destroyed in order to make space for a large number of other documents which everybody is finding difficult to file at the moment.

For over 300 years there has been no trouble in the Cape Town’s Deeds Registry Office, and the security there has been first class. They have the finest fire precautions of any Government building that I have seen. Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea of how secure those buildings are, there is only one caretaker who looks after those buildings at night. That is, only one caretaker for the whole building complex and for all those records. There is one other aspect of the Deeds Registry Office of which one must not lose sight. That is the fact that there are numerous people who consult those records day after day. On an average the records in the Cape Town Deeds Registry Office are consulted by 1 087 people daily. Those records are easily accessible to those people who consult them. It is a self-service consultation. In other words, one does not have to employ any staff in order to make it possible for people to consult those records. One goes to the Deeds Office. One knows where to go, and one consults the records oneself. One does not need anyone helping one in consulting those records. It is entirely self-service and it saves a tremendous amount of time and a lot of additional expense.

If one is going to microfilm, as this Bill suggests, there is first of all the cost of microfilming to be borne in mind. This cost is quite considerable. What is still even more considerable, is the cost accompanying microfilming. Once one has to introduce microfilming, one has to have a number of officials, officials who have to employ a number of gadgets in order to produce the information asked for and make it available to more than 1 000 people consulting in the Deeds Registry Office every day. This is something of which, I believe, the hon. the Minister has probably lost sight. He has probably forgotten about the fact that one has to have people using all those various means of projecting microfilms in such a way that they can be consulted. One of the troubles is that one goes into all this expense and that one has to do a great deal of programming for which one has to use a staff such as is available, a staff which may not be particularly efficient as far as programming is concerned. One must remember that those people have to do other jobs as well.

We know that if one makes an entry in a register and it is incorrect, it is a fairly simple matter to correct it. However, if one has a programme on a computer, I am afraid that it will be a very, very difficult matter to correct an error. I have already spoken about the fact that we will have to employ all the various officials to consult the records for the person who wants to see them and to make them available, because these records will definitely not be directly available to the public. It is going to take a very much longer time to consult these records. As we all know, the longer time which one will have to spend will cost more.

If this system goes into operation, there is going to be no original document at all. A deed of transfer—everybody on the platteland always talks about “kaart en transport”—has a certain sanctity about it, because everybody knows that if he has his “kaart en transport” and loses it, he can always go to the deeds registry and get a copy. Incidentally, the registry in Cape Town receives no less than 40 applications for certified copies of lost documents every day of the year. I would just like to know how the programming people and micro-filming people are going to cope with the production of certified copies when this system goes into operation. As I have said, there is going to be no original document; so, when a man has a “kaart en transport”, a deed of transfer, and loses it, he has no certainty of getting the same document back. I will give the reason for this later. The only document of origin is the document which the owner has in his hands. There is no original document in the deeds registry. All that there is is a filmed copy. My experience of microfilm is that I still have to find the microfilm which is completely clear. There are always some words that you cannot read. It becomes very difficult and I have to take the hon. the Minister on a tour of a deeds registry and tell him how one consults documents, because if he has not done that job himself at all he probably is going to find it very difficult to follow me.

In deed of transfer one sometimes has three or four different properties and also a number of owners who own property in undivided shares. Each one of those owners is entitled to have a separate deed of transfer of his undivided share. Sometimes there are undivided shares of one-twentieth, or one-fiftieth, and each owner has a deed of transfer for his undivided share. One can imagine how this is going to be microfilmed. All that is going to be microfilmed is one deed of transfer and then all the owners are going to be set out, consecutively in microfilm I suppose, behind this microfilmed deed of transfer.

When there is a transfer of an undivided share by one of those owners to another owner, one can just imagine the searching that will have to take place to find out exactly what the rights of this owner of the undivided shares are. The other point I wish to illustrate is the case where there is more than one property in the deed of transfer. We are going to find that it will not be possible to continue doing that. Where there are four or five properties in a deed of transfer belonging to one man, there will have to be a separate microfilm for each of those properties. In other words, it will no longer be possible to pass transfer to one person of four or five pieces of land in one deed of transfer. He will have to have five deeds of transfer, and that is going to be additional cost. I do not know if the hon. the Minister has gone into this. I am working up to the fact that what is going to happen with the microfilming is that the cost of microfilming and the attendant cost is going to be far more than building a completely new deeds office in order to store the records that we have stored very effectively for the last 300 years.

I have another poser for the hon. the Minister, viz. the question of endorsement. There are any number of endorsements that can be made on a deed of transfer. These endorsements are not necessarily made at the same time as the deed of transfer is registered for the first time. They may be made at various times. Where are these endorsements going to appear? They will appear on a separate sheet of paper, which is then going to be microfilmed and filed somewhere in a cabinet with the other microfilm. Just imagine the search to find out how many endorsements affect property No. 1 when one has drawers and drawers full of microfilms! One may find an endorsement that applies to document No. 1 in room No. 1 in another room. It is going to be completely maddening. I think conveyancing will become a subject people would like to avoid, and I wonder who is going to do the work should conveyancers say they cannot be bothered with this any more. I know that the hon. the Minister is going to show that letter from the Association of Law Societies in South Africa to me, but I should like to know who initiated this very foolish scheme. It must have been the brain child of some person and there must be some reason for this wonderful scheme that is coming forth, because the Association of Law Societies did not ask for it. Now the hon. the Minister says that he has a letter from the Association saying that they have no objection, provided A and provided B. What do those provisos mean? It means that we are now going to go into microfilming, and notwithstanding the fact that we are going in for microfilming, we still have to retain the records as we have retained them in the past. We still have to build another deeds registry to keep those records and we are simply going to do a lot of extra work which will cost a fortune. It will be absolutely meaningless. Once we get started on this—and the whole of the bureaucracy is involved in this—we shall never get out of it.

The hon. the Minister is now starting something that he will not be able to stop. Once he starts it, he will never be able to turn back. One can see what has happened. Look where the hon. the Minister goes for advice. He goes to the National Film Board for advice. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has read the Auditor-General’s report on the National Film Board for last year. It is a horrifying document. It is the most ghastly document I have read for many a long day. It shows, beyond any doubt, that the National Film Board does not know what it is about. It does not know how to run its own affairs. The position is that the National Film Board runs at an enormous loss. The loss for last year was over half a million rand, it has an overdraft at the bank of R600 000 on which it is paying 14% interest and it has an enormous staff which is under-employed. It cannot substantiate any claim for its continued existence. That is why I say that they are the last people on earth who should have been consulted. How could they give an objective view on this matter? They obviously want more and more microfilm, because they want to keep their people busy. They want to have another loss and they want to keep their overdraft going at the bank. Those are the sort of things those people want. I believe the time has come to take an objective view of this whole exercise. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me where this stupid idea originated. Where did it originate? Why must we microfilm these documents which are sacrosanct particularly here in Cape Town where, as I have said already, we have documents going back to the year 1652? Why must we have this new thing? It is not going to work. It is going to cost a fortune. It is going to give everybody a headache. I cannot see why we should have any change at all.

We now come to the statement that microfilm is a better means of preservation. That is quite a different story. If you say that microfilm is a better means of preservation, then I believe that you may have a point. However, we have documents here which we have preserved since 1652. They are still perfectly legible. They are being kept in the vaults of the Archives. What is wrong with making a film of those documents and making the film available when those documents become so old that it is going to be difficult to preserve them any longer? There is nothing wrong with that. However, to change a whole registration system so that you microfilm everything and you do not have any original document, is absolute stupidity.

I had the opportunity of reading what the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place. He said that the sooner we make this change, the better. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the sooner he gets this out of his head, the better because it is the most foolish thing ever to try. The hon. the Minister also said in the Other Place that he was bound to provide the best for our deeds offices. I say that I agree with him that he is bound to give the best for our deeds offices, but the best for our deeds offices is what we have at present; not what he wants to give them.

When one really boils down this whole Bill, one comes to the conclusion that the reason for the Bill is that a microfilm copy, made by the registrar and certified as a true copy, will have the same evidential value as the present registration duplicate. I think that is the reason for the Bill. If that is the case, then I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he scrap the Bill at this stage, withdraw it completely, and introduce a new Bill merely to make that point. I have no argument with the point that microfilm, properly certified, of a document in the deeds office can have the same evidential value. I have no trouble at all with that and I am prepared to accept it. However, I am not prepared to introduce a new registration system merely in order to make this evidential value such that it can be accepted by a court of law. I think that it is quite unnecessary to pass this legislation and I think there is no reason at all for changing our registration system. I believe that if there is to be any microfilming, this can be done and in order to give microfilm evidential value, a very short and simple Bill can be introduced.

In the Other Place the hon. the Minister did say that he would consider very seriously referring the Bill to a Select Committee after Second Reading. I am very sorry that he did not say “before Second Reading” because I believe that had he said “before Second Reading”, we would not have had to cope with the problem of the acceptance of a principle. I believe the principle which will be accepted once this Bill goes through Second Reading, is that we will have a new system of deeds registration, but I do not believe that that is a sound policy for the hon. the Minister to follow. I would therefore rather see that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before Second Reading. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister intends moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading. I do not know what we can do in this respect at this stage or whether the hon. the Minister is quite determined because he has that letter from the Association of Law Societies.

I should like to deal briefly with that letter. I do not think the hon. the Minister must set too much store by that letter. Sometimes when you find yourself in a position where you cannot bargain well, you are prepared to agree to things because you feel that you might do better somewhere else. I am not suggesting that there has been any horse-trading or anything like that, but I do believe that if the matter had been dealt with objectively and if the Minister had asked the Association of Law Societies in the first instance whether they believed that there should be any change in the registration system and in the system relating to the storage and preservation of records, they would have said that they did not think it was necessary. They would have said: “No, we think this is an excellent system. It works remarkably well and we would like to preserve it as it is.” What the Minister, however, has now done is that he has said: “I have a Bill here. According to this Bill I am going to change the system. I want you to agree to it.” That is quite a different kettle of fish. [Interjections.] Does the Minister say it is not so?

I did not say that.

Yes, he did not say he wanted them to agree to it, but he did say: “What are your comments?”

Fair enough; what else can I say?

Yes, but why bring forward a Bill in the first instance? They did not ask for it. The Association of Law Societies did not ask for this Bill. The conveyancers did not ask for this Bill. Who asked for it? I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me who asked for it, because the man who asked for it should have his head read. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. the Minister and I are going to resolve this difficulty, because we are now at the Second Reading stage of this Bill. I would have liked this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. I see the hon. member for Koedoespoort is now speaking with the hon. the Minister. The hon. member probably does know something about the registration of deeds. Mr. Speaker, I did have in mind to move the following amendment—

That is what I had in mind, but it seems that the hon. the Minister and I are not on the same wave-length in this matter. I would very much like to move this amendment, but if we continue with the Second Reading, my amendment will certainly not be of any value. However, for the purposes of further argument I think I should move my amendment. I therefore do so, Mr. Speaker. I formally move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the mountain has once again brought forth a mouse. The hon. member for Wynberg is always able to make a mountain out of a molehill in this House. It is very clear that this morning, faithful to that way of life of his, he again came along and kicked up a big fuss about absolutely nothing. Now we find that the hon. members on the other side of the House greatly enjoyed the little joke he made when he referred to the Film Board and the poor financial position of that board. Sir, those hon. members might enjoy something of that kind as a joke, but if one uses the financial position of a body such as this for the purposes of one’s argument, a body which has absolutely nothing to do with what is before the House at the moment, then that is really a poor show, and it seems to me that they are very short of ammunition. It is clear that the consultation with the Film Board in this connection concerned the durability of the film. In other words, what was ascertained was the length of time that film could retain the likeness of the deed concerned. I do not think the hon. the Minister approached the Film Board to discuss their finances, etc. The advice obtained was of a technical nature. Then, Sir, the hon. member for Wynberg made a big fuss about who asked the Minister to introduce this Bill in the House. I could just as well ask him: “Who asked you to oppose it?’ ’ If this House were to decide that certain legislation on the Statute Book had to be changed, I do not think it is necessary for bodies to approach us and tell us that we should not change it. Furthermore it would really be a sad day if we were to be dependent on people for their permission before we could change laws. I think the initiative rests specifically with us as the duly elected representatives. We therefore decide to change laws as circumstances demand. What we have here is the situation described at the end of one of our Gospels, in which the writer—I think it was John—states that—

After all, that is what we are dealing with today. We have no more space to put all these things, and it is therefore our duty to ensure in good time that we introduce systems which will not need a vast amount of storage space. Microfilming is a system in use throughout the world. This is what I cannot understand about the hon. member for Wynberg, that to him it is such a terrible phenomenon that South Africa should not make use of it. Microfilming is used throughout the world by various associations and bodies, to preserve the records of their proceedings, and it is done in an outstanding way. If anyone wants to extract any information from a deed, he goes to the Deeds Office, pays the fee and then obtains the information from the microfilmed deed. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Wynberg that what we have here is not language which imposes an absolute obligation, because the legislation clearly provides that the Registrar will take charge of records entrusted to him and records to be entrusted to him and, except as provided in subsections (2) or (3), preserve them or cause them to be preserved. Then follows subsection (3), which reads as follows—

In Afrikaans the word used is “kan”. There is no obligation on the Registrar to do it precisely this way. It is left to the discretion of the Registrar and he will have to decide when he feels that it is essential for this to be done. That is why I feel that the hon. member for Wynberg is quite wrong to come here today and refer to the inviolability of our deeds of transfer—“kaart en transport” as he calls it. We work with this kind of thing all day.

I want to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that if more attorneys were to ensure that when they took charge of documents belonging to their clients, the system of safeguarding them was absolutely 100% watertight and leak-proof so that the deeds could be preserved, then that would be a very good way to ensure that the deed which the client received would be preserved. Remember that the client gets a typewritten deed and not the microfilmed document. Many of these documents are lost because the people in whose possession they are do not value them as they should, and as a result they store them where they ought not to be stored. That is why copies are made. It will always be possible to obtain a copy of the microfilmed deed from the Registrar of Deeds.

I just want to mention one further aspect. This is the aspect mentioned by the hon. member when he said that five copies would have to be made where five different pieces of land were described in a deed. Sir, this is not the case. If the original deed contains the five pieces of land or five people have an undivided share in that land, each of them gets one copy and this applies to all five. I am quite unable to understand the argument advanced by the hon. member for Wynberg in this connection.

You have probably never had a transfer of an undivided share.

Briefly, what it all amounts to is this: We are here introducing a recognized method, a method which is adopted throughout the world, viz. to store documents in a miniaturized form to prevent unnecessary wastage of space. I just want to say this to the hon. member: He need not concern himself about the lack of ability of the staff, or about their not being able to carry out the necessary programming. We shall ensure that they are properly trained to do the programming, so that if the hon. member applies for a deed, that deed can be supplied to him within a very short space of time.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Wynberg and, before he started speaking, I was of the opinion that possibly a Select Committee on this matter might be useful. However, in the course of his speech I became more and more convinced that we should in fact pass this Bill. In fact, I have never in this House heard so much being made of so little by one such member.

I think there is one point, if I may say, in respect of which I can support him and that is in relation to his remarks on the Film Board. Quite frankly, if the work of microfilming were not given to the Film Board in these circumstances, I do not know what would happen to that particular body. If one looks at the Auditor-General’s most recent report, one finds …

Order! Which report of the Auditor-General does the hon. member intend quoting?

The report for the year 1975-’76.

On what?

On microfilming.

Is it on the Film Board?

Yes, it is on the Film Board.

I must rule that out of order. That is not under discussion now. It is not relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I shall honour your ruling, but you allowed other speakers to refer to it and you allowed the hon. member for Wynberg to deal with it at length. I think it is only right that I should be allowed to refer to this matter in passing, because that is all I wish to do. I merely wish to quote a few figures to support the argument advanced by the hon. member.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill. He can talk about the merits of microfilming, but he cannot discuss the affairs of the Film Board.

Sir, I do not wish to discuss the merits of the Film Board at all. That was not my intention. My intention was merely to point out that it could well be a motivation for this Bill to save the Film Board from total collapse and insolvency. That is the point I wished to make.

That is nonsense.

The hon. member detailed that point and I merely wish to point out that there is something in his argument, as is borne out by the figures relating to the Film Board as such. It is a totally uneconomic body. However, as you have ruled otherwise, I shall not quote those figures, having now made that point.

The hon. member said that now there will be no original document. I think that that is an incorrect argument. I do not think it is the intention with this Bill that original documents should be destroyed. In the first instance, the hon. the Minister has given an assurance to the law societies that there will be no change in the system of retaining documents without the law societies being fully consulted. It seems to me that it is not the intention to change the system as such at the present moment and, even if the system is changed, the original documents will then go back to the owners of the land and the microfilms will have the same force and effect as the original documents. Therefore, with all due respect, I cannot support the argument of the hon. member for Wynberg. I believe that the explanation given of the Bill by the hon. the Minister is perfectly clear. I am very happy for once in my life to be on the same side with the hon. member for Aliwal.

For once you are on the right side.

I believe that, in line with modern developments, we are in fact moving towards a more efficient system of storing important records. I am sure that the hon. member for Wynberg is not the only one who has consulted others. I myself have consulted two specific, well-known conveyancing attorneys, as also certain representatives of the profession, and I must report that I have received no objection at all to the contents or to the concept of this Bill. In years to come I believe that, if this system proves successful, which I think it will, the final record of the document in the deeds office will be the microfilm while the original document will, as I see it, be entrusted to the owner of the property or to the person who has the rights concerned.

Although the equipment and material used in this process are not inexpensive—it is quite clear from the figures I was not allowed to quote that this process is not inexpensive—I do believe that in time savings will be made, even if only in storage space. I believe that even the saving in storage space will justify this measure. In any event, in so far as microfilming is a modern method of storage of other documents, I believe that it can be well applied in this instance.

The safety factor which was mentioned also plays a role. This procedure makes it possible for a master set of documents to be easily made, to be kept at venues other than the deeds office concerned. Finally, on this safety aspect, the metal or specially treated container—I believe it is either specially treated plastic or metal—is a far greater protection against fire and the like than the present system of keeping documents bound in cardboard files on wooden shelves.

One question does arise—I think the hon. member for Wynberg was correct in raising the matter—and that is the necessity of ensuring that the film is available for inspection at short notice as easily as documents are available today. Much of a conveyancer’s time is spent in the conducting of searches for information and for conditions detrimental or otherwise. I should therefore like the assurance that the change over to a system of keeping microfilm rather than the original document in the deeds office in book form will not hamper and will not cause any delay to the profession in their work. Therefore, having said that, we in these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton made a reasonable, sensible speech. He is probably going to have a microfilm made of himself, too and that is why he made such a hullabaloo about a very insignificant point touched on by the hon. member for Wynberg. He discussed the finances of the Film Board, whereas the Bill deals with technical aspects. There are no misgivings whatsoever as to the outstanding technical quality and handling of microfilms as done by the national Film Board.

In my opinion the hon. member for Wynberg really destroyed his own argument because he failed to raise this specific point, viz. that under the existing system, the partial or total loss of documents can very easily occur. The hon. member for Wynberg said that about I 080 people called at the local deeds office daily to obtain information. My reply to that is that this in itself is one of the biggest problems experienced, viz. that people—in most case acting bona fide— misfile documents when replacing them, and as a result the volumes get mixed up and some of the documents are even possibly removed, as we have seen from a report which was tabled in the Other Place.

Where is your evidence?

The hon. member can go and read the Senate Hansard. I think he would do well to study this a little more. I think the hon. member read the first, the introductory report. He did not read further.

The chief aim of the Bill is that we should have security of justice and the Bill concerns, solely and specifically, an amendment of section 3 of the Deeds Registry Act. Section 3 deals with the duties of the registrar. I think this is summerized as mentioned in paragraph (y) of section 3 of the Principal Act which reads as follows—

And I wish to emphasize the following—

I think it is specifically in view of the fact that the Bill seeks to give further effect to this specific provision that this amendment is being effected. An underlying problem is the issue of storage space which will be facilitated hereby, but the major factor is really that documents are misfiled or partially misfiled. I therefore believe that the question asked by the hon. member for Sandton is answered by this very point, because reference will be greatly facilitated. We know that in every deeds office there is at the moment a search list of documents which cannot be traced. The documents in the deeds office become old and particularly due to handling and photocopying, something which will now be eliminated. I believe that the proposed new system is essential. One of the advantages it will entail is a greater degree of security because the opportunity for falsification and theft of documents is almost completely eliminated. If I understand it correctly, two copies of each document is made. One of them will be kept in the deeds office and will therefore facilitate reference for legal practitioners and other people with access to the deeds office. The first copy is referred to as a working copy. Even this copy can be mislaid because it is handled by the public. A second complete copy of each document, however, is safely stored at a place away from the deeds office. This of course involves a far greater degree of security against the possibility of a total loss of documents. I believe that the hon. the Minister explained the matter very fully in the Other Place in a reply he provided to a question concerning the falsification of documents. In fact it is very interesting to take note of what the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place.

What the further amendment to the existing legislation effected by this Bill amounts to is that the same evidential value will be attached to microfilm copies of documents certified by the Registrar of Deeds as to the existing certified duplicate copy of a document. I believe that this is a sound step. In fact it is welcomed by the law society. The hon. the Minister gave certain assurances here. In contrast to this, the hon. member for Wynberg opposes the Bill. What this amounts to is that in fact he is maintaining that he is right and the law society is wrong. I do not believe that he has acted at all convincingly.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches do not support the appeal by the official Opposition to have this Bill referred to a Select Committee. In our view a Select Committee will merely mean a waste of time and money, and will serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister was …

Never mind the hon. the Minister. We are in a fortunate position in that we have been able to investigate this matter in detail. Firstly, we have had consultations and discussions with the legal profession. They approve of the Bill. Secondly, by virtue of the service some of us have had in a particular Select Committee, we have also gained a very keen insight into the microfilming industry. Thirdly, I went to the Deeds Office yesterday, and I saw there many of the officials who operate in the Deeds Office. I inspected the way microfilming works. There are teething problems, but they are not insurmountable, and the officials there are delighted with it. They believe it will be a vast improvement on the previous system.

Did you speak to the registrar?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that one does not brandish the names of officials about the House, but I can tell him that I saw four officials there yesterday. They are all very happy with the system.

At the same time I took the opportunity of seeing officials of the National Film Board. I saw the work performed by them in the Deeds Office in relation to the microfilm industry, and I must say that everybody in the Deeds Office was happy with the way things were going. I may mention one very important factor. The entire filing system resulting from microfilming is controlled by only one person, and that one person is not even busy full-time doing just that. She can do other work in addition to that. The particular person confirmed that to me. She said it was only a part-time job to keep the entire filing system. All the erven resorting under the Cape Town Deeds Registry are already under the microfilm system. All the documents relating to them are kept in the strong room of the Deeds Registry in Cape Town. Pretoria has already mechanized and computerized.

The microfilm system is also in operation in Pretoria at the moment. Documents relating to all properties in Pretoria have been microfilmed, except documents relating to farms in the district. That is the only exception. So, they are probably geared up to go ahead with the system, a system with which they have already made considerable progress. I was most impressed, and I can see advantages, as I have mentioned, for example: the saving in storage and buildings which, over the years, may run into millions of rand; secondly, it is a modern system and a vast improvement over the present system; thirdly, it is kept in a fire-proof strong room and, to my looks, it is also theft-proof.

In addition to all that I am told that copies can be made in a very short time, virtually in a matter of seconds; so, there is no problem there whatsoever. I may mention that this is also a vast labour saving system and—not that I want to draw colour into this particular Bill—most of the people who were operating the system were intelligent non-Whites. They were delighted with the way in which this system was operating. There has been a bit of doubt as to what would happen to the deeds office procedures and to obtain clarification I want to mention that the present system of checking deeds and lodgment of deeds will proceed as before. These deeds will be thoroughly checked and, as in the past, will not be registered unless everything is absolutely correct. It is only the microfilm portion that has changed. It may well be argued that in short term the microfilm will be expensive, but in terms of long-term planning there can be no doubt that in the end this will be a cost-saving device. It may well be that it is helping the National Film Board. I also happen to know that they have got problems. But the fact is that in helping the National Film Board we are also helping ourselves. If we are helping somebody else in the process, it is fine. I think it is vital that the original copy of the deed must be available, especially if one takes into account that millions of rand are housed in the deeds offices throughout South Africa. Admittedly, the deed-holder or bondholder has the title deed and from time to time may lose their title deeds. It is essential that one must be able to obtain a copy of the title deed. Under the new system one will have no difficulty whatsoever in obtaining a certified copy timeously. In these circumstances we will not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that we should become hysterical about this Bill. The matter is something which is very important, and right at the beginning I want to say that I believe the hon. the Minister must realize that once this step is taken, once this Bill is passed, it is going to be very difficult to turn back if it is found to be unacceptable. [Interjections.] I just want to say one thing about the shouts that I hear coming from that part of the House and that is that neither the hon. member for Sandton, nor the hon. member for Walmer are conveyancers. What do they know about deeds registration? The hon. the Minister is not a conveyancer, but I believe that the hon. member for Aliwal is a conveyancer and yet he has got the temerity to say that a deed must contain …

You are not a refuse collector. Why are you then talking rubbish? [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. member for Aliwal, as a conveyancer, whether he does not concede that if a property is owned jointly in different shares by five people, there could in fact be five title deeds in existence. [Interjections.] The answer is “yes”, but just now he claimed that it was only one deed which would hold five owners. I want to ask the hon. the Minister about the exact background to the investigations in regard to this particular Bill. In the speech that he made in the Other Place on 17 February, he stated (Senate Hansard, col. 317)—

Could the hon. the Minister tell us by whom this comprehensive investigation was made in conjunction with the National Film Board?

By my Department.

I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he consulted the registrars of deeds throughout the whole of South Africa about the introduction of this system. I am quite certain that if he did he would have found that the difficulties he raises—which are apparent difficulties—are no real difficulties at all, because if he talks about the number of documents which are stored away at the moment, and says that this new system will result in a far easier system of accommodation for documents, I can say that in point of fact, from investigations I have made, there are millions of documents which are subsidiary documents and not basic title deeds. The registrars of deeds themselves, in terms of section 3 of the Deeds Registries Act, are obliged to preserve and look after documents, and as I have said, millions of these are subsidiary documents and not basic title deeds. The basic title deeds are the documentation we are afraid of losing, but the masses of intermediate documents and supporting documents can be done away with.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question as well. In terms of section 3 of the Deeds Registries Act, it is laid down that the Registrar of Deeds is responsible for the preservation of documents. In his speech in the Other Place the Minister said that a copy of the documents would be kept at the deeds office and another copy would be filed in the Film Board’s filing system. Which document is going to be the one which the Registrar of Deeds is obliged to maintain and to keep? It is his responsibility, in terms of section 3, that he must preserve or cause to be preserved such reproduction in lieu of such record. Which is in fact going to be the vital documentation?

Finally, I want to say that I believe that there is going to be enormous difficulties in regard to amendments of deeds. Obviously an amendment is filed by way of an application to the Registrar and there are subsidiary documents attached to that application as well. Is the microfilm copy of the deed which is filed away, now going to be adjusted in some way or is there going to be a further microfilm made of the application? How will it be connected with the original document if one wishes to peruse the details on the original document? As the hon. member for Wynberg quite rightly said, there are masses of endorsements on documents. Title deeds have endorsements in regard to servitudes, bonds, rezonings, changing of conditions and insolvencies which are registered. Where are all these endorsements which are going to pour into deeds offices going to be registered? Are they going to be recorded separately and which system will be adjusted in order to bring about a quick and easy reference? If I go to the deeds registry and I wish to obtain a copy of an original document, I do not want to inspect five, six or eight different microfilm documents to see all the endorsements that may be on one deed. I want the one deed which I can now obtain at the deeds registry. On it are all the endorsements I require to see. I believe this is a subject for further investigation. I believe the hon. the Minister had his doubts in the Other Place and that was why he said that after listening to the debate in this House he would consider whether it would not be reasonable and necessary to refer this matter to a Select Committee. I do not believe that the hon. gentlemen on my left who have stated that they are quite in favour of this Bill, really understand the implications of this whole thing. If they were conveyancers they would understand it. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Wynberg is a good one, namely that we should refer this matter to a Select Committee before we get involved in enormous expenditure, because there is no doubt about it that this is going to cost an enormous amount of money.

At the moment the deeds offices are quite satisfied that their system of protection for deeds in regard to fires and security is adequate. I heard this from the horse’s mouth. The deeds offices are quite satisfied that they can preserve and look after their documentation. The hon. member for Wynberg mentioned the fact that there were so many people coming to get copies of documents and to look through the documents, but there are a number of documents, and it is not at all an enormous number of people who come to investigate documentation. I must agree that in the past there were vandals who did mutilate certain of these documents, but today there is such a strict control over the preservation of original documents that it is not happening today. I can make this statement without qualification. I believe the hon. member for Wynberg’s suggestion is a good one and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to seriously consider the amendment which the hon. member has moved.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to hon. members on that side of the House and this was the first time I was able to see the two other Opposition parties opposing the main Opposition party and I found it very interesting. I am not a conveyancer and I do not want to try and be clever with regard to matters of this kind. However, what is very clear is that all countries are now adopting the microfilm system. It is a far better method of preserving documents than a document could ever hope to be. One can make two copies of the original document—or whatever one wants to film—and store the two copies at different places. If a major national disaster were to occur, for example a major fire, a bomb falling on a building or some other form of destruction caused by nature, one has the other copy of the microfilm stored in a safe place. In Salt Lake City in the State of Utah in the U.S.A, they are putting the statistics of the whole world on microfilm and storing them in a mountain for the future.

The people who will find them in a thousand years’ time will find well-sealed documents containing statistics of the whole world there. They are very complete and contain, for example, names and dates of birth etc. This is the modern development which has taken place in this connection.

I cannot reply to all the specific questions on conveyancing, because I myself am not a conveyancer. Probably there are a great many question which could be asked about the details of this aspect. Can I do more than state that most hon. members who are attorneys or conveyancers agree that the system is good and sound? There are two hon. members who do not agree with the system. Can the Government do more than say that the law societies were consulted in this connection and that I gave an undertaking in public that the system would be worked out in co-operation with the law societies? All the detailed questions put to me will be worked out with the attorneys. I shall appoint a committee from my department which, together with the law societies and the heads of the deeds registry offices, will attempt to iron out the problems. All we are asking is that the principle of being able to do so, be accepted. The hon. member himself admitted that there were many documents. Our documents are getting old and crumpled. The hon. member himself said that they were mutilated, that all kinds of annotations were made on them and that in time the documents would disappear. We cannot allow this to happen, because we must preserve that documents. The poor quality paper used during the war years is now becoming crumpled but we are dealing with this problem. As far as the microfilm system is concerned, there is a working copy, a record copy and a copy for storage. It will be possible to work with the working copy every day. The use of the filing system is greatly facilitated hereby and it will be far easier to trace the documents. We shall iron out all problems and I can assure the hon. member that we shall not act precipitately, but will proceed step by step. We shall not simply be able to load the documents onto a wagon and take them to a place where we can start to bum them. The documents that are there will continue to be preserved and we shall see to it that we thrash out this matter properly with the attorneys. We shall not switch to a new system in such a way that the old system is altered without further ado. Sir, I can give hon. members the assurance that I am as concerned as they are about these records. I should not like us to do anything we would not be able to rectify later. Therefore we must proceed cautiously, but in principle the system is sound. That is what is before this House at the moment, namely the principle of this system.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether provision is also being made in this process for the preservation and filming of the old UP? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I find the following words in clause 1 rather extraordinary—

1. (a) take charge of and, except as provided in subsection (2) or (3), preserve or cause to be preserved all records …

I believe that those words are extraordinary because in effect they mean that the registrar does not need to preserve or cause to be preserved any of the documents which have been microfilmed. In other words, once a document has been microfilmed, it is not necessary for the registrar to preserve it or to take any steps to have it preserved. I find that on this I am not in agreement with the hon. the Minister because he said that this Bill was going to empower the registrar of deeds to do microfilming so as to preserve these old documents while the effect of this measure is that a document that has been microfilmed does not need to be preserved. That is the way I read it. I think we must be very careful with this. The Bill provides that it is the duty of the registrar to—

The proposed subsection (3) referred to in section 3(1)(a) as contained in clause 1(a) of the Bill provides that—

I think it is very important that the hon. the Minister should read this clause very carefully because its effect is the very opposite to what the hon. the Minister gave the House to understand in his reply to the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Minister said: “We are not going to destroy any records. We are going to preserve all records.” The point is that we are not going to preserve all records; a record which has been microfilmed is not going to be preserved. This is what I said in the Second Reading. At that stage I said to the hon. the Minister that once one starts on this course, one cannot go back. The hon. the Minister does not yet see my point, but that is the reason for the whole opposition to this Bill. Once one has started on this course, one cannot turn back. I appeal to the hon. the Minister at this stage to withdraw the Bill.

The hon. the Minister has admitted openly, both here and in the Other Place, that he does not really know what the Bill is about. If the hon. the Minister does not know what the Bill is about, he should not introduce the Bill in this House until he has found out what it is all about.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that the principle of this Bill has already been accepted at the Second Reading.

Yes, Sir, I quite agree; the principle is what I was worried about at Second Reading. I am merely saying that the hon. the Minister, in reply to the Second Reading, did not give the House the correct information. I think I am entitled to say that, because the principle, which, as you so rightly said, Mr. Chairman, was accepted in the Second Reading, was to destroy records. That was a principle. The hon. the Minister said that it was not a principle. The other principle that was accepted in the Second Reading was that it was not necessary to preserve records of which a microfilm had been made. I think at this stage this debate should in some way or the other be adjourned. I think the hon. the Minister still has it in his power to move at this late stage that progress be reported and leave asked to sit again.

No.

The hon. the Minister says he does not want to. Then I ask the hon. the Minister to explain to me what records are going to be preserved in the deeds registries. If I interpret this clause as it should be interpreted, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what records are going to be preserved by a registrar of deeds in future. If he can give ma a satisfactory answer to that, then I believe he will be doing this House a very great service. But I do not think he can give a satisfactory answer.

Give me an opportunity and I shall do so.

*Mr. Chairman, let us first read what is written here. I shall read it in English because he made his speech in English. The new paragraph (a) reads—

What was subsection (2) of the original Act? Section 3(2)(a) reads—

1. (i) forthwith furnish the registrar concerned with so many photographic copies of any record …

†In other words, they take out the piece of paper which is dilapidated and take a photograph of it. Now we are doing exactly the same in subsection (3). In other words, we must preserve all the documents except those which have now been photographed in terms of section (2) or in terms of the new subsection (3). The new subsection (3) refers to microfilms, which obviously means that there is nothing more to preserve than the microfilm itself. So, reference is made here to documents that will be preserved. The first documents will still be preserved, except for the fact that microfilms will be made by them. That means that it is exactly the same as subsection (2). So it must be (2) or (3).

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has said exactly what I said, namely that it is not necessary to preserve the original record anymore. It is only the microfilms that are going to be preserved. The hon. the Minister says that he has given an undertaking to the Association of Law Societies that he is not going to destroy any records. Who is going to do the destroying, the Minister himself? Or is the registrar going to do it? This is within the power of the registrar. Are the registrars of deeds in the provinces of the Republic going to be given an instruction by the Minister to the effect that notwithstanding the fact that this Bill has now become law, is now an Act …

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, before the lunch hour adjournment I was dealing with the question of the destruction of records, and I was about to say that the assurance given by the hon. the Minister is unfortunately not good enough. What must in fact happen, is that the assurance given by the hon. the Minister must be enacted. It is not that I want to be nasty towards the hon. the Minister. I am prepared to accept his assurance.

Whether you are nasty or not is immaterial to me.

Well that is all right. Mr. Chairman, I am not fighting with the hon. the Minister because I do not believe his assurances. I accept his assurance. Of course, I do. However, what is going to happen to the registrar of deeds must give affect to this legislation when it is enacted. He will not know anything about the assurance given by the hon. the Minister, and he will consequently proceed as if the hon. the Minister had given no assurance. There is no machinery whereby the hon. the Minister can instruct the registrar of deeds to do something other than what is in the legislation. The registrar of deeds must follow the legislation. I believe that, in order to make matters reasonable as far as the registrar of deeds is concerned, there should be enacted in this legislation some assurance. I believe that the hon. the Minister is going to say to me that such an assurance goes in fact against the principle of the Bill as it was accepted at Second Reading. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, you will not accept this from me. You will not accept this from the hon. the Minister either. Now, we are in an awful mess, because we cannot accept an amendment, something which is very necessary.

Are you talking about the UP?

We cannot accept the necessary amendment, and I wish the hon. member for Rustenburg had a little experience of what goes on in a deeds office. Then, he might be able to assist us. [Interjections.] The proviso to section 3(1)(a) of the Deeds Registries Act—I do not think it has been read out by the hon. the Minister—makes it quite clear. That proviso says—

That is why it is so essential that this assurance given by the hon. the Minister should be enacted, because otherwise the Registrar of Deeds is going to say: “I am entitled to destroy. I am quite entitled to destroy in terms of the proviso.”

The other point raised by the hon. the Minister is the question of what happens to a document which has become so dilapidated that it cannot be used in a deeds registry any more. That document is sent to the Archives where the Director of Archives restores it. Then he makes a photographic copy of the record. He does not make a microfilm copy, but a photographic copy of the restored document. That photographic copy of the restored document then takes the place of the document in the files of the deeds registry. It is something quite different. It is certainly not a microfilm. Then, there is a further point which, I believe, should be taken into consideration. That is that any original document which has been microfilmed, need not be preserved by the Registrar. As the registrar, under the proviso, has the power to destroy, obviously, a record which he need not preserve, will be destroyed. That is why I think it is so essential that something must be done in this legislation to make it impossible for the registrar to carry out the effects of this Bill. That is essential, because otherwise the assurance given by the hon. the Minister is meaningless. It is very difficult under these circumstances to move an amendment, because any amendment, or most amendments, that could be moved, would be contrary to the principle of the Bill, something which has already been accepted. However, I believe that there is one possible amendment which can be accepted. This amendment, I suggest, should be, in line 22 of the Bill. If one looks at line 22, one sees that line 22 talks about the reproduction in lieu of the record. I will read the whole of it. It says—

My amendment is to omit in line 22 the words “in lieu of such record.” I admit it is not a perfect amendment, but at least it indicates that the hon. the Minister at this stage does not want any records to be destroyed. Accordingly, I move the amendment as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot understand the problem of the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member keeps on talking. I have never heard someone who can talk so much about so little. Looking at section 3(1)(a), to which the hon. member referred and which deals with records which are to be destroyed, one finds the following clear proviso—

This does not refer to records which exist and which have not been cancelled. This concerns records which are no longer of any value, records which are non est. The registrar may destroy these records. The clause states very clearly that a registrar shall take charge of and preserve all records which were prior to the commencement of this Act records of any deeds registry in respect of which he has been appointed and that he may have them microfilmed. This involves all records. For example, when it comes to a deed of transfer, this applies to all documents which are to accompany a deed of transfer for that deed of transfer to be registered. I really think the hon. member is wasting the time of this House with his arguments.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Aliwal has answered the hon. member for Wynberg quite correctly. I just want to deal with the assurance I have given. Administratively these people still fall under my department. The chief registrar and all registrars of deeds, with the exception of one, agreed to the system. If the hon. member does not know this, I want to tell him that a large meeting was held in Pretoria to discuss the system. The system was introduced in the time of my predecessor. I think the hon. member knows that the system is already in use. I also told the hon. member that I had given an undertaking to the attorneys that I would go through the system with them in order to satisfy the profession. I shall honour that undertaking. I have arranged for my department to keep an eye on the matter so as to ensure that the attorneys will be consulted at every step. In this regard there is no question of destroying everything. For that reason the amendment is completely unnecessary and I am not prepared to accept it.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 65—

Mr. Speaker …. [Interjections.] Sir, I have heard the cries of dismay because I stand up to say a few words at this Third Reading. I want to say how disappointed I am that so many people who know nothing about conveyancing as practised in the Cape Town deeds registry, have taken part in this debate. I am also disappointed that the hon. the Minister did not take the trouble to find out what deeds registration in the Cape is all about before he introduced this Bill. He told us that he had a party in Pretoria where he got all the registrars of deeds together. He got them all to agree to this wonderful system, save one. Seeing that he said that there was one who did not agree, I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the man who did not agree, had some connection with the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. I have a very good reason for saying this, because the hon. the Minister fails to understand that the records in the Cape Province are the oldest records in the country. The system of deeds registration was built up in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope before the days of the old Cape Colony. It was built up under the Here XVII and has been built up ever since. It is not only a question of tradition in that deeds registry, but things were done in a particular way in that registry. As a result of them having been done in this particular way, it is extremely difficult to prepare deeds today, unless one is able to consult those records from time to time, and sometimes one has to be able to consult quite a number of records at the same time. I hope that the hon. the Minister will pay particular attention to what I am saying now because I think that this is the most important part of deeds registration in the Cape Province. It is often necessary to have a look at three or four documents at the same time to see what has taken place in regard to subdivisions, deductions, servitudes and any number of other endorsements which appear on various deeds. There was a time in the deeds registry in the Cape Province when conditions were not carried forward from an original deed to succeeding deeds. Even today it is necessary to consult the original title to find out what the conditions are. Those are the sort of problems one has in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. Under the system to which the hon. the Minister says all the other registrars have agreed, one can only view, in isolation …

I did not say all the other registrars; I said all the registrars bar one.

Is that not the same? All the registrars bar one is the same as all the other registrars excepting one. I said before that I could make a jolly good guess that it must have been the man who is in charge of the Cape Province deeds registry.

Why did you guess that?

I guessed that because I know about the particular difficulties. I have just been discussing the difficulties and I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is not paying due attention to what I am saying, because this is very instructive. I suggest he should listen.

In other deeds registries it may not be necessary to view more than one document at the same time, and one may be quite satisfied to view one at a time because one does not have to consult any others. If that same system, however, is applied here in the Cape Province, where one has to consult five documents at the same time and make certain comparisons, it is quite impossible to do so with this microfilm system because one can only see one microfilmed document at a time. There is no provision to see more than one at a time. I think that that is the most important aspect of conveyancing in the Cape Province.

I suggest that the hon. the Minister has gone into this matter without due regard to the troubles that are going to result in regard to the deeds registry of Cape Town where all these old titles are to be found and where these searches have to be done regularly. I mentioned the fact that on any day of the year more than 1 000 consultations and searches for documents take place in the deeds registry of the Cape. I should like to see how that is going to be possible with the microfilm system. I know it will not work, and I have told the hon. the Minister so earlier on, but he is quite convinced that, because the microfilm system may work in younger deeds registries where these troubles may not occur, it has to work in the Cape Province as well. That, of course, is a lot of poppy-cock! I would go so far as to say that the deeds registry in Cape Town is the mother of deeds registries and anything that anybody learned about conveyancing they first learned in this deeds registry. Anybody that claims that the system might work in the Transvaal or in the Free State, is welcome to it as long as he does not come and fiddle with my system in Cape Town. [Interjections.] Why should this very excellent system, which is claimed to be the finest system in the world, for the registration of deeds, be fiddled with simply because other deeds registries in other parts of the country feel they would like to have theirs fiddled with? I would prefer that they could keep their fiddling away from the Cape Province. Here we have a Bill which is going to make a complete mess of deeds registration. The hon. the Minister will have to come back to this House, if not in this session, then in the next, and introduce other legislation in order either to make an exception of the Cape Province or to amend this legislation.

The hon. the Minister says that it is working well, but he does not tell us what is working well. We do not know what is working well in the Transvaal. We know that certain registers have been put on to a computer and by pressing a button one sees what is in the register. But it is a register, not the original documents. They might be original registers, but they are not original documents of title. Those are the ones I am worried about. I do not give a fig for the fact that a record is brought to sight by pressing a button on a computer; it may be quite a good idea, but what I have against that is the fact that one sometimes wants to consult a register confidentially, one does not want other people to know that one is consulting it. One now has to go to the lady who operates the computer and ask her whether you can see the specific register. Usually one stands in a queue together with 20 or 30 other people who are wanting to see something else, but they see and hear what information you want and they might start finding out why one seeks the information. The confidentiality of the whole system goes for a loop, and it is going to be a very poor system indeed. I hope the hon. the Minister has a very enjoyable night on the passage of this Bill and I hope he sleeps very well on what he has achieved, because he has made a complete muck of deeds registrations.

Why is Sir Jack in the Cape the only man in step? [Interjections.]

I do not think that is the case. I do not know where the hon. member for Aliwal gained his experience of deeds registrations. I have an idea that he gained it in Cape Town. I am very surprised indeed to hear him saying that, because I thought that he was just as proud of this deeds registry as I am. I am so interested in deeds registries that wherever I go in foreign countries, I visit theirs. On every one of these occasions that I have gone to a foreign deeds registry and they hear I come from South Africa, they have been delighted, because they say our deeds registry is the finest in the world. It is the only positive registration there is, and now the hon. the Minister wants to destroy it. He does not know what he is doing. He admitted it in the Senate when he said he know nothing about the Bill, but was still introducing it. I really cannot credit this.

I did not say that. I said that I was not a conveyancer. I know as much about it as you do.

The hon. the Minister says that he did not say in the Senate that he knew nothing about conveyancing.

I said I was not a conveyancer.

That is exactly what I said. I said the hon. the Minister was not a conveyancer and that he knew nothing about it. Now, however, the hon. the Minister wants to introduce a system, but he does not know how it is going to work.

I know how it is going to work.

No, the hon. Minister does not know. What I have told the hon. the Minister today, he definitely did not know. It is a pity that we are now going to destroy this fine system, because even if the hon. the Minister gives the assurance now that he will not allow the original documents to be handed over to conveyancers and will not allow any record to be destroyed either, I would contend nevertheless, that today he has proposed the beginning of the destruction of the Deeds Office. What use is the hon. the Minister’s assurance once this legislation is on the Statute Book. It is of no use.

The hon. the Minister said the following in the Senate during his speech on 17 February 1977 (Senate Hansard, column 322)—

†What does it mean? Does it not mean that the hon. the Minister does not know what this legislation is going to do? He obviously does not know. It is such a tragedy to think that the hon. member for Aliwal, who should be sitting next to the hon. the Minister and should be telling him where he is going wrong, is championing the hon. the Minister and is telling the hon. the Minister: Go ahead, destroy this wonderful deeds registration system. It is a most pathetic affair and I do hope the hon. the Minister may not have that nightmare that I have predicted he is going to have tonight. I hope that he will perhaps have better thoughts, second thoughts, before the end of this session and that he will then do what I have asked him to do, viz. to have a very thorough personal inspection into the deeds registry of Cape Town so that he can understand exactly what takes place there before he allows anything to be done under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I just rise to tell the hon. member that I am not prepared and have no intention to try to reply to his chauvinistic remarks. The hon. member knows full well that I have adopted the standpoint throughout that existing records will be preserved. He will be able to rummage in the records to his heart’s content. However, I want to assure the hon. member that microfilming means renovation and modernization. That is why the hon. member’s party is sitting where it is sitting today and that is why his party is in that condition. His party is obdurate, stone-dead and incapable of moving ahead.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

If a law empowers anybody in authority to delegate specific powers, the delegation of such powers must take place within the framework of the empowering provision. In many laws the power granted to a Minister or other authority to delegate the powers entrusted to him by the law, is couched in such a way that the powers can only be delegated to a specific person and not to the holder of an office as such. In view of the fact that such powers are normally exercised by the holders of particular offices, they often have to be delegated de novo several times when there is an interchange of the office bearers concerned. It takes a great deal of organization and unnecessary work to give effect to the legal position.

This Bill seeks to rectify the position so that the relative powers may also be delegated to the holders of offices as such.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this side of the House is concerned, we find the Bill to be technically quite in order. It fills a gap which obviously exists in section 10 of the Interpretation Act. I do, however, want to say something else about this question of delegation of power. This has indeed gone very far in our country today and in many senses has continued a process which started some years ago whereby in many respects the sovereignty of Parliament is eroded. But of course it was a necessary evil; it is part of our system today. With the ever expanding activities of the State and with the ever expanding activities of the Ministers and their departments, it is obviously a necessary evil. It is interesting to note that this House has not been unmindful of the wide ramifications and perhaps some of the possible inequities that might ensue as a result of this delegation of power. At one time, Sir, it was customary for legislation to provide that only the Head of State could make regulations which had the force of law. During the period of Union it was the Governor General who had this power, and today it is the President. This process presupposed that the matter actually was dealt with by the Cabinet as part of the executive, administrative process of the country. We cannot deny that the affairs of State have grown tremendously, but I do think that a tremendous amount of caution must be exercised in the delegation of these powers. I wonder if it would not be timely to think once again of the days of 1949, when this Government itself appointed a Select Committee on delegated legislation, a Committee which brought back a unanimous report with regard to this matter. It is interesting to note what that report asked for. The Committee stated that it had carefully considered previous reports of Select Committees on delegated legislation, and then continued—

1. (a) that they appear to make any unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which they are framed;
2. (b) that they tend to usurp the control of the House over expenditure and taxation;
3. (c) that they tend to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts of law without explicit enactment;
4. (d) that for any reason their form or purport calls for elucidation or special attention.

It went on to suggest that a standing Select Committee of the House be established, to which the scrutineer could make his report for the consideration of the Select Committee. It would then report back to Parliament as to whether these powers perhaps in any way go too far or actually usurp judicial functions or the legislative sovereignty of Parliament itself. There is, after all, an effort in our parliamentary system to keep the legislative, executive, administrative and judicial functions as separate as possible. That is, of course, not terribly easy under present-day conditions. It is also interesting to note that no less a personage than Dr. Holloway, a very highly respected Secretary for Finance in years gone by, made the following statement before the Select Committee in the course of its inquiries (evidence of 25 March 1949; page 10)—

I bring this to the notice of the House merely to ask whether this may not be the time to give some consideration to the thoughts expressed in those days and to the unanimous decision of a Select Committee in which, I think, there was a preponderance of Government members. Even our present State President was a member of that Select Committee and took part in those discussions. It must be remembered that, in the delegation of power and the making of regulations, what is taking place is virtually an enactment of law because such regulations are binding on the citizens. They have the same binding power as the law. Other decisions are very often in effect of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature and they affect the lives of people in many ways. They affect the livelihood and liberty of subjects, they affect the property of people and the dignity of the individual. Therefore it has very many ramifications.

This is of course not the occasion in which to oppose in any way the passage of this measure. After all, this amending legislation aims to fill a gap in the Interpretation Act itself. It deals with powers which have already been imposed and entrusted to the Minister by some statute. He already has the power to delegate. This merely enables the Minister to cover the problem he elaborated in his Second Reading speech. It provides that if a function is entrusted to an official by virtue of the office he holds, that particular official will carry out the delegated powers. However, I do think we should give a little more thought to the whole question of delegated powers. In the past we have complained for instance about the situation where powers are delegated not only to a specific official mentioned but very often to any official of a department. I think that, as regards the question of the Minister entrusting or delegating powers to an official, this should not only be approached with great caution but, if possible, the powers should be delegated to the most responsible official of the particular department. If necessary, it should be the actual Secretary of the department, who is the highest executive official under the Minister, and not “any official” of a particular department as is stipulated in a number of statutes at present on our Statute Book. I find that a great deal of our problems arise from the fact that the delegation of powers is spread far too widely with regard to the officials in a department so that there is no clear consistency of policy. This whole procedure could be more effective if such steps were always taken in consultation with the Minister concerned and if a proper line of policy is laid down and adhered to, thereby avoiding any possible confusion in the minds of the people involved. We have many departments whose administration covers a great deal of the domestic life of the community and it is in that field where I think the importance of the entrusting of delegated powers becomes more and more evident. My feeling is that in departments where the Ministers concerned have the right to delegate power, that power should go principally to the Secretary of the department or, perhaps, to a man immediately under him.

It does not apply to this Bill, but in many senses the Bill itself indicates that it can be indefinite in its sense, because it talks about a person occupying a particular office and the power being delegated to him in his capacity as the holder of that office, or any other person. That means it has wide ramifications with regard to the officialdom to whom such power may be delegated in a department. I hope that I have made a point which the hon. the Minister will appreciate and I would appreciate his having a look at the contents of the report of the Select Committee or referring the matter to the appropriate Minister, who I think could possibly be the Minister of the Interior. I am not sure if it is he, but in any case it should be referred to the appropriate Minister, or possibly the matter could even be considered at Cabinet level because if the hon. the Minister will take the time to read the report of the Select Committee and the evidence which was led, he will find that the evidence was given by some of the leading officials of the State. It could possibly be of vital importance to the better and in many senses, more constructive, administration of these powers which flow through various departments in the course of delegation from various Ministers. With these few words I would like the hon. the Minister to know that we in these benches will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Jeppe. I must say that having listened to him, I agree with him, and I think that other hon. Ministers in charge of departments should take into account the aspects of the speech of the hon. member for Jeppe when drafting legislation. I think that sometimes a too wide delegation of important powers is not at all desirable. The debate so far on this Bill and the explanation by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech are simple enough and I believe this Bill is very easy to support. Delegation in this world of ever widening bureaucracy is probably essential and clarity on the delegation of power facilitates this function and avoids confusion. However, if I might raise one small point with the hon. the Minister, I am not at all certain that this Bill is exactly correctly worded. As I read the document, it has the effect of permitting the delegation of authority to any particular person, regardless of the person to whom the Minister is authorized to delegate such powers in terms of the empowering act. Allow me to illustrate this point. When the Minister is authorized “to delegate the exercise or performance of such power, duty or function to any other person”, this is deemed to mean now that the Minister may delegate such duty “to the holder of an office as such”, to which we have no objection, or to “any particular person”, which I think is too wide. To give effect to what I think is the intention of the Bill, when the Minister is authorized to delegate a function to any other person, the wording should be that he may delegate to “any such person” or to the holder of an office as such. I think the amendment which the hon. the Minister would want should not go further than that. If the wording is changed in this minimal way—and I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate the point—the true intention of the Bill emerges without widening too far the scope of delegation. In any event we shall support the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, in these modern times delegation is a necessity of life. This is a necessary amendment and we in these benches shall not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I take cognizance of what the hon. member for Jeppe said. I shall definitely look up the reference which he quoted, and give it my consideration. As regards the hon. member for Sandton, it would appear to me as though he was having a Committee Stage discussion with me at this stage, but it does not matter whether we discuss the matter at that stage or whether we discuss it now in principle. I want to tell him that I have resubmitted his proposed amendment, which he wants to move during the Committee Stage, and that we have come to the conclusion that the wording which appears in the Bill is the correct wording. If we look at the hon. member’s suggestion in connection with the possible amendment, we see that he refers to “such person”. However, if the hon. member reads the preceding few lines, he will see that it is “such power”. I quote—

†The words “such power” are used, and not “such person”. This in fact refers to “any other person”. As regards the wording “the holder of an office as such”, we have no argument about that. It cannot, however, be “such person”, because “such person” is not referred to above. “Any other person” is referred to.

*Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the wording is quite correct, and I want to indicate at this stage already that if the hon. member moves his amendment as printed, it will not be possible for me to accept it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister insists that he will not accept the amendment, I shall not move it. However, there is one thing I would like to mention to the hon. the Minister. The Minister of State has the authority to delegate the exercise of “such power” to “any other person”. That means any person other than the hon. the Minister. It could mean that he has to delegate it to a particular person, or to any person. Now, there are two sets of circumstances. The power as it is granted gives the right to the hon. the Minister to delegate such power, duty or function to the holder of an office as such or to any particular person. This may mean that whereas the Minister is authorized in the original delegation to delegate the power to a particular person, the Minister is now entitled in fact to delegate to any person of his choice, not taking into account the particular person mentioned in the power.

That was the idea behind the amendment. If the hon. the Minister does not agree with me, I will not pursue the matter.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill makes provision for the repeal of a further 64 measures, as proposed by the South African Law Commission after consultation with interested parties. As you are aware, the commission took upon itself the task of revising the existing pre-Union Laws, and during the previous session, too, a large number of measures were repealed.

The revision of pre-Union Laws is now nearing completion. If this Bill is adopted, only about 100 of the measures will remain. It is expected that the majority of the remaining laws will have to remain for an indefinite period. The indications are that the commission will recommend that as a final step, legislation will be passed putting the position in regard to unrepealed pre-Union Laws beyond all doubt. Such a Bill may possibly be introduced during the next Parliamentary session.

I should like to suggest, that should any doubt exist in regard to any measure it is proposed to repeal, questions may be asked in this connection at the Committee Stage. The necessary information can then be given in the light of the explanations the commission has submitted to me.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are extremely grateful to the hon. the Minister, because in this Bill he has not only finally buried Sir John Cradock, but also arranged for us to have the wake. [Interjections.] Sir Cradock’s spirit has been pervading our debates here for quite a long time. I am indeed very grateful that not only the Minister, but also the Law Commission saw fit to place this man at rest for all time.

The matter has been debated so often in this House that I do not think one need repeat too much of what has been said in the past. However, at the risk of being chauvinistic in so far as the Cape Province is concerned, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that the people of the Cape Province are particularly grateful that this Cradock Proclamation is being laid to rest. What actually was happening all these years, was that the people of the Cape Province, and particularly the farmers of the Cape Province, were being discriminated against merely because their farms were in the Cape Province. Now, all farmers everywhere in the Republic will be dealt with in exactly the same way, namely if land or materials are taken from their farms for the purpose of the construction of public roads that material and land will be paid for.

Unfortunately, there is a little matter of a difference in regard to a certain ordinance passed by the Cape Provincial Council last year in which they specify that only materials which are being exploited need be paid for. However, they have to a certain extent left the door open by saying that the divisional council may, out of the goodness of its heart, pay for materials that are not necessarily being exploited. To a very large extent the bugbear of Sir John Cradock’s proclamation as far as the farmers of the Cape Province are concerned, is now laid to rest. When land is in future expropriated for whatever purpose in regard to the construction of roads, market value will be paid in terms of the Expropriation Act. This will be a great relief to many hundreds of farmers in the Cape Province who have had the spectre of expropriation haunting them for many, many years with the divisional council concerned, saying: “We need not pay you a cent for what we take from you but if we feel like it, we will give you something, but you must not expect to get the true value. ’ ’ This was a terrible thing because, in fact, it was a sort of legalized blackmail. The divisional council could then say to the owner that if he did not ask for too much, they might pay him for the land. However, the farmer was never told how much “too much” was. In most cases the unfortunate farmer received very little, in many cases nothing at all, for the land that was taken. Another rather extraordinary situation which occurred was that if the Provincial Administration of the Cape were to employ contractors to build main roads in the Cape Province, those contractors would step into the shoes of the Government and be able to take materials without paying for them. This now at least comes to an end and we on this side of the House are extremely grateful.

There is something else which is being removed with this Bill, something which is also an old link with the past. It is perhaps a happier one than the one I have just described. I am referring to the old boards of executors and trust companies which originated in the Cape Province many years ago. Many of them originated merely as partnerships—they were not registered companies—and a large number of them had trouble and found that their boards of directors eventually had to cough up if anything went wrong. I think that that is probably what sparked off the fact that when the Malmesbury Board of Executors and Trust Company and Fire Insurance Company decided to continue with their business, it came to the old Cape Parliament and asked it to give it the protection of an Act of Parliament. To what extent the company was protected by that Act of Parliament, I do not know, because I believe it was not a limited company and the directors were still personally responsible. What is interesting is that Cape Act, No. 9 of 1865, merely gave the Malmesbury Board of Executors and Trust and Fire Insurance Company a lifetime of 20 years, after which it would cease to exist. So in 1884 we had another Act of the old Cape Parliament extending the life of the Malmesbury Board of Executors. This time the words “and Fire Insurance Company” were left out. It seems as if their fire insurance business was not very profitable and that they decided not to do this any more, with the result that they continued as a trust company only. In 1889, however, they again, through the old Cape Parliament, became incorporated, this time also as a Trust and Fire Insurance Company”. I believe that the fact that this happened shows how the fortunes of underwriters fared in the Cape Province, because it must have been a very profitable business in 1889, whereas in 1884 it could not have been so.

It is interesting to know why these trust companies really came into existence. It was because people in smaller towns in the Cape Province generally felt that they needed some perpetual succession in regard particularly to the administrators of their estates. It is for that particular purpose that they came into existence. They did not only do that. They also looked after the affairs of their members. First of all, they restricted business to their members only; if one was a shareholder in one of these companies, it was a great tussle to buy a share in them, because they were very tightly held and the board of directors had the final say as to whether a new member could be admitted or not. In effect it was very much like a club. During the early days many of these trust companies functioned as clubs. I know of one, in which I was interested, which was known as the Paarl Board of Executors, which only quite recently was taken over by another bigger firm. They operated like a club until quite recently.

If one wanted to transfer shares from one member to another, one had to make out a jolly good case. The board of directors had it in its discretion to refuse the transfer. They looked after the affairs of their members from the cradle to the grave. They did everything for them, and it was this very personal touch that people appreciated. One can well imagine that anyone bereaved would want some very personal attention, and this is what these trust companies gave. They gave the widow very personal attention and they looked well after her. They did everything for her, for example they invested her money, looked after her until her death and looked after her children as well. This was a great service which these trust companies performed. Unfortunately nowadays, with business pressure as it is, these services are something of the past. It is a very sad thought that the very personal attention that one used to receive from trust companies, is a thing of the past; one does not find it any more. The Malmesbury Board of Executors and Trust Company has also been taken over and today forms part of a very big concern. One can only hope that the personal service which was given could be perpetuated, but I believe that in these times it is very difficult for a big company to do that. Be that as it may, it is an interesting history, and I think in future people will look back on the Malmesbury Board of Executors and Trust Company with a great deal of nostalgia, when they think about the earlier days of the company and about what it did for the people of the whole Malmesbury district.

Mr. Speaker, I found it most interesting to listen to the hon. member for Wynberg, especially to the history lesson which he has given us. I think it has been of value to many people who have interests in the Cape. A Bill of this nature, however, is always interesting, because it reflects the rapid changes which have taken place in a relatively short period of time. It deals with the demise of obsolete laws reflecting the way of life and customs of yesterday. The deliberation on the Bill should not take long. There are only one or two questions I should like to ask.

The first question I should like to pose relates to clause 2(1) of the Bill. It concerns rights of a special nature allowed to Blacks, for instance exemption from the then pass laws, exemption from certain of the liquor laws, the service contract laws, hut tax, etc. As I understand it, these were pegged to those qualified to vote on the last Black voters roll, which, I think, was drawn up in 1954. Since then there have been a myriad of laws limiting the rights of Blacks in all the fields that I have mentioned. What benefit is there at the present time to those who last qualified for these rights in 1954? What benefit is there for those people by the passing of this clause? Are there any real benefits, or is this clause merely window-dressing? I am sure all of us would like to know.

Clause 3 also provokes a certain amount of comment The archaic Roman doctrine of laesio enormis absolved a seller of land from his obligation; in other words, it allowed him to cancel the contract if it was shown that the price set out for the land concerned was less than one half of the actual value of the property. It was a weak doctrine of many years ago; it did not allow of freedom of contract and it suffered accordingly in the juridical pronouncements and the law of our country. It was abolished in the Cape by Act 8 of 1879, by Ordinance 5 of 1902 in the Orange Free State and it was finally abolished in the Transvaal and Natal by Act 32 of 1952. Why then, as the margin note misleadingly reads, abolish the doctrine all over again? After all, it has been dead since 1952. The answer is, of course, to be found in the schedule, for in terms of this Bill we are abolishing the instruments which originally abolished the doctrine. If this clause were not included in the Bill, the old Roman doctrine of laesio enormis would find itself un-abolished all of a sudden in the Cape and the Orange Free State and metaphorically that doctrine would ride again. It will then, no doubt, cause havoc among contracting parties in South Africa. I must say, however, in these times of low land prices, I see very few sellers finding themselves able to avail themselves of the remedy. We will accordingly support this Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg must be very pleased with himself in that, in clause 4 he now reburies Sir John Cradock. The hon. member for Wynberg must also have a certain amount of regret for after all it is Sir John Cradock who gave him the opportunity to make some of his finest speeches. We wish, however, to pay tribute to the hon. member for Wynberg today for his persistence in getting Sir John Cradock buried and I believe he played a large part in this regard. We fully realize that this particular clause does not cure the defects in the Cape Province that property owners will suffer when materials are removed from their properties for road purposes, for as we have heard, the problem exists with the Roads Traffic Ordinance of 1976. However, we on this side of the House will not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to agree with the previous speaker that what we have here is actually the reburial of the specific proclamation and it is to my utmost regret that I want to suggest that not the hon. member for Constantia, but the hon. member for Wynberg should act as undertaker. If he so wishes, he may also read the funeral notice of the specific proclamation.

It is interesting to look at legislation of this nature, because in it one finds principles which may be applied even in modern times, and in this regard I refer to two pieces of legislation in particular which were applicable in the Orange Free State, and these are Act 8 of 1908, which dealt with extortion and Act 10 of 1908, which dealt with gambling. Today in the Orange Free State the same principle applies, i.e. that in the political sphere the inhabitants of the Orange Free State never risk gambling.

In conclusion, as regards Natal, there is also some interesting legislation which is being repealed. It deals with idle people, with people who act in a disorderly fashion, and with vagrants. This is Act 15 of 1869. A few weeks ago a few members of Natal experienced problems with people who wanted to be political vagrants.

Mr. Speaker, the continued revision of Pre-Union Statutes by the Law Commission is welcomed by this side of the House. On occasions, however, there are statutes which, I believe, if repealed, can have far-reaching effects. On looking through this particular Bill, I have in fact found one such Law and I have in fact been specifically requested to discuss this matter in the House with the hon. the Minister in the hope that he may be prepared to review his decision in regard to the repeal of this particular law. The one that I specifically refer to is Act 22 of 1863 mention of which will be found in the schedule which is referred to in clause 1 of the Bill. In the schedule it states that this is a law to prevent community of goods attaching to certain marriages and to enable the spouses of such a marriage to devise their properties. Now, what happens in regard to this particular very old Act which was passed in Natal in 1863 and subsequently amended by Act 17 of 1871 and 14 of 1882? It basically provides that if any male person domiciled in the Province of Natal contracts a marriage outside South Africa then the following provisions will apply—

What it actually does, is that to Natalians it gives the opportunity or allows a male marrying elsewhere in the world to be married out of community of property whereas I who come from the Cape Province and happen to be a bachelor and go outside this country and be married elsewhere in the world, my marriage will be governed by the law of my domicile, which is that I marry according to the laws of South Africa, namely that I will be married in community of property. The second very interesting aspect is that if this particular party marries overseas and this law in fact applies, then those two parties can at any time during the existence of that marriage, revert back to a situation where their marriage will be regarded as being in community of property. This is still law today.

The Law Commission looked at this very carefully, and I have studied the report of the Law Commission—Project No. 7 of 1973. I found that in regard to the various provisions of this particular legislation they had certain comments to make. Generally speaking they maintain that the provisions of this Act are not representative of living law. It had, in other words, become virtually abrogated by disuse, that the provisions of the Act were not being applied. In regard to section 2—the section which I have just read out—they regard it as creating an unjustifiable anomaly in the legal situation of the Republic of South Africa. They maintain that section 3 of this old law, under the heading of “Certain Impediments Against the Power of Devising Property Removed”, dealt with the question of disposing of various goods by will or by codicil. They regarded that section as being unnecessary because the law of our land prevails. I agree. That it is correct.

Section 4, which provides that “every person married elsewhere than in South Africa and resident in Natal may by will or codicil devise all of his property” is a similar type of provision, which is considered to be redundant because it is already covered by our laws. Section 5 has already been repealed by Act 13 of 1934. Section 6 deals with the question of property acquired during the marriage of the spouses coming under the provisions of this law belongs to the husband. Therefore, all income and earnings by both spouses, although they are theoretically married out of community of property, must be controlled and looked after and become the property of the husband. I do not know what the hon. member for Houghton thinks about this, but this is a very interesting state of affairs.

I am listening very closely.

The Law Commission maintains that this section 6 was contrary to the consequences of a marriage out of community of property, and I believe that that is correct as well. Section 7 was repealed by a previous Act. Section 8 was not factual because, quite peculiarly, it gave a definition of what South Africa was in those old days. It says that the word “’South Africa’ shall be taken to mean and include any place or territory in South Africa being to the southward of the 25th degree of south latitude”. We all know that there are places in South Africa which lie to the north of that. One of those, I believe, is Hammanskraal. That is completely redundant and not factual and sections 9 and 10 are of no importance in this discussion.

I have information from Natal that this Act is applied today, that it is in fact living law. In order to prove this situation there are numerous occasions when, for instance, conveyancers, record in their deeds that the parties are married out of community of property according to the requirements of section 2 of Law 22 of 1863. Therefore it is in fact something that still applies today as far as Natal is concerned. Therefore their statement to the effect that it is not living law is not quite right.

Secondly, they maintain that there was an unjustifiable anomaly in regard to section 2 which concerns the question of a person who leaves the country to marry elsewhere. I take issue with that point of view. What can happen is that a party who leaves Natal and marries in a foreign country is quite entitled to register an antenuptial contract before in fact getting married. This contract can then be registered within a period of six months after the marriage. Presumably, the couple will return to the country within six months after their marriage and will then have the contract registered. There is an advantage in registering an antenuptial contract in these particular cases because, in terms of an antenuptial contract, one may waive the rights of the marital power. In terms of this Act there is no provision for the waiver of the marital power other than the proviso which maintains that all the earnings and income of both spouses during the maintenance of that marriage must accrue to the husband. That is not truly a waiver of the marital power. If one looks at the position objectively, one will see that there are great advantages to this system. Firstly, if parties marry overseas they are frequently unaware of the fact that the place where they are marrying does not govern the laws under which they are getting married. In other words, if they marry in England, they expect to be married out of community of property whereas in terms of the law they are marrying in community of property because they are domiciled in South Africa. They do not always realize that. However, this gives protection to the people from Natal who go overseas. I believe that we can consider extending this to the rest of South Africa.

Secondly, if one marries in a foreign country where foreign languages are used, invariably the notary public before whom the antenuptial contract is registered, if such antenuptial contract is going to be entered into, must be recorded in the language of that particular country. Consequently, the contract has to be translated at great expense and ultimately registered in South Africa itself.

I want to say, too, that if these parties automatically marry out of community of property they still have the right in terms of section 2 of this old Act to revert. I might say that the method of reversion is a very simple one. It is simply “an instrument in writing signed by each of the parties”, that is by the married couple, “and subscribed to by two witnesses and registered before the Registrar of Deeds”. The fact that they can revert is not disadvantageous to anybody. Vice versa, of course, there are great disadvantages. If one marries in community of property and one has this right to revert to a marriage out of community of property, it could prejudice creditors. But if one marries automatically out of community of property and one has the right to revert to an in community situation, then I do not believe that this will be disadvantageous to any creditors. In regard to our present law of marriage, it is a completely irreversible step when one gets married under our laws, because once one marries without an antenuptial contract, it is virtually impossible to change one’s marital status after that, whereas in this case the parties themselves can at any time during the marriage change the situation, according to the interpretation that I put on this particular provision. I believe there is lots of merit in this, and it is very likely that if the hon. the Minister persists in having this particular law repealed, we may find that in years to come we will adjust our marriage laws to the extent that all persons in South Africa will automatically marry out of community of property and have the right if they so desire to revert to an in community situation.

Before going on to another aspect I want to say that I agree that sections 3 to 9 should be repealed. However, I believe that we should retain section 2. It has merit. I believe that we can still allow the people in Natal to enjoy the provisions of this particular Act while repealing those which are really not in line with our thinking and with the situation in South Africa and as a result somewhat archaic.

There are two other matters which I think the hon. the Minister should consider. Firstly, what will happen to those persons who have been married according to this Act and we repeal it now? Secondly, what will happen to those persons who are married according to this Act and wish to change the situation in terms of section 2? I believe that the Interpretation Act does cover it to an extent. Section 12(2) of the Interpretation Act states that—

I believe that this might cover the situation, but I would like to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that those persons who were married according to this Act, will be entitled in the future to change the situation in terms of the Act now to be repealed without any deleterious consequences. I know it is asking quite a lot of the hon. the Minister, because if the parties were to end up in a court of law, the mere fact that the Minister gave his assurance in this connection would not give them much protection if the law proved him wrong. I feel that the hon. the Minister should consider this matter very carefully, that he should have regard to the representations which have been made to me and which I am now conveying to him, and I hope that in the course of time he will also have an opportunity of perhaps placing before the Law Commission a general request that they investigate the question of marriage rather automatically out of community of property than in community of property.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a very interesting Bill here. In reality, if one pages through the Bill, just about the entire history of South Africa unfolds before one’s eyes. I want to thank the hon. member for Wynberg for what I thought was an interesting contribution to the debate. I think that the Malmesbury people, if I remember correctly, now fall under the Boland Bank. As far as the hon. member for East London City is concerned, I hold the same opinion he does, although we cannot of course say here what interpretation the courts should give to it, but I am of the opinion that the existing rights which people have is being protected in terms of this Bill. Perhaps I could read to the hon. members, the comment of the Law Commission on section 2 of the old Act. Prof. Harlow regards it as—

Unfortunately the reasons for the misgivings are not indicated. Hahlo and Olivier share the opinion that the said section refers to the case where the husband was domiciled in Natal although the marriage was contracted outside South Africa. This provision has strange consequences, to say the least of it. In South Africa the domicile of the husband when the marriage is contracted determines the consequences of the marriage on property if the parties do not share the same domicile. As soon as the husband is domiciled in Natal, however, and were to marry a woman outside South Africa in community of property, this general rule is no longer applicable and he and his spouse first have to process a document in Natal again before community of property can become operative—

The hon. member referred to this as well—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add—as the hon. member also submitted—that clause 2 is probably a good clause, a clause which ought to be taken into consideration. I shall bring the hon. member’s speech to the attention of the Law Commission so that they can give attention to the matter again. However, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that the chairman of the Law Commission is of course one of the most prominent lawyers in Natal. He must certainly have been aware of the working of the old Act, and would therefore not have supported this view if he had not really agreed with it. Nevertheless I undertake to bring the matter to the attention of the Law Commission again.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether the woman member of the Law Commission who has been appointed to go into the question of matrimonial affairs, divorce, etc., would also have an opportunity of examining this?

Mr. Speaker, I presume she will have that opportunity. However, I shall bring it to the notice of the Law Commission and request them to grant her that opportunity.

*The hon. member for Sandton referred to the old Act, an Act which has been repealed. I should just like to quote to him what the opinion of the Law Commission on this matter is. It relates to Act No. 39 of 1887 (Cape)—

That is the position.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As you know, Sir, an Attorney-General or public prosecutor must decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted in connection with a death not due to natural causes. If such proceedings are not instituted, a magistrate must hold an inquest as to the circumstances and cause of the death. The purpose thereof is to obtain, if possible, a final ruling whether the death was brought about by any act or omission involving, or amounting to, an offence on the part of any person.

The Inquests Act, 1959, requires that all records of proceedings of inquests must be forwarded to the Attorney-General, even if it was found at the inquest that the death was not brought about by any act or omission involving an offence on the part of any person. It is not the function of Attorneys-General to review the decisions of judicial officers, and the submission of a large number of these records to them is therefore unnecessary. In this regard it may be mentioned that 18 997 such records were submitted to the various Attorneys-General during 1974, and during 1975 this number increased to 19 727.

In clause 1 of the Bill provision is made for the submission of the records concerned only where it is found that a death was brought about by an act or omission involving or amounting to an offence on the part of any person, where no finding can be recorded or when the submission is requested by the Attorney-General concerned. A considerable amount of unnecessary work and costs will be saved thereby.

The other provisions of the Bill are of a consequential nature.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has been very short in introducing this measure. He justified and motivated the Bill mainly on the grounds of expediency, in that a lot of unnecessary work is entailed in submitting every report of every inquest to the Attorney-General. The hon. the Minister gave a figure of 19 727 records submitted to the Attorney-General per year. Does he mean that this is the total number of records or only of those …

All the records.

Is the hon. the Minister able to tell us in how many cases the finding was that the death was due to misadventure? We do not exactly know from the hon. the Minister’s introduction what work is going to be saved. From what he has told us, and it is also clear from the Bill, the present position is that all the records of all the inquests must be forwarded to the Attorney-General. If this Bill is passed only those cases will be submitted where a magistrate was unable to come to a decision, or unable to make a finding in terms of section 16(2), or where he definitely finds, in terms of subsection (2)(b), that an offence has been committed, or where the Attorney-General himself requests the records.

As far as the motivation is concerned, the hon. the Minister has not helped us very much.

It is only in the case of misadventure.

It is only in the case of misadventure. The sole motivation here is that it will save unnecessary work. He must come with a case which is better prepared than this because, after all, he is asking us to change a very old procedure, a procedure which has developed over the years. I notice that he did say in the Other Place that it is also to streamline our procedure, keeping it in line with the amendments he has introduced in Parliament to streamline our criminal procedure. The change he now proposes, however, is mainly a material change. We are unable to accept it as he has presented it. What we find difficult to accept, is that the magistrate may not be able to find that an offence has been committed and that death may be due to misadventure. No matter how efficient a magistrate is, he does make mistakes. The hon. the Minister must know of cases where the magistrate has made mistakes or has made findings that death was due to misadventure, while the police have completed their inquiries and have prosecuted and convicted a person. When I say that the magistrate may err, I am not attacking the magistrate. Because of the fact that magistrates may err, we made provisions in our law for automatic review by the Supreme Court of magistrates’ decisions. Very often the magistrate’s findings are upset. The hon. the Minister is not suggesting that there should be done away with automatic review in all cases. I ask him to bear this in mind and not merely—together with other members on that side—to attack us on this side of the House because we oppose this by saying that we are attacking the magistrates in our system of justice.

I have not yet said a word.

I know, but you might say it just now.

I am sitting here quite innocently.

I am not worried about the hon. the Minister so much as about some of his colleagues on the other side. In the circumstances appertaining in South Africa today, it is essential that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. When I say that, I am not only thinking of overseas consumption, but of internal consumption as well. This applies not only to the death of people in detention or in a gaol, but to any death, whether it be at home, on the sports field or anywhere else.

Unfortunately it is true that lately there have been a number of deaths while in detention. When I talk about deaths in detention, I do not only mean of people who have been detained for political reasons, but also of those who are in custody for any other reason. I think the hon. the Minister will know that we do not always see the results of inquests on the death of people in custody or being detained. The hon. the Minister can perhaps tell us what the findings of the magistrates have been in regard to the 18 persons who have died in detention. But, be that as it may, whether he gives us the reasons or not, I myself have no doubt whatsoever that there must be the fullest inquiry into the death of any person who dies while in custody or in detention. As the amended law will stand, the public will merely read that the magistrate has found that the death was due to an accident or through a misadventure. It should not be sufficient merely for a magistrate to have to decide whether an offence has been committed or not. The Attorney-General may have a different idea from that of the magistrate as to whether or not an offence has been committed and therefore I submit that all inquests should be continued and that all records should continue to be sent to the Attorney-General. In the Other Place we indicated that we wished to move an amendment to the Bill to ensure, at any rate, that the records of the inquests into the deaths of persons who died while being detained, would be forwarded to the Attorney-General. That amendment, however, was ruled out of order and I have no doubt that the same amendment will be ruled out of order here, so we are not in the position to move an amendment of that nature. In any case, the hon. the Minister indicated in the Other Place that he would not be prepared to accept such an amendment. What we can ask the hon. the Minister to do is to give us the assurance that he will, at any rate, instruct the Attorney-General—I do not know whether a Minister can instruct an Attorney-General, but at least he can make his wishes known to him—that where a death has taken place in custody, in the case of a detainee, a criminal or anybody else being held in custody or being detained, the Attorney-General will in such circumstances request the magistrate to forward to him a record of the inquest, because there is provision in this amending Bill for the Attorney-General to make such a request. That will help to allay some of our misgivings about this measure. In view of the fact that we are not able to move an amendment to meet our case in the Committee Stage, we shall oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the hon. member for Griqualand East in this matter. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister—and I am sure it is nothing new to him to take this attitude, because the matter has been discussed in other spheres in connection with the Department of Justice—that the saving of money is not necessarily vital in the administration of his department. As my hon. friend has pointed out, it is not only a matter of justice being done, but also a matter of justice being seen to be done. After all, justice is very important in the interests and the daily life of the community. I should like to point out, from a different angle altogether, that many private people, i.e. families of deceased and other people who are in some way or another interested in the deceased, are very concerned indeed with the proceedings at inquests. Although provision is made for representation, it is not always so that those who are most affected are necessarily satisfied with the finding which has been made. From my personal experience as a legal practitioner in years gone by I know that were it not for the fact that one had the opportunity of communicating with the offices of the Attorney-General and at least ensuring to some extent that an effort was being made to either bring further attention to bear on what took place at the proceedings at the inquest, or alternatively to be advised of any additional evidence that might be forthcoming, these people would have felt very unhappy indeed. Only the Attorney-General can send the matter back for further evidence to be taken or for the inquest proceedings to be re-opened for further evidence to be taken.

These are measures which are in the interest of the community because they allay the fears and the apprehensions of the community as to whether they are receiving full recognition of their rights in the eyes of the law. That contains no inference whatsoever about the actual administration of justice itself. It is merely a question of the relationship between the citizens and the department which has been set up for the protection of the citizen himself. There must be a much closer and more kindred relationship between the two than merely that of department and citizen. For that reason I stress the importance of this whole issue, a very emotive issue in the minds of the community. For that reason one is not really satisfied—perhaps one may even say a little displeased—at the fact that it should be necessary to amend this Act in order to remove this inherent right, that the inquest proceedings should automatically go to the Attorney-General for his consideration. One does, of course, realize that there is a lot of work involved, as there is a steadily mounting volume of work in every Government department as the years go by. That is natural in the growth of every community, any nation, any people or any administration. However, it should not necessarily become a yardstick of the administrative processes of the country or of the administrative capacity of a country that it is going to cost a great deal of money to administer or that more staff will be required. I do not think that is a very strong deterrent, with all respect to the hon. the Minister’s views, nor do I think it is a very sound reason to break down a system which has over generations been part of the law of our country and more particularly, as I have said and I think it can bear emphasizing, the fact that it is an emotional issue and therefore one which could well bear the strain of any additional finance or manpower.

My hon. friend has also referred to other findings of misadventure. In some cases of misadventure it is not the end of the story when the magistrate is unable to come to any other finding than the finding that it was merely an accident. Very often there is much more contained in it, and I do not necessarily have in mind the examples that were given. I have in mind many other cases in our country where people have been found after having been apparently knocked down by a motor-car and where, for the lack of any other evidence, the view has been taken that there was no foul play. That is quite a common expression one hears, a common finding and a common opinion of those who must look for the protection of the citizen, particularly in the case of the loss of life. Possibly, without being aware of it, many go unpunished or many cases do not really receive the fullest attention or are not fully pursued in order to find out whether there was any wrongdoing. The magistrate can only deal with the matter according to the evidence and on that he must give judgment to the best of his ability. That is the best finding he can give under the circumstances, in keeping with the facts which he has found.

The other issue of detention my hon. friend has raised is perhaps a case in point. One does not know what the inquest indicates and one does not know what psychological factors played a part. It may well be possible that people who have died in custody have taken their lives. It is very possibly a psychological matter, but it is equally possible that it may be as a result of an administrative defect which could well be remedied and which would only be shown up by means of an inquest. I am sure that the hon. the Minister, as head of his department, has often been concerned about some of the deaths which have taken place in the course of the administration of justice and that he, at least, has the opportunity, through the Attorney-General, of being made aware of what goes on, what the inquest has illustrated and what facts have been found. I am sure that if necessary corrective and other measures are taken, even from a procedural point of view, that position can be remedied.

It is because we feel so much is being lost by this amendment and so little gained, by the reasons which motivated the hon. the Minister to present the amendment, that we feel that we cannot accept the amendment contained in the Bill. It is for no other reason at all; and I hope the hon. the Minister appreciates that. I do not know whether he will be able to help us, but we have had no break-down of the 19 000 cases. We also asked what the figure for misadventure was and how one could save on streamlining. In principle I must say that in the course of the administration of this type of work I feel that it is not a sound motivation, despite other economic factors, to take into account, purely as a basis for an amendment of this nature, the saving of funds and staff. I see that as the only basis that the hon. the Minister has used, because in this matter streamlining does not mean anything. Streamlining is a procedural matter and can warrant an organization-and-method investigation. The only thing that saves time here is the fact that fewer cases would appear. It is not a good reason to deny the normal growth of the department in so far as manpower is concerned and the funds that are at stake. On those grounds I would like the hon. the Minister to reconsider his Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the objections of the hon. members on that side of the House but with all due respect, it seems to me that they are reading things into this legislation that are not to be found in it. I look at clause 1 of the Bill and there I see written clearly: “Upon the determination of an inquest”. In an inquest as such, no change takes place and the status quo is maintained. The investigation is still made and certain administrative consequences stem from those facts. It states very clearly “Upon the determination;” in other words, after an inquest has been completed, certain consequences must be accepted. It also states here that in certain specific cases, the record of the proceedings shall be submitted to the Attorney-General. One may ask oneself: Why? It is often said: “Justice must not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to be done.” I want to say that this is exactly what is happening here. I want to ask those hon. members to look at this Bill through different spectacles, or at least through clean spectacles. Then they would discover that it was in fact, in favour of public administration of justice because when the record is submitted to the Attorney General in the three particular cases which are mentioned, there are two decisions he can make.

He can say that insufficient proper evidence was given in the investigation and he can decide to clear up a particular aspect by assembling more evidence on it. This is a built-in safeguard, an assurance. In the second place, it could happen that the magistrate does not give proper judgment according to the facts before him. This Bill makes provision for a second opinion because the Attorney-General can say that the magistrate did not give proper judgment and that the case is to be referred back for reconsideration. In other words, what is being established here, is better administration of justice and there is no reason for the hon. members to read into it what they do. It is written clearly in section 21 of the Act that no inquest excludes judicial consequences. Therefore, if there were to be more evidence and if there were to be dissatisfied persons, any family members for example, who made their dissatisfaction known, criminal proceedings could still be instituted. Administration of justice is therefore not being interfered with in any way here, and no rights are being taken away. On the contrary, I want to make it clear that this amendment offers more assurance that justice will be done.

When one considers the other amendments, one can only say that it is a very good stipulation that in certain cases, the record of the inquest be sent to the Supreme Court instead of the Attorney-General. The question is: Why? The reason is that section 16(1) which is being amended in that the referral is now to be made to the Supreme Court instead of the Attorney-General, relates to the presumption of death. In other words, if a corpse cannot be found, the magistrate must determine the identity of the deceased as well as the date of death. The presumption of death has very important legal consequences in respect of legacies and many other matters. It is certainly right that a judge of the Supreme Court and not the Attorney-General should review this aspect. After all, this is not the Attorney-General’s function. He does not serve as a court of review on important aspects such as this.

To conclude, I want to say that when we look at this Bill, when we look at it impartially, as lawyers ought to do—there were lawyers who spoke—everyone will agree that no rights are being taken away and that there is no interference in the process of an inquest. The process remains exactly the same. All that is being done here, is that streamlining is being effected and better justice assured. Consequently, I think that anyone who thinks carefully about this matter, will be only too pleased to support the hon. the Minister on this Bill. I think that if the hon. Whip of the UP were to reflect a little, he might eventually decide not to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this debate has not generated too much heat. I think that heat in a debate of this sort would be a pity for, although this Bill is contentious, the arguments propounded by all sides in my opinion have a certain substance and are definitely worth considering. I think it is rather a question of carefully weighing these arguments up against each other.

What is the hon. the Minister asking? He is asking that the automatic referral of all inquest findings to the Attorney-General for further investigation be stopped and that only certain cases, set out in the amendment, be referred to the Attorney-General for consideration. Cases in which the finding is death by accident or misadventure involving no human culpability will no longer in terms of this amendment be referred to the Attorney-General. The argument in favour of that and in favour of the amending Bill before us today is easy to understand. It involves the saving of time and, probably, of a fair sum of money on the typing and perusal of thousands of files, all ostensibly of an innocent nature. This is a legitimate argument. It is an argument which, I believe, has no sinister connotations, an argument which tries to grapple with what I presume is a real problem in the hon. the Minister’s department.

There is another point which has now been made by the hon. member for Pretoria West. It is another point for those of us, who wish to oppose the Bill, to consider. That point is that the system and the procedures of inquests held into unnatural death are not being tampered with. I think that we on this side of the House realize that. It is true that there will still be proper hearings. These hearings, I assume, will continue to be in public. Evidence will continue to be tested and proper findings will be recorded. If culpability is found on the part of any person or if the magistrate cannot make a finding at all, papers will, as always, go to the Attorney-General for further inspection. Therefore we must not be alarmist about this piece of legislation.

A fair mind, however, will have to admit that there is another side to the coin, and that there are equally strong, if not stronger, arguments in favour of the status quo in regard to inquests being left undisturbed, thus ensuring that all inquest findings continue to be referred to the Attorney-General for perusal. Firstly, I think we should realize that the death of any person—a prominent person, or an obscure person, the death of a famous person or an anonymous person—is in fact a serious event and, in fact, a very emotive event, certainly for the family and friends of the deceased person. The death and inquest and an investigation by the Attorney-General are very often, especially in these times, the subject of public interest, of public scrutiny, of moment domestically and abroad. Criticism of South Africa is widespread and continuous, and in many respects South Africa has become inured and immune to the sort of criticism against our country. Nonetheless, I do not believe that for the sake of the saving on typing and for the sake of the saving of time on perusal, Parliament should take a step which could possibly lead to further anti-South African propaganda, even though that propaganda is false. The first point, therefore, of our opposition is that the passing of this Bill may well, particularly in these times of unrest in which more than the usual number of unnatural and unfortunate deaths have been recorded, give to the people who criticize us another stick with which to beat South Africa.

The second point of opposition which we should consider is the question of public confidence at home, both Black and White, in our judicial system and in the judicial procedures of South Africa. In some areas of public life this confidence stands higher than in others. I think in the interests of an ordered society we should do all in our power to ensure that this confidence is enhanced. By limiting the application of the Inquest Act, the opposite could well be achieved.

There is a third objection. As far as I am concerned this third objection carries the most weight, because it relates to the system itself and not so much to what other people think of the system. The present system is a good one. It has been tried and tested over the years. It has built into it model checks and balances, for no one is perfect—not us, not even magistrates. We all make mistakes. But ensuring that the findings of a magistrate are looked at again by the Attorney-General constitutes a further safeguard for the public, for the interested parties, and a better administration of justice which will be built into our system. It is not a question of doubting the high standards of our judicial officers; it is a question of maintaining the high standard of our judicial system. This is what we should do, despite the time and the cost factor involved. By adopting this amendment, while the bulk of cases—this is readily agreed upon—meriting further attention will still be sent to the Attorney-General, the safeguard of locating errors in findings of non-culpability will regrettably no longer be there. In matters relating to untimely death of a person or persons, this is in fact a great pity and are matters which should not be missed. To dissipate even slightly a system which has inspired confidence and which works well for the benefit of saving staff or typing hours, is far too high a price to pay. We shall therefore oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Official Opposition and the PRP do not see their way clear to supporting this measure, a measure which, in reality, is quite innocent. I am pleased, however, that we are able to debate the matter peacefully. I really think that those hon. members have completely misunderstood the Bill and that they want to read things into it that are not stated in or implied by it at all. The hon. member for Griqualand East, for example, says that all records ought to be sent to the Attorney-General. The hon. member for Sandton, too, says that the system ought to be retained in its present form. However, I wonder whether those hon. members have asked themselves the question as to what the Attorney-General does with the record when he receives it. After all, he cannot review it. All he can do is ask for further investigation to be instituted. When all is said and done, he is not being deprived of that right now. It continues to exist unchanged in the proposed new legislation. For that reason I believe they are chasing up spectres unnecessarily, spectres that do not exist at all.

The hon. member for Jeppe also alleged that money and time and typing and so on, should not be offered as excuses for justice not being done. I agree with him on that. However, I wonder why he now thinks that if the provisions of this Bill are accepted, justice will no longer be done in this respect. As far as I am concerned, it is not correct of him to allege or think such a thing. After all, there is not going to be any change in the presiding officers now. When all is said and done, they will still use the same method of ascertaining what is going on and what has happened. If they are unable to reach a finding or if the Attorney-General were to ask for it or if they were to find that someone could possibly be held responsible for the death of the deceased person concerned, they would still send the record of the proceedings to the Attorney-General. Consequently, the Attorney-General is able to act exactly as he did in the past. Therefore, I really cannot understand how law and justice are going to be violated in this respect.

Mr. Speaker, we should certainly not be hide-bound, hesitating when we might be able to improve on things. I agree with the hon. member for Sandton when he says that the present system works well. However, the fact of the matter—as the hon. the Minister has indicated—is that more than 19 000 of these cases occurred in 1975. It is true that they were not all cases in which one could ascertain what had happened but most of them were, in fact, of such a nature. I believe that if we can improve on the system, we ought to do so. Hon. members on the side of the Opposition are continually accusing the Government of not investigating new methods in the Public Service and of being entangled in a tremendous amount of red tape. Now the hon. the Minister—and in this case, his department as well—is proposing a measure which could cause matters to function more smoothly without impairing the high standard of our administration of justice. I say this with conviction because the guarantees for this are still contained in this Bill. In any event, the Attorney-General could ask for a particular record to be sent back to him if he had any doubts. This measure is being proposed with a view to streamlining the activities of the department. I therefore believe that the Opposition is unnecessarily reading things into it which do not exist at all. Besides, the original file on the matter is still sent back to the Attorney-General. This is the file which was initially submitted to the Attorney-General and on the strength of which he had to decide whether a prosecution was to be instituted and whether an inquest was to be held or not. In court, the public prosecutor also acts as the representative of the Attorney-General. Therefore, if anything appears suspicious to him, the Attorney-General will call for the report and will take action. If necessary, he will also order a further investigation. We have confidence in our presiding officers and in our Attorneys-General. If anything were to happen to anyone while he was under the control of the State, the presiding officers would surely not be inclined to view the case in a different light so that it would consequently not need to be referred to the Attorney-General. We are dealing with people whose integrity is completely above suspicion. They will ensure that justice is done in all respects and that the good name of South Africa and the good name of our judicature is not brought into disrepute. I believe the Official Opposition sees spectres in this that do not exist in reality. In the interest of good administration, I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches were unhappy with the tone of the debate in the Other Place. However, I must say that the tone of the debate here today is far more pleasant. I am sure that the hon. the Minister appreciates that as well. Our attitude to the police was stated when the Indemnity Bill was discussed, and we supported that Bill. We believe that our magistrates and judges are extremely dedicated people and perform a magnificent service. South Africa can be justifiably proud of her judiciaries; there is no problem in that regard. The Inquest Act of 1959 makes it compulsory that all records must be forwarded to the Attorney-General, even if it was found at the inquest that death was not brought about by an act or omission involving any offence on the part of any person. The hon. the Minister quite correctly said that in 1975 there were 19 727 records sent to the Attorney-General. The inquest records have to be typed and processed at enormous cost to the State and it is reasonable in these inflationary times, or at any other time, for the hon. the Minister to look for saving in his department wherever he can. In fact, the hon. the Minister not only has to look for savings; it is his duty to find savings, and where he seeks that he will find that he will have the support of those of us in these benches. We would like to support this Bill and therefore make a sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister to make it possible for us to support the Bill. In the present form we cannot support it. We have placed an amendment on the Order Paper, which in essence asks for the Attorneys-General to be sent inquest records where a death occurs while the deceased was in the care or under the control of the State. For example, it refers to people in orphanages, mental institutions, prisons, rehabilitation centres and any other such centres that qualify under the definition. In these cases the State has a very heavy responsibility, a responsibility which costs the country millions of rands. Obviously, any Government would be happy if the need for such institutions did not exist. But the need does exist and will increase as the years go on. We will have to spend even more millions of rand on these institutions. One must do so willingly in order to provide for these people. These people are in a special category and are dependent on State aid and State concern. The number of inquests into the circumstances of the death of persons falling into this category must constitute less than 1% of the 19 727 cases mentioned by the hon. the Minister. I am merely making an estimate and would say it must be less than 200 cases, even less than 100 cases. The hon. the Minister is in a better position to give an indication of the exact number of cases we are talking about. They must be absolutely infinitesimal.

We feel that it could only benefit the administration of justice and the image of the State if our amendment is accepted. I believe, however, that our amendment might be ruled out of order in the Committee Stage. But the cost of our amendment to the State is absolutely minimal. However, its beneficial image to the State is more than can be evaluated in rands and cents. We are not wedded to the exact wording of our amendment, and it may well be that somebody else can come with another amendment which may be acceptable. At this point in time I believe our amendment will not be accepted in the Committee Stage. If our intention is enshrined in this Bill we will be prepared to support the Bill. We have made these suggestions in a positive spirit and should they not be enshrined in this Bill, we will have no alternative but to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will not keep the hon. the Minister more than a few minutes. I just want to say that our opposition to this Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with whether we have or do not have confidence in magistrates. That is not the issue. The hon. the Minister himself is showing a considerable amount of lack of confidence in magistrates by retaining so many conditions under which inquest findings have to be submitted to the Attorneys-General. But this is just not the issue at all. The hon. member for Walmer is creating a false trail altogether in this regard. However, I simply rise to support the argument of the hon. member for Griqualand East and the hon. member for Sandton. This is a particularly bad time for introducing these changes in our inquest proceedings.

It is no good pretending that this country has not come under a good deal of criticism or that there are not many people living in South Africa who are extremely worried about the number of deaths in detention, either in detention under security legislation or as awaiting trial prisoners. Last year something like 117 people died while in detention, either while awaiting trial or as already convicted prisoners. Something like 18 people have died in detention under the security laws. These deaths have led to a number of misgivings and I think that there is no doubt whatsoever that for the hon. the Minister to come at this particular moment of time and introduce changes in a well-tried system that has been in use in South Africa for all these years as far as inquests are concerned, is, to say the least, extremely unwise. For that reason alone we on these benches will oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the spirit in which this debate was conducted. The hon. member for Jeppe said it could quite probably degenerate into an emotional debate but I am pleased this did not happen.

According to estimates, approximately 92% of all records of inquests are simply read and signed by the Attorneys-General and returned to the magistrates. Magistrates agree that a considerable amount of time is spent on the preparation and forwarding of reports. In a large number of inquests, it is clear from the outset that no prosecution will be instituted; for example, in cases in which people have drowned, have been struck dead by lightning and so on. When a cause of death can be demonstrated which appears to have been entirely innocent, I do not think there is anyone in the House who can say in all honesty that those reports ought to be forwarded to the Attorneys-General. This is really what is now being removed: those hundreds of normal accidents in which an unnatural death occurs and after which an inquest has to be instituted and in which such death is found to have had an innocent cause. The cause of death is made known. However, now we have to have all those reports typed and forward them to the Attorneys-General. There are many other cases that hon. members could keep in mind. If people under the authority of the State die an unnatural death, there is always a police investigation to begin with. No matter what the circumstances are, the inquest always begins with a police file. That police file goes to the Attorney-General and becomes part of his file. The file may never be destroyed and is always there. If anything comes to light at the inquest that the Attorney-General feels ought to be investigated further by the police at that stage, he will instruct his representative to ask the magistrate there and then to forward his record to him because they go through the record to see what evidence there was. They would also ask the police to institute a further investigation.

Not even the slightest danger exists that justice will not be done or that people who ought to be charged will not be charged. No such possibility exists. All this Bill means is that we are eliminating an enormous amount of unnecessary work and typing at magistrate’s offices. We are streamlining our department and we can do without unnecessary things. I do not think the hon. members on the other side will reproach me for saying that we are trying to make our departments more efficient. This is all it entails. Not a single right is being taken away here. There is not a single investigation which does not still take place and there is not a single case in which anyone can come to any harm whatsoever, regardless of whether he is in an orphanage, mental hospital, or wherever. If he dies an unnatural death, the police are the first to institute an investigation. The police build up the file and it then goes to the Attorney-General. He refers it to an inquest or he prosecutes. If an inquest is held the family has the right to pose certain questions and they also have the right to be represented. If any evidence comes to light which appears strange, the documents automatically go back to the Attorney-General. That is why I say we ought not to make the Bill out to be more than it is. I want to give the assurance that we shall most certainly instruct the Attorneys-General to tell the prosecutors who carry out the inquests that they have to be careful and that if anything transpires that means the file has to go back to the Attorney-General, then they should send it back.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition, Progressive Reform Party and Independent United Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and I think the hon. member for Pretoria East I should like to say that this is the amendment which, due to an oversight late one night, I omitted to move in this House and I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister has found it possible to accept it in the Other Place. I shall not elucidate the amendment, except to say that it is a very useful amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton has a good Minister on this side of the House, because I take everything into consideration, even the things he writes, and if the hon. member fails to move an amendment himself, I have it moved in the Other Place.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will recall, the Environment Planning Act was amended during the 1975 Parliamentary session. Unfortunately it was not possible at the time to foresee the amendments which are at present before Parliament and, in fact they only became evident during the past year. No new principles are involved, however, and the amendments are merely aimed at dealing with administrative problems.

Apart from a few amendments which are being effected to eliminate obscurity, of which there is an example in clause 1, and a consequential amendment as in clause 5, the amending legislation deals primarily with the following three aspects: In the first place, the definition of the word “Bantu employee” and similarly “employer” in regard to the control over the extension of factories; in the second place it deals with further stipulations in regard to the use of land for quarrying purposes; and, in the third place, the submission of certain evidence by way of a certificate by the Secretary at prosecutions in terms of the Act. For the sake of clarity I shall deal with the various clauses seriatim.

Clause 1:

In section 6B(2) the word “processing” is used, but in the definition the word “process” is defined. The purpose of this clause is merely to bring the definition into line with the phraseology in the Act itself and has no other material implications.

Clause 2:

Although the provisions of this clause may appear to be comprehensive, this is not in fact the case. In effect the existing subsection (5) now becomes subsection (4) without any amendment. The present subsection (4) then becomes subsection (5) with the addition of the definition “Bantu employee” and “employer”. Since problems are being experienced in prosecuting contraveners of section 3 of the Environment Planning Act, 1967 (Act 88 of 1967) successfully, it has become essential to define Bantu employee, and similarly employer, in the Act. In recent prosecutions in terms of this statutory provision the accused persons submitted that the State could not prove a contravention because the Act did not define a Bantu employee.

The intention of the Act in this regard was clear, but the accused was found not guilty and discharged by the magistrate and the Attorney-General decided not to lodge an appeal. The definition of “Bantu employee” puts the matter beyond all doubt, and similarly “employer” is also being defined.

Clause 3:

The present section 6B(1) of the Act grants exemption for quarrying if the material is used exclusively for the construction of a public road or railway line. This exemption has been granted too widely, and when the Railway Administration, Provincial Administration, National Transport Commission, divisional councils or local authorities make use of the services of private contractors for the construction of a road or railway line, such private contractors are not bound by the provisions of the Act. It also happens quite frequently that the contractors, without taking into consideration the protection of the environment, cause gravel, stone, soil or sand quarries to be dug, which cause serious defacement of the environment. No powers exist to compel contractors to repair the damage. The amendment contained in clause 6B(1) is intended to limit this general exemption to quarries under the direct control or supervision of the Provincial Administration, the Railway Administration or the National Transport Commission, and to make provision in section 7 of the Act for further provisional exemptions. This amendment has been discussed with the bodies concerned, and meets with their approval.

Prior to the commencement of the amended Environment Planning Act on 17 July 1975, the Cape Provincial Administration was responsible for the establishment of and control of quarries in terms of the Divisional Council Ordinance, 1952 (Ordinance 15 of 1952) and the Municipal Ordinance, 1974 (Ordinance 20 of 1974). After the commencement of section 6B(1) of the Environment Planning Act, 1967, the Provincial Administration, in order to eliminate dual control over quarries, repealed the said two sections with effect from 3 November 1976 and 27 August 1976, respectively. After the repeal of these two sections it appeared that the conditions attached to the approvals issued in terms of the provisions of the Ordinances could no longer be enforced and that the quarries which had already existed in terms of such approvals upon the commencement of Act 73 of 1975 could not be controlled in terms of section 6B(1) of the Act either. The purpose of this amendment is to confirm beyond all doubt that those conditions still have legal force and will continue to remain applicable and that, if the holder of such permission wishes to have the conditions thereof amended, he may apply under the Act for permission to be granted anew.

Clause 4:

As has already been said, the general exemption, granted in section 6B(1)(b) of the principal Act, is being limited by clause 3 and it was found necessary to make provision in section 7 for conditional exemptions by the Minister from the restrictions contained in section 6B of the Act, whenever circumstances require.

Clause 5:

This clause contains a consequential amendment, and seeks to ensure that the conditions of the permission granted in terms of the repealed ordinances, will be complied with.

Clause 6:

Clause 6(1) has been inserted to expedite court proceedings and to facilitate the furnishing of proof of the approval of the Secretary for Planning and the Environment.

Clause 6(2) has been inserted to make it possible for the State to prove what number of Bantu employees were being employed by a factory upon the commencement of section 3 of the Environment Planning Act, 1968, on 18 January 1968. You will recall that this is the date on which the numbers were to have been determined. I am simply mentioning an example of the problems which this insertion is trying to cope with. They are the following:

In a recent court case an accused person was found not guilty because he submitted that the books of his company had been destroyed since 1968 already, and that he did not know how many Bantu he had had in his employ on 18 January 1968, when section 3 of the Act was made applicable. Because of the uncertainty which had already arisen in this way, the magistrate then decided that the State had not proved that the factory had in fact been extended. The result is that the factory owners may now employ as many Bantu as they like and conveniently even destroy their records, because they are only required to preserve them for five years. The Department of Planning has over the years, from information obtained from the Department of Labour and the Bantu Administration Boards, built up records of Bantu employees employed at factories as at 18 January 1968, and it is essential to create a presumption that those numbers have to be accepted by the courts as correct until the accused persons have proved the contrary.

The amendment in clause 6(3) is intended to facilitate court procedure and eliminate delays in prosecutions. When inspectors visit the factory the wage sheets and the “present cards” of the workers are examined. On these documents the race group of each employee is recorded and the employee’s race group is checked with the local Bantu Affairs Administration Board. However, the magistrate does not wish to accept the salary statements and so on as prima facie evidence that these particular persons are members of the Bantu population group, and has ordered that the Bantu be summoned so that each Bantu may testify to his identity separately. This clause which we are now inserting therefore seeks, if the race group of an employee has been established in the foregoing manner to be that of a Bantu, to empower the court to accept that the employee is a Bantu, until the contrary has been proved.

As I said at the outset, these are merely administrative measures which have caused us problems during the past year.

Mr. Speaker, it would seem to have become my misfortune in recent weeks to be called upon to make a contribution at this late hour on a Friday, when, quite clearly, there is no desire on anybody’s part to become hot under the collar. Nevertheless, if we are required to do this, we must obviously press on regardless.

This is an amendment, as the hon. Minister has indicated, to the Environment Planning Act which in its turn, is an amendment to the Physical Planning Act. When one looks at a measure of this kind I would imagine the very first question one should ask oneself is: Who is likely to benefit as a result of putting this measure through this hon. House? I do not know who is going to benefit, and the hon. the Minister has certainly not indicated to us in his Second Reading speech that anybody is going to benefit. Indeed, I can see that certain people will not benefit. Quite clearly, from the measure that is before us, the Black workers in this country will definitely not benefit. We already have 80 laws in South Africa which apply specifically to Black people, and to nobody else. This is the 81st measure that is being introduced by this Government, the 81st measure that applies to Black people only, and to nobody else. It is amazing that this should be introduced at the very time when the Government is telling the outside world that we are not discriminating in South Africa and at the very time when we are seeking the goodwill of the outside world. What obviously is at stake here, is that it is just another instalment in the series of what has become known as “ideological measures”. We are concerned here with the reinforcement and the perpetuation of a myth. This measure stems directly from the Verwoerdian doctrine and from the concept that in a country like South Africa one can create separate economies. It is part of the “poor, but White” philosophy. If one looks at South Africa today one realizes that we are becoming poorer and poorer, but I see no evidence anywhere of our becoming whiter.

Why do you not speak to the Bill?

Sir, I think that hon. member has either not read the Bill, or he does not understand its implications at all. Therefore it is our task on the Opposition benches to indicate to him what the implications are. Surely, one cannot assess this measure, except against the framework of the main Act to the extent that it is now being modified and amended.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the principle of the principal Act is not an issue in this Bill. That principle is embodied in section 3 and is not being amended. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I am attempting to do is to indicate the effect this measure will have, because surely this measure has a motivation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has stated that motivation, and I am merely suggesting that one should relate it to what the Government is trying to achieve. In this case I dare say that what the Government is trying to achieve, is to reverse the flow of non-White people. That, obviously, is why the hon. the Deputy Minister is introducing this measure. He indicated that he had been to court several times and that the courts’ findings were not in his favour. That is why he has come here to reinforce this particular concept to change the flow, because he wants to try to reduce the number of Black people who come to the White areas.

This measure has a long history. Hon. members will remember that we are really standing on the eve of the Great Divide. It was suggested to us by the Government, when the principal Act was introduced that in 1978, i.e. next year, a reversed flow was going to take place. Mr. Speaker, I remember so well—you will permit me to say this—that Dr. Carel de Wet, when he introduced the original measure, even said that if we had to wait till 1978 that was far too long a period.

Order! I just want to make the position clear. I shall allow the first speaker on the Opposition side to go a little further, but I shall not allow the speakers following him to discuss the principal Act or repeat the arguments raised at the time it was introduced. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. One is amazed that the Government should seek to introduce this measure at this particular point of time, because, although the motive at the time the principal Act was introduced might have been to stop the influx of people, there is now a totally new dimension at stake. It is estimated that we probably have one million Black people living in the Soweto area. I suppose in the whole of the Witwatersrand triangle, to which this legislation applies, there probably live about three million Black people. If one allows for an increase of only 3% in the work force, which is not really a substantial increase, it suggests to me that every day there will be 300 new work seekers in the Witwatersrand triangle.

We must look at the effects of this legislation. Here one has a situation where one is not merely trying to stop people influxing into the urban areas, but one now generates so many work seekers in the urban area itself, and what are we going to do with them? Here we have a situation where job opportunities exist. They are there, but the Government says to these job seekers that they cannot have the job. The job is there, but you cannot have the job because the law says so. What I am trying to suggest is that the motivation for what was necessary 10 years ago has now changed completely. We now have to deal with a totally different type of situation. With this measure the Government is, in fact, freezing the number of job opportunities that are available, for instance in the Witwatersrand complex. This is unforgiveable at a time when there is in fact unemployment. To come before the House with a measure of this kind, to freeze the number of job opportunities that exist, I really cannot understand. The basic law, of course, was completely wrong and was badly structured. Now we find that the Government comes every year or second year and perpetuates this farce. Two years ago we were told that this legislation could not work; it had to be given teeth. That is precisely what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said to us now again. He says it is still not working. He says we must give it more teeth. If something is stupid, one cannot improve it by giving it teeth. We are now told that what is happening is that the Government cannot secure convictions. That is the hon. the Minister’s motivation. It is no longer a planning Act. We are no longer concerned with optimum utilization of our resources. The hon. the Minister is bringing this legislation to the House because he says that in courts of law he cannot find the people guilty. So, to me the whole situation has changed completely. The number of convictions he can secure has now become the crucial issue. He must now come to this House and put before us a measure which is aimed purely at finding more people guilty and securing more fines for the State. This is not planning. This is supposed to be an amendment to the Planning Act, but it is not planning which is based on natural resources. This is planning which is based on racial ratios, and on this account it must be unique. I cannot conceive of a single country in the world where there is legislation of this kind, the sole object of which is to sustain certain racial ratios.

We find that this legislation is being introduced at a time when there is unemployment in the country. I want to discuss its effects. Last year we had a series of very distressing strikes and upheavals throughout South Africa. In a sense, the number of casualties was contained because at that stage there was reasonably full employment. Had there been unemployment at the time, the riots would have been very considerably worse and their effects would have been very much more severe. Now the situation has changed dramatically. We have excessive unemployment in South Africa, and if we introduce a measure of this kind, whereby people are being denied the privilege of taking up work where work opportunities exist, I am suggesting that it will exacerbate the situation very considerably. Not only will strikes and upheavals be more severe when there is unemployment, but the fact that there is unemployment might also become the cause of unrest. It is unbelievable, when there are so many important issues facing South Africa, major problems which we have to fact, that the Government should fiddle with an issue of this kind. It is because we feel it is so wrong, that this reinforces a structure in a system that is entirely wrong, that I shall move an amendment.

This legislation takes as its base line, as the hon. the Minister indicated in respect of clause 6, January 1968. This introduces another factor which really makes it difficult for us to understand. We now take as our norm—as this legislation specifies—our employment situation as it was in January 1968. However, the situation has changed dramatically since then. After all, a business organization must grow, otherwise it stagnates, and stagnation is merely the forerunner of decline. A business can only grow if it can increase the number of people it employs, but this legislation now specifically forbids it, simply because it takes January 1968 as a norm. The employment structure has also changed dramatically since then. In 1968, there was in many, many cases, a large number of Whites in some of the factories. Now, because they are drawn to more lucrative positions elsewhere, we find that Whites are no longer available, and for a while Coloureds move in and replace the Whites who had moved out. However, now we find a similar pattern and Coloureds, for many reasons, are no longer available. So, here we have a situation where an organization ten years ago might have had 100 Black employees, but now it cannot get Whites or Coloureds, and this legislation says it cannot get Blacks. Well, if there is one way of stifling business, it is this. And then the Government at every conceivable opportunity tells us that this is a free enterprise country. It is nothing of the kind. The industrialist today cannot site his factory where he wishes to. He is entirely dependent on where the Government tells him to site his factory.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the principle of the existing Act. That is not what is under discussion in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, is it permissible for me to say that I regard this Bill as a blatantly discriminatory measure? This legislation defines a Black employee. I want to indicate also the inconsistency in the Government’s approach. In the Industrial Conciliation Act, where it would be to the advantage of a Black man to be defined as an employee, he is specifically excluded. In this Bill where it would have been to his advantage not to be defined as an employee, the hon. the Deputy Minister amends the legislation and specifically defines a Black worker as an employee. So, again he is at the shortest end. He is always at a disadvantage.

Now, my view is—and I would imagine that it is permissible to discuss this under the amendment, because it applies specifically to a Black man—that this is basically discriminatory. It does not apply to a White man. It does not apply to a Coloured. It applies to a Black man. This is what the amendment before us says. I just find it unbelievable that at a time when we accept that the situation is as it is, we should wish to do so.

In view of all the objections that we have to the amendments which are being made to the principal Act, I will now move the amendment which I have already indicated—

Mr. Speaker, the House has been very calm all afternoon. But now the hon. member for Hillbrow has accepted that it has fallen to his lot to kick up a bit of political rumpus here. At the very beginning of his speech the hon. member for Hillbrow asked that we should please take note of who was being favoured by this legislation. Immediately he struck a negative note and alleged that he could at least indicate who was not being favoured. Of course, to him it is the Black people. I do not want to stray from the Bill now, yet I think it would be correct to reply to a few of the remarks which the hon. member made. The hon. member for Hillbrow said that we were placing the Black people at a disadvantage by instituting a ratio by means of which it was determined how many Black workers there might be in proportion to Whites or Coloureds on non-decentralized premises. What did the hon. member imply by means of that statement? He actually implied that it did not matter what happened to the Coloureds or the Asians or the Whites as far as planning was concerned.

According to him the basic issue is the rights of the Black man only. The hon. member is not concerned whether we are going to flood the whole of the Western Cape with Black workers who will oust the Coloureds. The hon. member is not concerned by the fact that, if we did not plan, more and more squatter camps would arise around our cities, for if this should happen it would mean that the hon. member would have an opportunity to point a finger at the Government. Then he would be able to say once again: “Why do you not plan better?”. I just want to put one question to the hon. member. He referred to unemployment and linked it to the riots. However, can the hon. member mention a single incident to me in which a single stone was thrown or anyone went on strike for a single day in any of our border industry areas—Rosslyn, Babalegi, Brits, Rustenburg, Potgietersrus?

Order! The hon. member must not go too far in his discussion of the principles already contained in the principal Act. I shall allow him to reply only briefly to the speech of the previous hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the hon. member’s allegation that the Government and its Planning Act is responsible for the fact that, now more than ever before, people are becoming unemployed. Once again the hon. member referred to the Black people only. However, he knows that it is not only the Black people who are unemployed at present. What would happen to all the other unemployed if we gave all the posts which become vacant, are available or are created, to the Black people alone?

Indeed, as the hon. the Minister put it, the Bill consists primarily of a number of amendments to the old Environment Planning Act with a view to ensuring the smoother operation of the machinery of the Act. If we really study the Bill, we find that where we first had a definition of “process” it has now been changed to “processing” because the word “processing” appears twice in section 6B of the principal Act. We also find that the proposed definition conforms to a far greater extent to the definition of “a mine” in the Mines and Works Act. After all this is the way it should be, for what is involved here is a mineral, and that is something which is removed from below the surface of the earth and is then processed into another form by means of recovery, extraction, concentration, refinement or conversion. The hon. member’s question is whether it is essential to include the definition of “Bantu employee” in the Bill. The hon. member said that it is discriminating to define only “Bantu employee” in the Act. In the Industrial Conciliation Act “employee” is defined but a “Bantu” is specifically included. Who is being discriminated against now? “Bantu employee” is described in the one and not “White employee”. Is it the Whites, Coloureds or Asians who are being discriminated against here? In the Industrial Conciliation Act “employee” is defined and “Bantu” is omitted. Surely it is six of the one and half a dozen of the other, but the hon. member is merely trying to make a political issue of it now, because he knows that it is not precisely the same as in the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Without this definition … The hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear that when one takes a case to court and the court tells one that it is not a good case for technical reasons, it is due to the fact that section 3 of the Act is not potent enough. Actually, without this definition section 3 of the Act is powerless, and in fact pro non scripto. After all it is an untenable situation when the department knows that the Act is being contravened and who the contraveners are. However, these contraveners cannot be brought to book, merely for lack of a single definition the Act. After all it is mere stupidity if the hon. the Minister cannot insert this definition, so that the will and desire of this legislative assembly which placed the Act on the Statute Book, may be carried out. Therefore it is essential that a clear, unambiguous definition shoud be inserted in the Act.

The exemptions which are found in the principal Act, in terms of section 6(b)(1), are indeed, too wide. The gravel quarry, soil quarry and sand pits which are defined in the Act, are what are involved here. In this way we have the case where, on the strength of a contract, a contractor may deliver gravel, soil or sand to the provincial administration or the Railways. Then one finds that there is absolutely no control over or supervision of this gravel or soil quarry. In other words, this contractor cannot be forced to preserve the environment in any way. There is no existing machinery to force him to fill up unsightly holes or to level surplus heaps of gravel. On the other hand a person may find that his colleague who is providing gravel, soil or ground to a private individual or body, is subject to all the provisions of the Act and the regulations of the department. That is why it became essential that bodies like the Railways and the provincial administrations should also accept responsibility as well when contractors deliver gravel, soil or other material to them and that that quarry should actually be placed under their supervision.

Another very important amendment, the creation of the presumption that a particular employee is a Bantu, is, in my opinion, a very effective amendment to this Act. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked to whose benefit these new measures were. I just want to give the hon. member this one example. This presumption which is being created, and which is very closely allied to the new definition of a Bantu employee, will mean that the employer will benefit, because in terms of the provisions of the existing Act, without the “presumption”, it would mean that not only may the employer suffer a great deal of discomfort, but might also suffer losses. I want to point out an example. Say an employer, a man who employs approximately 1 000 Black people, is taken to court as a result of a contravention of section 3. Under the present provisions, this would mean that every Black worker employed by this employer would have to be summoned individually to appear before the court. Then the State would have to prove this employee was a Bantu. After all, hon. members can see now that a process like this can last for weeks and even months. What is more important? In the meanwhile the factory and the employer’s business is standing still. Therefore I believe that the presumption which is being created in this regard, is not only a very effective amendment, but is also a realistic one. I believe that it is in the interest of both the employers and the entrepreneurs and therefore, in the interest of South Africa. I believe that the few amendments which are being made serve only to improve this legislation. Therefore I support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East seems to have misunderstood completely what the hon. member for Hillbrow was trying to say when he made his speech this afternoon. I do not know whether he preferred to misunderstand what the hon. member for Hillbrow was saying or whether he does not have the capacity or the capability to understand an argument which was very clear indeed. The hon. member for Pretoria East said that the trouble with the Opposition was that we are only concerned with the interests and the rights of Blacks and that we do not concern ourselves with the interests and with the rights of the Coloured, Indian and White people in South Africa. Here is a fundamental misunderstanding, a misconception on the part of the Government, based on the fact that we do not primarily differentiate between Black, Coloured, Indian and White South Africans. We are primarily concerned about the rights of all South African citizens, irrespective of their colour. Unless the Government is prepared to accept the principle that every South African citizen, irrespective of his colour, is entitled to the same citizenship and the same rights which attach to South African citizenship, they will never be able to make any progress with solving South Africa’s problems. Unfortunately the amendment Bill which is before the House today once again particularly ignores the essential requirement of attending to the interests and the requirements of South African citizens. Instead, it accommodates the ideology of a particular political party. When one reads the title of the Bill, the Environment Planning Amendment Bill, I think any normal, reasonable and decent person would think that the Bill’s intention was to improve the quality of life, the standards of living and the happiness of the citizens of the country. In every other country in the world where there is legislation of this nature, the intention would be to improve the quality of life, the standards of living and the happiness of the citizens of that country. But when one reads through the Bill and studies its provisions, one sees that the intention of this Bill is precisely the opposite. The intention of is to impair the quality of life of a section of South Africa’s citizens, to reduce the standards of living of a section of the South African citizens and to create unhappiness and malcontent amongst a section of South African citizens.

When I look at the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced the Bill, I cannot help but think of a wolf in sheep’s clothing and I cannot help but think of the story of little Red Riding Hood and of the wolf dressed up in the grandmother’s clothing. I cannot help but think of the cruel and vicious teeth with which the wolf in the grandmother’s clothing approached the helpless little girl. That is what this hon. Deputy Minister is—a wolf dressed in the grandmother’s clothing, frightening a poor, helpless little girl with his vicious and wicked teeth.

Let us look at some of the provisions of the Bill. The most unacceptable provision is clause 2. If one reads and studies this, one will see that the object is unashamedly to make it more difficult for Black people to obtain employment in White South Africa, to make it more difficult for White employers to employ Black people in the industries and the commerce of South Africa. It has no other purpose. It certainly has not got the noble purpose which the hon. the Minister tried to imply when he put this Bill to the House. If one studies it, it means nothing else than that every possible means, method and measure will be applied to make it as difficult as possible, to make it as “impossible as possible” to employ Black people. Mr. Speaker, this is the most impossible Government that any country could ever have or, if I could quote the hon. the Minister of Community Development, it is the “most impossible Government that any country could possibly have”.

Clause 2(b), which seeks to define the words “Bantu employee”, reads: “Who is employed by or works for an employer in or in connection with a factory, or who in any other manner whatsoever assists the employer in or about the factory in carrying on the business of such a factory.” It is clear, Sir, if one looks at the wording of that particular provision, that it is the intention of the Government to close every possible loophole and to cover every possibility that may exist of additional Blacks being employed by such a factory. It covers Black people who work for contractors working in a factory or who work for security organizations which serve a factory. It covers Black people who may work for organizations providing food and refreshments for a factory. The intention is to cover every possible and conceivable Black person who may come within the ambit of the operations of a factory and to reduce to the minimum the number of Black people employed there and to make it as “impossible as is possible” for a factory to employ Black people. The same applies to the definition of “employer”: “Any person who employs or provides work for any person in or in connection with the factory or permits any person to assist him in any manner whatsoever in the carrying on of his business in or about a factory.” Once again, by closing every loophole the Government is making it as difficult as possible for any employer who has anything whatsoever to do with a factory to employ Black people beyond the figure which the Government has laid down as being permissible for that factory.

Then we come to subsection (b). “‘Extension’ in relation to a factory, means any increase in the number of Bantu employees employed in such a factory.” I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is there any country in the world, whether a communist country, a non-communist country, a civilized or uncivilized country, a Western or an Eastern country which defines an extension to a factory in terms of the number of people of a particular section of the population of that country? Can you imagine what the effect would be if in Britain an extension to a factory is defined as the number of Scotsmen employed in the factory?

Order! The hon. member can ask the question, but he cannot go into the details, because it is a principle of the present Act.

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I merely wanted to make the point. This is in line with the other aspects of this provision, which makes it quite clear that the entire purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for businesses, factories or industries to employ Black people.

I should like to associate my party with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Our party fully supports that amendment. I should also like to associate ourselves with the clear and urgent warning given by that hon. member. These provisions will not make Black people evaporate into thin air. One cannot legislate Black people out of existence. Yet that is what the Government is trying to do. They are trying to create the impression that by legislative procedures they can remove Black people from a part of South Africa where there is employment available to them, to other parts of the country where there is no employment available for them. Surely, one of the basic and most fundamental responsibilities of a civilized, Western Government which supports free enterprise is to make employment available for its population, to make it possible for employers to employ workers and to make it possible for workers to find employment. These are fundamental requirements of a civilized, Western, free enterprise society. But these fundamentals do not apply to the provisions of this Bill. In actual fact, they fly in the face of those basic requirements.

We should like to associate ourselves with the warning that, in the very delicate and difficult circumstances that exist in respect of the interracial situation in South Africa today, in the very dangerous circumstances that are being created by unemployment, a further measure of this nature can only aggravate the situation. It can only create more unemployment, more tension and more unrest. Can this Government not just for once take notice of the warnings that come from the Opposition? Are they prepared simply to go ahead blatantly ignoring warnings we have given? Will they yet again wait for an event such as was experienced in June last year to realize the error of their ways?

I should like to refer to just one other provision, i.e. the provision contained in the proposed new section 12(3) in clause 6 of the Bill, to which the hon. member for Hillbrow has also referred and which states—

The question I want to ask is simply this: Is it really necessary that a provision such as this should appear in the statutes of South Africa? Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not realize that such a provision sets down blatantly, in black and white, an example of discrimination based on race? So often the accusation is made by the other side of the House that it is what the Opposition and the Press say that gives South Africa a bad name in the world. However, there are thousands of examples— and this amending Bill is just one of them— which prove the contrary. If this amending Bill were to fall into the hands of any reasonable and decent person in any part of the world and that person were to read its provisions, he would come to two conclusions: firstly, that the South African Government is stark staring, raving mad and, secondly, that the South African Government, without any concern whatsoever for its own safety or for the safety of its country and its people, is prepared to apply vicious discrimination based on race. Those are the conclusions any reasonable person in any part of the world would come to if they read and studied this Bill. Sir, before you rule me out of order …

Order! I must tell the hon. member that I am not happy with his statement that the Government is “stark staring, raving mad”. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to withdraw the words.

There is another provision in this Bill which worries us. As regards clause 3, we are in complete accord with the Government that every possible step should be taken to preserve and protect the environment against inroads of industry and any other organization which seeks in any way to damage the environment for any purpose whatsoever. I believe the Government cannot be too vigilant in its efforts to preserve and protect the environment from damage by organizations of that kind. But we want to express our strongest opposition to the fact that in clause 3 specific exception is being made for government organizations. In other words, the provisions apply to all private organizations in South Africa, but as far as certain government organizations are concerned, e.g. the provincial administration, the Railway Administration and the National Transport Commission, these may proceed with impunity to do precisely as they please, irrespective of the damage which they do to the environment. They can go ahead, in terms of this provision, and build roads, railway lines, dig quarries, destroy the environment, destroy the countryside without being subject to these provisions.

That is not so.

Well, that is what this provision says. It provides that those organizations are not subject to these provisions. In other words they are exempted.

Do you not think you should read it in conjunction with the principal Act for a change?

It is clear that in terms of this provision they are exempted. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us the assurance that that is not so, I would be very pleased indeed. But my impression is that Government organizations are exempted from the provisions of the Act.

I would like to make a very urgent appeal in this regard to the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced this legislation. When he introduced this legislation he tried to put on his best face and tried to create the best picture of the Bill. I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister will render South Africa a great disservice, he will render a great disservice to race relations in South Africa and to race relationships in the field of labour in South Africa, if he allows this Bill to proceed in its present form. Our party is totally opposed to the Bill and make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister not to put it through in its present form.