Mr. Speaker, I move—

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—107: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Cadman, R. M.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Graaff, De V.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kingwill, W. G.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Murray, L. G.; Niemann, J. J.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pyper, P. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, G. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—17: Aronson, T.; Boraine, A. L.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Hickman, T.; Pitman, S. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to say briefly to the hon. the Minister that we appreciate the fact that he has accepted two of the amendments which were moved in this House before the Bill went to the Other Place, and that we in particular appreciate this amendment to clause 18, which allows him to take powers which I believe he is going to have to take. It allows him to take those powers if a control board neglects—not only if it refuses, but also neglects—to take action which he orders it to take.

I have here with me an example of the sort of thing about which I believe the hon. the Minister must take action. This relates to the Egg Board. I have here an egg box and out of this box came this very small egg. This is why the control boards have the bad name that they have in the eyes of the public. It is because the public are being cheated by this sort of thing. The box I have here is marked “Medium”. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that medium eggs are not large eggs. They are certainly not extra large eggs, but the egg which is in the box which I have just sent over to the hon. the Minister is not even a small egg, let alone a pullet’s egg. In fact, somebody the other day said to me that it was a cock’s egg. It is even smaller than a pigeon’s egg. This is the sort of thing against which I believe the hon. the Minister must take action in order to restore the good name of agriculture and of the Egg Control Board.

Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer at once to two points raised by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet. The first point was in connection with the compensation payable to agents, including, of course, co-operatives. His second point concerned the amalgamation of co-operatives. I want to suggest that those are two relatively technical points and that we should leave the matter at that for the moment. The department will clear that up with the hon. member at a later stage. I think it will be useful to do it in that way.

I also want to refer to arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member referred to a “fiscal deficit”, to a “fiscal drag”, etc. Of course, there is nothing new in those concepts. When he talked about the fiscal deficit, however …

Order! Hon. members who cannot converse softly and have to hold a conversation, should please go and do so outside. I cannot allow the hon. the Minister to address the House in such a drone of voices.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for Yeoville talked about a fiscal deficit, he said we needed to curb Government expenditure. He also said he felt that our priorities should be investigated. As far as curbing Government expenditure is concerned, I wonder whether Government expenditure has ever been curbed as vigorously, as effectively, as during the past two years. The figures are there to prove it. As regards an investigation into our priorities, a Cabinet Committee was appointed last year for the very purpose of going into this matter. In addition an inter-departmental committee was established to give thorough consideration to the whole matter of priorities with regard to expenditure. That committee has just completed its report. I have the report at the moment and it is receiving very thorough attention. So we have been dealing with this question probably for nine months at least.

Will the contents of the report be made known?

I am looking at it and I also want to submit it to the Cabinet. I do not think, however, that there is anything in the report which can be regarded as a secret.

†It is not correct to say, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, that we have killed the incentive to save. Under the conditions which we are experiencing, where we require money for all sorts of purposes for current and capital expenditure, our savings record is nothing to be ashamed of at all.

The hon. member referred to taxation and drew certain comparisons in this regard. I would like to point out, however, that when one talks about comparing taxes between different countries, and especially the incidence of taxes, one must have regard to the whole range. In many of the countries referred to there are social security taxes and some of these taxes are pretty severe. Those, of course, have to be added, and I do not think we take sufficient notice of this when we make these comparisons. One must add the social security taxes, particularly when one talks about the benefits that the public receives as a result of the payment of that tax. If one looks at pensions in this country, taking the level of taxation as it is, I think we compare extremely well with most countries. If one looks at the way in which we have increased social pensions year by year over quite a long time, and civil pensions at regular intervals as well, we compare extremely well. If one compares our pension increases over the last few years with the rise in the cost of living, the comparison is extremely favourable. All these things must be weighed up when one talks about the extent of the benefit that the public gets in relation to the incidence of tax.

The hon. member for Yeoville, in talking about donations tax, asked that the level for children be doubled from R10 000 to R20 000 and that the maximum be increased from R30 000 to R60 000. I would like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that there is not a fixed level; in other words, the number of children is unrestricted and the amount is R10 000 per child. There is no limit of R30 000 at the present time.

The hon. member also referred to the question of bonuses being paid by cooperatives to its members and the question of dividends being paid by companies to shareholders. Dividends paid by ordinary companies are not, of course, taxed in full, but are, in fact, taxed on a sliding scale. Exemption from taxation of dividends can range from 100% to 33⅓% whereas under the scheme we have at present bonuses to the members of co-operatives are taxed in full in the hands of the members. These were a few of the points that were raised by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. the Minister please react to my statement that the rate of interest on subscription shares should be raised in order to make them more competitive in relation to the premium bonds?

The interest is, of course, fully exempt from taxation, as the hon. member knows. We are, of course, constantly looking at the whole question of the pattern of interest rates, as conditions change. The Reserve Bank, the Treasury and the Public Debt Commissioners all look at this very closely as a matter of course. This matter is therefore constantly receiving attention. In the light of this specific request, however, we shall have a further look at the matter. I cannot take the matter any further than that.

I just want to refer to another point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. In talking about the aged, he asked whether the rent they pay should not be deductible for tax purposes. Rent is, of course, a private expense, and the deduction of rent would therefore be contrary to our basic taxation principles. If we were to allow the rent payable in this sort of case to be deducted for tax purposes, there is no doubt that we would open the doors wide to requests for allowances of other types of private expense. I should, however, like to draw attention to the concessions that we do make to aged persons at the present moment. There are, for example, the exemptions from the 10% surcharge for persons over 60 with incomes of less than R5 000 per year. In fact, there is an exemption from the 10% surcharge and the loan levy, which is a considerable concession for people over 60 earning up to R5 000 per year. Then there is an abatement of R700 to persons over 60 years of age, and thirdly, there is the possibility of the refund of the loan levy paid if a person can show that because of old age his circumstances have deteriorated and he will no longer be a taxpayer in the future. He can therefore come in for special treatment there as well.

I just want to refer to a last point made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He talked about a fiscal drag and said that the upper limit of R28 000 had remained constant. Of course, the tax rates have also remained constant for quite some time, and if we are going to adjust those brackets, and especially the upper one, we may very well have to revise the whole question of the tax rates, because one has to look at the productivity of taxes.

The hon. member for Houghton expressed her disappointment at the fact that I had not specifically dealt with the taxation of married women. In point of fact, I was keen to explain some aspects of the marginal tax rates, particularly in relation to the effective rate, the average rate a man pays on specific incomes. I want to point out, however, that it is being said that in South Africa there is a relatively low percentage of married women in the economically active population. I think a figure of 34% was mentioned.

Yes, 34%.

Yes, something like that. It includes White, Coloured and Indian women. I would merely make the point that in South Africa, with its very heterogeneous population composition, a large number of jobs are filled by, for example, Black men and women which would be filled by women in countries of Europe, or even in America. This would apply more particularly to the European countries. This would be one factor in explaining the relatively low percentage employed in South Africa. It may be that one would have to take into account the relative lack of suitable job opportunities for women in some of the country districts in a country like South Africa. I would also make the point that we would have to devise a new rate of tax, as the position of a married couple is not comparable to the positions of two single persons. One would therefore have to look at the whole question of the tax structure and the rates of tax, as I said in my budget speech.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether that issue has not yet been examined by some committee of inquiry?

Yes.

Could the hon. the Minister perhaps expand on that?

It was examined very fully by the Department of Inland Revenue and also by the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy last year. As a result of those reports I came to the conclusion that it would be in the best interests of the taxpaying public as a whole to maintain the status quo. The hon. member for Houghton has raised the matter again and I would like to make a few points in reply. Generally speaking the present position is that married couples, where the wife works, pay less tax than two single persons if the married couple’s income does not exceed about R10 000. Up to about R10 000 the married couple is paying less than would be the case if they were taxed separately. This varies and there are exceptions, but as a general statement that is quite correct. I also think that it would be unfair if, in order to give relief to a married couple where the wife is working, those couples with one breadwinner—and the study has shown that a large majority have one breadwinner—should have to be heavily taxed to make up the loss of revenue. I raise these points because I think that they are relevant, and it does affect the whole question of tax rates. I am not at all convinced, if one looks at the position as a whole, and one in fact does what the hon. member for Houghton and others have asked, that the taxpaying public as a whole will benefit. The clear indication is that they may well be worse off.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had an amendment on the Order Paper which now falls away, as a result of the time having expired. He did ask whether I would not consider this amendment, if possible, in the Other Place. I think that it is only courteous to tell him that I am having difficulty with this amendment to clause 25 as the practical effects would be that income tax would have to be levied at a nominal rate of 9%, or 12% in the case of an unmarried person, on amounts derived from the sale of farm machinery or implements, where such sale is made in the course of winding up a farming undertaking, in consequence of the acquisition of a farm by the State, local authority or other juristic person. The present provisions apply to excess farming profits, i.e. profits in excess of the annual profits normally derived by the farmer from the disposal of livestock and plantations.

When a farmer, for example, has to sell his whole herd, he finds that his income is considerably in excess of his average income and the relief is given because of the high marginal rates of tax which would otherwise be applicable. We have dealt with this on a previous occasion. Although I have every sympathy with farmers when these rather exceptional circumstances arise, I think that if we accepted this amendment, we would be giving the farmer a quite undue advantage. When the machinery and implements were purchased, the purchase price would have been allowed as a deduction from income, or would have been written off by way of wear and tear allowances in the years when the farmer was paying tax at a rate of, for example, 30%. It would be unreasonable under those circumstances to tax the proceeds at a rate of only 9% or 12%. The amounts taxed will not in any event exceed the amounts originally allowed as deductions. I think that that is a very important point.

With regard to his proposed amendment to the schedule, I want to say that the desired effect of the amendment would appear to be that all natural persons over the age of 65 be exempt from the loan levy irrespective of their income. That is what it amounts to. The amendment would also have the effect of exempting trusts and other bodies which are now subject to tax. I have already explained some of the tax advantages which persons over 60 have under the existing position. I do not think that one can at this moment reasonably plead that we should extend those advantages for persons of 65 and over. It is basically for those reasons that I regret that I shall find it difficult to accept those amendments. I feel I shall not with confidence be able to take to the Other Place.

I trust I have covered most of the points which have been raised. I shall leave the matter at that.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—83: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebush, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton. Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to (Official Opposition, Progressive Reform Party and South African Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Amendments are being proposed in the Bill to several statutory provisions relating to marketable securities tax, estate duty, donations tax, stamp duty and the annual duty payable by companies. A detailed explanatory memorandum has been made available to hon. members in which the technical aspects of the amendments are dealt with.

In the first place I should like to refer to the elimination by clauses 1 and 20 of the discrimination, as far as marketable securities tax and stamp duties are concerned, between share transactions which take place on the stock exchange and those which are privately arranged. A stock exchange transaction is subject to the marketable securities tax, and up to now, the seller as well as the buyer has had to bear the taxation at a rate of 1% of the remuneration or value of the shares concerned. The total taxation in respect of a specific transaction, therefore, has been 2%.

A private transaction concluded outside the stock exchange is not subject to marketable securities tax, but a stamp duty of 1% was payable upon registration of transfer of the shares. The reason why stock exchange transactions were more heavily taxed lies in the fact that broker’s notes were originally subject to stamp duty, so that a person who employed the services of a broker had to pay that stamp duty as well as the stamp duty in respect of the transfer of marketable securities.

In 1948, the stamp duty on broker’s notes was reduced to a nominal amount because of the introduction of the marketable securities tax, which for practical purposes replaced that stamp duty. In 1968, the nominal stamp duty on broker’s notes was abolished, exemption from the payment of stamp duty upon the registration of transfer of marketable securities was granted in cases where marketable security tax was payable, and the stamp duty in respect of transactions outside the stock exchange was increased.

This had the effect of considerably reducing the differentiation between transactions on the stock exchange and transactions outside the stock exchange. However, it did not eliminate the complaint that the differentiation served to encourage large investors to avoid the stock exchange.

Whatever the reasons may be for the growth in transactions outside the exchange, it is conceded that tax neutrality between the forms of transactions is desirable, so that investors will not be encouraged to avoid the stock exchange merely because of higher taxation. The marketable securities tax was originally levied on sellers as well because it was apparently felt that those who made capital profits on the stock exchange could also make a contribution to the Treasury. However, this had the disadvantage of enabling sellers outside the stock exchange to avoid the tax. All things considered, it has consequently been decided to abolish the marketable securities tax on sales and to bring about neutrality between that tax and the stamp duty by increasing the marketable securities tax on purchases from 1% to 1½% and by increasing the stamp duty from 1% to 1½% as well.

In clause 7, amendments are being proposed to the Estate Duty Act with regard to the percentage used for calculating the present value of fiduciary and usufructuary interests and annual duties. Articles have been appearing in the daily newspapers as well as in the technical press recently concerning the burden of estate duty on a pension accruing to a widow as a result of the death of her husband. The purport of these articles is that the interest rate at which the pension is capitalized, i.e. 6%, is unrealistic, causing an excessively large amount to be included, as the present value of the pension, in the value of the estate of the deceased for estate duty purposes. Representations have also been made to me and my department in this connection by certain bodies, as well as by hon. members of this House and of the Other Place.

My department has gone into the representations and it has been found that the rate of 6% has been consistently applied by our courts over a very long period in cases where interest is awarded to a successful party in a court action. It must be conceded that in the times in which we are living, a person who makes an investment in order to derive an income from it is able to demand a higher return than 6%, and consequently it has been decided to increase the capitalization rate to 12%.

As a result of the application of the higher percentage to fixed annual amounts such as pensions and annuities, their present value for estate duty purposes will be reduced. For example, when a widow aged 35 years becomes entitled, as a result of the death of her husband, to payment of a pension of R10 000 a year from a pension fund the amount at which the current value is calculated will decrease from R149 000 at 6% to R82 300 at 12% a year. If the widow is 50 years of age, it will go down from R129 500 to R78 000.

I may just mention that the provisions of the Estate Duty Act in terms of which the present values of pensions and other annuities are to be included in the value of estates have been in operation for years. They include an annuity payable under an insurance policy as well as a pension payable by a pension fund. After all, a pension fund is merely a different form of insurance. It is necessary to include limited interests of this nature in the value of an estate, otherwise the provisions of the Act, if they were confined to capital amounts and full proprietary rights, could easily be circumvented.

The reason why attention has now been drawn to the problem is that pensions have increased as a result of inflationistic tendencies. Although it is not the intention to afford relief with regard to inflation as such, it is nevertheless felt that it is necessary to keep pace with increased interest rates. The rate of 12% which is now being laid down will be reconsidered from time to time in the light of prevailing interest rates in the future.

Hon. members will note that the interest rate in respect of capitalization of the value of fiduciary and usufructuary interests is also being increased from 6% a year to 12% a year. There is no difference in principle between an annuity and an annual right of enjoyment. A usufruct over property with an annual value of Rx can be created, or a trust over the property can be created instead, from which an annuity of Rx is to be paid from the income derived from that property. The result is the same and the estate duty position will also be the same.

However, a problem arises in regard to the determination of the annual value of the right of enjoyment of a fiduciary or usufructuary interest. According to the present provisions of the Act, it is 6% of the full proprietary right in the property, but the Secretary for Inland Revenue can in appropriate circumstances fix the expected annual proceeds at a lesser amount. The rate of 6% a year is therefore a maximum rate.

The argument that the rate applied in the capitalization formula is too low because prevailing interest rates are higher is valid here as well, and it follows that the maximum rate at which the value of the annual rate of enjoyment is to be calculated must also be increased. The effect of this—I am now referring to the amendment proposed by clause 7(1)(g)—is that in some cases, the present value of a fiduciary or usufructuary interest may be higher, because of the application of the interest rate of 12%, than the amount presently payable with the application of the 6% interest rate.

†Clause 8 of the Bill introduces amendments to the donations tax provisions of the Income Tax Act which are similar to the amendments to the Estate Duty Act introduced by clause 7. The values of annuities, fiduciary rights and usufructs have also to be calculated for donations tax purposes and it follows that the same interest factor should be applied for the purposes of donations tax as well as for estate duty.

I come now to the amendments to the Stamp Duties Act. As I announced in my budget statement moderate increases in certain fixed duties are proposed. It is necessary to review these duties from time to time. This was last done in 1968 and I feel that having regard to changed economic conditions, the increases are not excessive. The explanatory memorandum deals with the various increases and I do not propose to deal with them in detail at this stage except to emphasize that the various increases are considered necessary if indirect taxes, which include stamp duties, are to make a worthwhile contribution to State revenue. I previously announced the Government’s decision to introduce a sales tax at the point of sale to the final consumer or user. The Department of Inland Revenue is preparing for the introduction of that tax and it will probably be necessary for a study to be made of the effectiveness or otherwise of various stamp duty items, in conjunction with the detailed proposals in regard to sales tax.

The amendments to the Stamp Duties Act introduced by clause 9 represent another step towards the modernization of the Act where it is possible to do so. It has been found that the proportion of notarially executed documents filed in deeds registries is very small and the continuance of the special rules for stamping such documents is unnecessary.

Hon. members will recollect that legislation was introduced earlier during this session providing for the preservation of deeds office records by means of microfilms instead of the original documents. This, of course, to some extent negatives the present provisions of the Stamp Duties Act in regard to the stamping of original notarially executed documents filed in deeds registries. For these reasons it is felt that the present rules under section 5(3)(a), (b) and (c) of the Stamp Duties Act are unnecessary and it is proposed by this clause to abolish them. As in the past, deeds office examiners will not register instruments which are not duly stamped.

In terms of clause 14 the stamp duty on cheques is, with effect from 1 July 1977, to be increased from 2c to 3c per cheque. The Department of Inland Revenue was aware that certain practical difficulties had to be overcome before the duty could be increased and it was for this reason that the taxation proposal which I originally tabled provided that the new duty was to apply from 1 July 1977 and not from 1 April 1977, as in the case of the other stamp duty increases. The department has had discussions with the commercial banks and a satisfactory solution has been arrived at, as indicated in the explanatory memorandum. I should like to express my appreciation to the banks for their willing co-operation in this matter.

The arrangements made entail a sacrifice of about R30 000 in duty but it is felt that in the interests of efficiency this is justified, especially because of the time and expense that would be involved in collecting small amounts of duty by some other method. People who have very small quantities of unused bank cheque forms on hand on 30 June 1977 will not be called upon to pay the extra duty on such forms.

Clause 19 introduces amendments in regard to the stamp duty on leases. The duty which has hitherto been payable in respect of leases of immovable property, will also be payable in respect of leases of movable property, on the same basis and at the rates already provided.

Certain exemptions are provided. Exemption (b) applies to leases of intellectual property such as patents, designs, trade marks and copyright. The amounts payable under agreements of this kind are in the main royalties and it is not the intention that these agreements should be treated as leases for stamp duty purposes unless other property, for example machinery, is let at the same time. Exemption (c) applies to leases of movables let by the hour, day or week without any lease period being stipulated or, where a period is stipulated, the period does not exceed six months. The casual hire of a vehicle or equipment for a few days would fall under this exemption. As far as leases of movables are concerned the duty will be payable on the full rental payable for the period for which the lease is stamped, even though the rental may exceed the value of the property. Leases of movables for very long periods are a rarity and it is not considered that there is any need for the concession granted for long leases of immovable property.

As far as leases of immovable property are concerned it was originally proposed to withdraw the proviso whereby the rent to be taken into account for assessing duty is limited to the selling value of the property let. For various reasons it has been found that the proviso is unsatisfactory. For instance, where the property let consists of a building to be erected, the cost of the building has to be estimated in advance. It often transpires that the estimate is too conservative and there is an unnecessary loss of revenue. The proviso cannot be applied where only a portion of a building is let and in the result the concession is of use only to a lessee of a whole building. It has, however, been brought to my notice that a number of lease-back schemes now in the process of completion have been drawn up on the basis of the present provisions of the Act and that the proposal to withdraw the proviso would add considerably to the cost of these schemes. I have reconsidered the matter and have come to the conclusion that the proviso should be retained for the time being. This, of course, does not solve the problems to which I have referred and during the parliamentary recess the whole question will be studied further with a view to finding some other basis of stamping these long leases.

The amendments introduced by clause 19 also provide that the date of signature of a lease by the lessee will be deemed to be the date of execution thereof unless the lessor signs it within three months thereafter, in which case the date of signature by the lessor will in terms of the general provisions of the Act be the date of execution. It has been found that some lessors accept the duty from lessees and refrain from signing the leases and at the same time fail to stamp them. One report in the financial Press goes so far as to suggest harsher penalties or a change in the law and says that tenants who have been billed for stamp duty should demand a stamped lease copy to make sure they are not just lending the landlord money. I think I have said enough to explain the reason for the amendment.

Clause 22 of the Bill introduces an amendment to the Companies Act, increasing the rate of the annual duty payable by companies and closing a loophole in the Act whereby duty is avoided by transferring amounts from share premium account to undistributable reserves. These are fiscal measures designed to raise revenue.

Clause 24 of the Bill allows a period of one month’s grace for the payment of any tax or duty which in terms of the Bill will be payable with retrospective effect.

Mr. Speaker, we now come to the last of the taxation measures which this House will consider this year and once again, before I start on what I want to say, I should like to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the explanatory memorandum which has been provided to us by the department.

Most of the measures which are contained in this Bill are reasonably readily understood, but there are two proposals contained in clauses 7 and 8 which deal with the valuations of fiduciary, usufructuary, pension and annuity interests which are very complicated matters, and which require very considerable thought and investigation before one can reach any conclusion as to what their ultimate effects are going to be. In this respect I should say that the explanatory memorandum was particularly useful to us.

Like most tax measures, this Bill contains features which we find ourselves able to support and also features which we find unacceptable. I should like to deal first of all with the change in the marketable securities tax. This is a change which we on this side of the House can support. I question whether such a marginal change as has been made in this tax is going to have any effect on the flow of risk capital into the Stock Exchange, but at any rate the reduction in the total impact of marketable securities tax is a step in the right direction and one which we welcome. We also have no quarrel with the provision which brings stamp duty on transactions outside the Stock Exchange into line with the marketable securities tax. Where we do find the Bill unacceptable, however, is first of all in respect of the amendments to the estate duty and donations tax, as contained in clauses 7 and 8, the increases in other stamp duties other than the marketable securities tax and the increase in the company duties.

We on this side of the House have always maintained that estate duty and donations tax are taxes that should be abolished altogether. These taxes are confiscatory of capital; they are destructive of capital, particularly at a time when capital is scarce and when capital should be preserved and retained intact. These duties cause hardship when private estates and properties have to be desiccated in order to pay these duties. This applies in particular to farms. When estate duties are levied on agricultural property, those properties have to be divided into smaller units, which then become generally less productive and less remunerative than larger farming units. This also in many cases applies to private companies, which lose momentum once the families or the persons who have started those companies lose absolute control of them. I think that this is something that the Government has recognized in the past. It has over a period of years endeavoured to lessen the impact of estate duty and donations tax by increasing the basic rebates and by introducing a revised method of calculation, this has resulted in some relief. The measures now introduced, in terms of clauses 7 and 8, as I said at the start, are very complex measures. It has taken a lot of thought and investigation to arrive at any conclusion as to what the impact and result will be. On balance, it appears to us that they are going to have the effect of increasing the duties payable overall, and that they are measures designed to favour the fiscus rather than the taxpayer. There are, of course, exceptions. There is an exception for instance in the case of a donation of the bare dominium of a property. There the change operates to reduce donations tax and transfer duty. There is also an exception in the case of pensions and annuities. This is in favour of the taxpayer.

Our advice—and we have sought expert advice on this subject—is that the overall result of these provisions will be that the estate duty and donations tax will bear more heavily on the taxpayer as a result of these provisions than it did in the past. That is borne out by the fact that the hon. the Minister is estimating that this tax will yield R43,5 million this year, compared with only R38 million last year.

In these circumstances, since we have reached the conclusion that this provision will bear more heavily on the taxpayer, we cannot support this. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the amount derived from death duty is really worth the hardship that is caused? Is it worth it, bearing in mind all the schemes wealthier people think up or go in for just to avoid death duties, schemes which have little or no productive benefit to the country as a whole? It is estimated that these death duties, as I have said, will yield R43,5 million this year, and this is only something like 0,5% of the total revenue of the Budget. I believe that the time has come for the Government very seriously to consider dropping this tax altogether.

Now I should like to come to the increases in stamp duties contained in this Bill. They are not designed to raise a very large sum of money, in fact only R4 million. It may be said by the hon. the Minister that the raising of such a modest sum will therefore have an insignificant impact. I would nevertheless say that this is yet another pinprick for the public and for business, and it is going to have a marginal effect in raising the cost of living and in raising the cost of running businesses. The cost of living will be increased marginally by the increased stamp duty on cheques and by the increased stamp duty on insurance premiums, and the cost to businesses will be increased by virtually all the stamp duty increases contained in this Bill. I would say that even if these pinpricks do only have a marginal effect, they nevertheless do have some effect on people’s decisions and on business. I think it is particularly unfortunate that these increased stamp duties are made to bear particularly heavily on the durable goods industries. A sizeable proportion of the products of these industries come into use via hire-purchase agreements, which are subject to higher stamp duties, or by way of leases, with movable property now included for stamp duty purposes. Most of these durable industries such as the furniture industry, the appliance industry and the motor industry are having a pretty rough time of it at present, and I would have thought that they could have been spared this extra imposition, however light it may be.

Finally, I should like to say something in connection with the increased duty on companies. We on this side of the House have no objection to bringing amounts transferred from share premium accounts to undistributed reserves into the ambit of company duty. I think that is only fair. It closes a loophole which has been exploited to a very considerable extent. However, I do believe that the increase in the rate of duty, the increase in the minimum duty payable is another unfortunate tax, which although not very great in its impact, nevertheless in aggregate is going to put up the cost of doing business by R9 million in total. I hold no brief for the proliferation of companies which are formed to lighten the tax burden of individuals or to avoid payment of transfer duties. However, it may well be that this increased duty is going to be counter-productive in that it will discourage the formation of that type of company. I would say, however, that the ordinary company, particularly the private company, is the backbone of the business of our country, the backbone of the productive business of our country. This is how small businesses operate, and to hit them in this way at a time when many of them are struggling to make ends meet, to make their businesses pay, is I think a very unwise step to take merely for the sake of an additional R9 million. This is an aspect of the Bill which we on this side of the House cannot support. Mr. Speaker, on account of the general provisions of this Bill, which are going to have the effect of putting up the cost of living and of increasing the cost of doing business, we are unable to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Constantia for supporting the measures he does support in this Bill. I want to tell him that I am afraid that I cannot support his view on estate duty and some other matters.

*When we talk about our income tax laws and our other revenue laws, I think we have to view them in a wider perspective than the one in which the hon. member viewed them this morning. We are dealing here with highly technical legislation and one must not make the mistake of judging it one-sidedly. I think that to do it justice, one has to adopt a more balanced approach and a wider perspective in judging it. That is why I am very pleased that the clear memorandum concerning the highly technical measures contained in these Acts, has been submitted to the House.

I want to come back to what the hon. member for Constantia said. I just want to remind the hon. member that he made a statement here that the higher “estate duty will be more heavy on the taxpayer”, “it’s only pin-pricks”, etc. I want to make it very clear that since we received the report of the Franzsen Commission, a number of measures have been implemented whose aim has been to base our tax system on sound points of departure. Since 1971, when we had the so-called tax bulge in income tax, the first thing we did was eliminate that tax bulge and straighten the scale. The aim was to afford major relief to the average income group. That is not all we did. We also raised the scale at the top, for our higher income groups, those people who can afford to pay tax. At the same time we dropped the scale for the lesser privileged. In that way we established a straight scale which afforded relief to the vast majority of people, but which leans a little more heavily on those who can pay.

The hon. member pointed out that there were great improvements in respects of estate duty. Whereas previously certain deductions were made from the duty payable at that time, we have now made certain concessions which may be deducted from the value of the estate. The upshot of this is that we have been able to afford major relief in respect of estates worth up to R400 000. If we look at how the people in South Africa are made up—the hon. the Minister referred to the small percentage of people who have large incomes of more than R20 000 per annum—we find that we are dealing here with a triangle in the capitalist economic structure. This triangle is comprised of people on the lowest level who have little, people in the middle who are a little better off and a small number of rich people at the apex. We are forced to rely on certain people for taxation in respect of estate duty, because the State has to have that money. If my figures are correct, we had approximately 26 000 registered estates in 1973, 23 000 of which were entirely exempted from estate duty. In other words, only a small percentage of people in South Africa are called on to pay estate duty.

This is a matter which is often discussed. This matter is also discussed emotionally. It is easy for people to advance the argument that liability for estate duty should be removed. However, what would the effect be? Recent figures have shown—it may be more now— that if the State were to forfeit this revenue from estate duty, we should be forced to adjust the income tax structure. One would then have to adjust the income tax scale by between 7% and 9% in order to collect an amount equal to that which one has exempted in respect of estate duty. What would the effect of that be? The effect would be to nullify the relief afforded in 1971 by lowering the scale for the vast majority of the population to whom we should like to afford relief.

The strong middle-class in South Africa— Dr. Franzsen contended that it was desirable to establish a strong middle-class in South Africa—the workers who make a very large contribution to South Africa’s economy, would then have to bear the brunt of this.

I do not think the hon. member for Constantia wants us to do that. I think he will agree with my argument that we should rather try to implement other measures. At this stage it is difficult, because we are not experiencing a boom period in the economy.

There is a great deal of understanding for the problem faced by our hon. Minister and our officials. We have an officialdom which adopts a very impartial standpoint in relation to these highly technical matters. They are always prepared to co-operate. Every argument that is raised, is measured and tested against the yardstick of how it will affect every sector of the population. That is very pleasing to note. No population group or profession gets preferential treatment. Proposals which could give one sector of the population an advantage over another, are scrutinized with an eagle eye. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we appreciate that. All honour to our officials, too, for keeping a watchful eye over this matter. It is a problem.

I want to go further. We may have reached a stage where the higher income group has become a little discouraged because we may be asking a little too much of them. Since there are only a few Whites in the country and the entrepreneurs come from the uppermost strata, I think it would pay dividends if we were to take another look at whether it is not time, in view of the drop in the value of money, for us to adjust the scales. In any event, we would have to do this very carefully so as not to destroy what we have achieved over the past seven years.

On the other hand, I believe that sound arguments could be advanced for alleviating the burden on the higher income groups. However, this is a matter which we shall have to study in depth. The Minister’s Standing Commission on Taxation Policy is continually dealing with such matters and I do not believe they would be unwilling to give attention to any argument or proposal which any of us were to put forward. If the hon. member for Constantia were to come up with a proposal, I think it would be given very close attention. I think it is the task of all of us to bring about improvements where possible. We must remember, however, that when one lays hands on a man’s purse, then in many cases one is also laying hands on his soul. We must not give the public the impression that there is anything seriously wrong. I think we in South Africa have a very refined, reasonable and consistent system of taxation. We must all guard against it being taken out of context.

I want to express my gratitude for the concessions and changes contained in the Bill. Over the years, it has been our experience that the Minister has introduced further refinements towards the end of every session, and that gives us the impression and the confidence that the Minister and his department are vigilant and that they are preventing the system from getting out of proportion as we move forward. We know that he will continue to do so in the future and we want to express our sincere thanks to him for this.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in the expression of appreciation to the Minister and the department for the explanatory memorandum. What is quite fascinating is that, even with a very detailed explanatory memorandum on this Bill, which deeply concerns estate duties and attendant matters, we are going to have differences of opinion as to what the effect of this really is. One can imagine what the effect would have been on the debate which would have taken place here had there been no explanatory memorandum.

May I start off by reminding the hon. the Minister of a bit of history of which I am sure he is aware, namely that, when the American colonists were somewhat aggrieved at the actions of the British Government, when they had a whole variety of grievances and it was quite clear that they were dissatisfied with the way in which they were being governed, the British Government eventually imposed a Stamp Act on the American colonists as a result of which there was the American War of Independence and all that followed on it. Sometimes one has to be careful that matters, which appear to involve the raising of only small amounts of revenue, do not lead to a hornets’ nest being stirred up. While I am not suggesting that there should be a general declaration of independence—the hon. the Minister already has problems in Natal with some of my colleagues to the right who are concerned about this—I must tell him that the raising of small amounts of revenue sometimes can become the straw that breaks the camel’s back. At present the position in the community is that almost every activity, with very limited exceptions—I hope the hon. the Minister will not apply his mind to those activities which at present are exempt from taxation—is in one way or another ending up in the clutches of the hon. the Minister of Finance for tax purposes. It is of course the job of the Opposition to be vigilant in regard to these matters, because the Minister’s mind may well wander to other activities from which we should really like to keep him away.

The subject of estate duty has been debated by both the previous speakers. The question I should like to pose is whether in fact it is morally more right to tax a man on the fruits of his labour than on the accumulation of the fruits of his labour when he dies.

My view, which I want to put quite frankly here, is that the Carter commission which sat in Canada put forward what I thought was a very sound concept, but which unfortunately has not even been followed in Canada. Their concept is that one should actually tax all incomings, but that one should never take more than half away from a man on anything, because the moment the State takes away more than half, it kills incentive. My personal opinion is that that is not a bad principle, because if one accepts the concept that people with the ingenuity that modern man has can devise all sorts of ways of minimizing taxation in all its aspects, one needs to look at all that comes in and one needs to impose some form of taxation in respect of it.

The hon. member for Constantia says that we should abolish estate duties altogether. I find it a difficult argument morally to accept that nothing of the estate of a man who is worth millions and millions should go to the Exchequer upon his death. I have a real problem about that, but I see a very strong case which can be made out for the fact that the small man should be left with more. In other words, one should encourage the accumulation of wealth by the community as a whole. If the hon. the Minister wants to lift the limits of exemption, he will get immediate support from us, because what one needs to encourage is not the perpetuation of wealth for which people have not worked, but the retention of wealth by those who have actually laboured during their lifetime so that there is a reasonable limit and so that the community as a whole can be encouraged to accumulate wealth. To my mind that is a concept which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister should rather lift the limits in terms of which the ordinary man can try to accumulate something for his family so that there is something available on which the next generation can build, than have generation upon generation living off accumulated wealth without really having laboured in order to improve it for the sake of the community. I would like to put this concept to the hon. the Minister.

I would also like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that only recently there was a reference by one of the tax writers to the fact that public servants are, of course, privileged when it comes to estate duty in respect of their pensions. I am not suggesting that that should be done away with, because I think that is one of the incentives as to why one should be in the Public Service. However, I wonder whether a stronger case cannot be made out for greater exemption in respect of pensions as such. I concede that there is a concession in this. I think it is beyond argument that there is a basis of concession in this, but if we look at the concept as to whether pensions as such should be subject to this, I think a strong case can be made out that there should be a greater degree of exemption in regard to the ordinary pension which comes about as the result of employment and which is within the limits allowed to be deducted by the Exchequer for tax purposes. I would like to make that plea to the hon. the Minister today. The hon. the Minister is in any case taking from pension funds at all sorts of levels at all times. Let me give an example. In the first place, a pension fund has to invest more than half of its money in Government security. Furthermore, when somebody dies the pension is assessed and calculated for estate duty purposes, and when the pension is received tax must be paid on the amount received. Throughout the whole of the process inflation is taking its toll on the whole value of the pension as such. If one looks at pension funds from a purely investment point of view, I think the State already gets more than its share in regard to pensions at every level at which taxation can be exacted from it.

May I, Sir, just for a moment deal with the question of the marketable securities tax. I have a difficulty in respect of this matter. I accept the fact that there should be the same form of taxation in respect of a transfer of public company shares which takes place on the Stock Exchange, as there is in respect of a transfer which takes place off the Stock Exchange. However, what the hon. the Minister has done is not only to affect public company shares which could be traded on the Stock Exchange; he has again included private company shares so that the effect of this measure is that in respect of the small business which is transferred, the rate of duty is now being put up by 50%. That part of the measure I, for one, cannot support and we in these benches cannot support.

The same is applicable when it comes to the hitting of people for annual duty now. What is really being done is that the privilege of using limited liability is once again being made a privilege of the rich. I do not share the hon. member for Constantia’s views about the abuse in regard to the use of private companies, because I think private companies are being quite substantially taxed. The use of the limited liability vehicle by ordinary people, not by the rich, is something which I believe should not be discouraged. On the contrary, they are entitled to have the same privileges as the rich have in these circumstances.

I now come to the issue of stamp duties as such and stamp duties on movables. As I said right at the beginning of the debate, it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister is looking for more and more sources of revenue. All kinds of activities are being affected. When you require the leases of movables to be taxed or when you require hire-purchase agreements to be taxed, whom are you really hitting? You are hitting the ordinary man who needs the credit, the man who cannot get the cheaper credit by way of overdraft facilities, when you tax a hire-purchase agreement by making it subject to stamp duty and by increasing that stamp duty very substantially on a percentage basis. It will not be the businessman who will have to pay that; it will once again have to be paid by the consumer. It is the consumer who gets hit by this at every turn. In regard to the lease of movables I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one matter, i.e. that he indicated in his speech that he was not dealing with the exemptions in respect of long leases for movables, because these he did not regard as being a problem. I am aware of the fact that there are long leases for movables, equipment leases, where a whole factory is equipped on this basis to last for 10 years or more. This is a problem and the hon. the Minister should also apply his mind to it.

The same applies to the increase on the customs and excise document where the increase is 50%. Who does the hon. the Minister think is going to pay for this in the end? A number of these increases that are contained in this piece of legislation are again going to be inflationary and again the burden is going to rest on the consumer and for those reasons we cannot support this measure. There are, as I have indicated, however, some provisions in the Bill that we support and for those reasons I want to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the officials for the very comprehensive explanatory memorandum they have prepared. After we had read the explanatory memorandum—some of us still found it very complicated—we had no problem in understanding it. In this connection, too, the officials have been very helpful to us. We want to thank the officials for the trouble they have taken to explain all these things to us.

†Part of the Bill flows from the budget proposals which we passed earlier this session. The budget envisaged raising R4 million by way of stamp duties and R9 million on annual company duties. We are not happy about all these increases, especially not about increasing the maximum annual duty from R50 to R80 payable by private companies. For the small company with, say, one small asset, the increase in annual duty is disastrous when one takes into account, not only the annual duty, but the very high charges in secretarial fees and in audit fees. One often finds that the income of a company is far less than its expenditure. I am not blaming this particular department for it, but what I am saying is that that increase of R30 is a substantial increase when the enormous secretarial and audit accounts that they receive in addition, are taken into account.

At present, when a company enters into a very long lease on a property, the parties can elect to pay stamp duty either on the market value of the property or on the value of the lease. I hope that that right of election will always remain. However, I understood the hon. the Minister to say something about it in his Second Reading speech. As far as I could gather he said it would not be changed at this stage. I therefore hope that that right of election will always remain. The provision whereby capitalization takes place at 12% instead of 6% can be very beneficial. Where it is beneficial we welcome it. Where it is detrimental, obviously we are unhappy about it and it is not to be welcomed. I would like to give the hon. the Minister two examples, one of a pension falling into an estate where the 12% capitalization is very beneficial and far less estate duty will be paid; the second where the 12% is applied to a usufruct detrimentally affecting the beneficiary.

Here I understood the hon. member for Constantia to say that he thought there was some gain for the bare dominion holder in that particular case. However, if I understood the hon. member correctly, I do not agree with him there. I will give an example. Take the beneficial example. A husband dies and leaves a widow aged 60. At the time of his death he was receiving a pension of R12 000 a year. If one capitalizes the pension at 6% the present value is R129 960. If it is capitalized at 12%, the present value is R87 000. Estate duty will be paid on R87 000 less abatements, instead of on R129 960 less abatements. Therefore this is a vast improvement, and we welcome it. However, it is not a sufficient improvement. We would have preferred a higher capitalization value.

The detrimental usufruct is shown by the following example. If a usufruct is over R50 000, and the usufructuary dies when the bare dominion holder is a female aged 50, with a capitalization of 6% the present value is R38 850. At 12% the present value is R47 280. In this case duty will be paid on R47 280, instead of on R38 850. This is a tough situation. The hon. the Minister should reconsider it. That is why I thought there was a difference between the hon. member for Constantia and myself with regard to the understanding of this particular aspect.

We in the SAP would obviously like to see a reduction of estate duty, something which would in turn lead to the total abolition of estate duty. The problem is that many people die while they have their assets encumbered. They do not have the necessary liquid funds in their estate for estate duty to be paid, and in the circumstances those left behind often find it extremely difficult to raise such liquid funds.

It is hard on the heirs.

It is as the hon. member for Simonstown says. It is very hard on the heirs. That is true. As far as we are concerned, the sooner estate duty is abolished, the better. I would like the hon. the Minister to apply his mind to the very serious problems that arise from the question of estate duty, particularly when the heirs are left in a situation where they do not have the liquid funds and the assets are bonded, as many are at present.

More particularly in the farming community, we know, there are enormous amounts owing to the Land Bank. Very many farmers have bonded themselves to the hilt, not because they wanted to, but because of circumstances. In those cases where the property must be divided up it becomes an impossible situation for the property to be divided up and an enormous amount of estate duty must be paid, more especially when one takes into account that the gross asset value may be high, but that the net asset value in the end may be a much lesser figure. I feel that estate duty is one of the reasons for the depopulation of the platteland, and I really think that the hon. the Minister should order an investigation in depth into this particular matter.

Sir, for the reasons which I have given, we shall oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have really been listening to the debate with interest. I am glad that hon. members of all parties appreciate the fact that the department has taken so much trouble to prepare these documents for us, especially the explanatory memorandums. I want to associate myself at once with what was said by the hon. member for Heilbron in particular in referring to our officials. I really appreciate it. I think the House will agree with me and the hon. member for Heilbron that we have very competent and dedicated officials—in this connection I can really speak from experience—in regard to finance, taxation matters, and so forth.

We can say that over the past day or two, while dealing with financial measures and with the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, we have really seen our officials in action. I want to express my thanks and appreciation for the encouraging words of the hon. member for Heilbron and other hon. members towards the Secretary for Finance during the budget debate; towards the Secretary to the Treasury while we were dealing with the Finance Bill; towards the Secretary for Customs and Excise while we were discussing his Bill; and towards the Secretary for Inland Revenue and his officials yesterday evening and this morning while discussing the last two financial measures.

Since I have now referred to the hon. member for Heilbron, I just want to tell him that we are keeping an eye on the various problems which arise—the anomalies and so forth—in respect of our taxes and tax laws. The specific question raised by the hon. member, namely possible relief for taxpayers, especially for those in the higher income groups, is also being studied continuously by the department and the Standing Commission on Taxation Policy. The investigation will certainly be continued during the recess. The hon. member also referred quite rightly to the considerable relief there has been lately in respect of estate duty, and I think this is something I can substantiate with figures.

†The hon. member for Constantia referred to the complicated nature of the provisions relating to the valuation of estates, the valuation of fiduciary and usufructuary interests in particular. There is no doubt about that. I have documents before me which I think will bear that out very clearly and which show how careful one has to be in order to try to achieve some sort of equity in these matters. I am glad the hon. member can support the marketable securities tax amendments, although he has a considerable reservation about estate duty. In fact, he would like to see estate duty abolished, as would the hon. member for Walmer. However, the hon. member for Constantia went further and said that estate duty was confiscatory. Whatever else one might say about estate duty, I do not think one can say that estate duty is confiscatory. In regard to this plea that estate duty be abolished, may I briefly refer first of all to the Franzsen Commission, which made a very thorough study of our whole fiscal system and taxes. It came out against the abolition of estate duty. The various reasons are clearly set out in its report. I would like to read the following short paragraph—

That was said some years ago, and in the interval the incidence of estate duty has been lightened still more. I would like to say again that estate duty in South Africa is certainly not confiscatory. According to the latest available statistics the average estate only becomes liable for estate duty if its taxable value is R100 000 or more and even after that, for a considerable distance up the scale, the amounts payable are extremely light. Let us just look at a few figures. Let us take a case where there is a surviving spouse and two children. Let us assume that the net value of the estate amounts to R75 000, and we include insurance and Government stock amounting to R25 000 only. On a net value of R75 000 there is, in fact, no estate duty payable at all. If the net value of the estate is R140 000, and the insurance and Government stock amount to only R40 000—the maximum is R70 000— there is no tax payable at all. If one takes an estate valued at R175 000 where the insurance and Government stock are limited to R50 000, the tax payable is R3 250, which amounts to 1,8%.

The problem is that the farm may be the major asset in the estate.

Yes, that may be; it is perfectly correct. However, the fact remains that if these are the net values of the estate, these are the taxes payable. If one takes an estate valued at R270 000 and insurance and Government stock are at the maximum figure of R70 000, the tax payable is R18 000, which amounts to 6,7%. Even if one goes right up to the vicinity of R500 000, for instance an estate valued at R470 000 and insurance and Government stock amounting to R70 000 are included, the tax payable is R75 750, which is a matter of 16% of the estate. If one takes an estate valued at R1 070 000 and insurance and Government stock are R70 000, the tax payable is R285 750, which represents 26,7%. One must therefore be careful in weighing up the incidence of the various taxes. One must not simply abolish a tax where its incidence for most people is certainly very light and where it is a productive tax which, if it is abolished, will cause us to lose millions of rands in respect of tax revenue. We will simply have to try to find that somewhere else. If it is to be done by means of income tax …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister what the annual revenue from estate duties is? Is it not approximately R12-R13 million?

It is about R45 million per year. In other words, it is certainly not something one can ignore. I will not give any further figures in that regard, but I hope that I have indicated that it is, first of all, an important tax as a revenue earner for the State and that it is a very reasonable tax in its incidence on the great majority of people affected.

The hon. member for Constantia referred to stamp duty as being in the nature of pin-pricks. He wondered whether this tax was really worth the candle as it brought in only approximately R4 million, that is to say in terms of the measures contained in the budget. Well, it is not simply a question of the amount.

One should look at the whole spectrum of taxation and if one finds a tax which brings in a meagre revenue, but is well based and can be justified, it must, to that extent, lighten the tax burden somewhere else. I think that is very much the case with stamp duties. I therefore do not think that one can simply say that because there is a relatively small amount collected, this is a tax one can forget. The hardship one might cause by seeking to find that lost revenue somewhere else might be far greater. I would like to point out in regard to stamp duties—a point which I think is overlooked—that it is not a recurrent expenditure. It is an amount one pays on documents when they are registered, or whatever the case may be. When this is seen in relation to the full period of the transaction, it is often absolutely minimal in the sense of its incidence or burden on the taxpayer. The hon. member for Constantia, if I understood him correctly, also wanted a reduction on the annual duty on companies. He was not happy about the present proposals. In that respect I want to point out, of course, that companies are formed because of the many advantages that the corporate form of business enterprise does have, not least of which are, of course, the fiscal benefits accruing. One must remember that the annual duty which is paid is, in fact, deductible for income tax purposes; so the net increase is therefore reduced in the sense that while 49% of a company’s tax is paid at the tax rate applicable to companies, the annual duty is deductible, thus having an alleviating influence. If one bears all that in mind, I do not think one can say that this is a particularly burdensome tax.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised certain issues. One relates to the question of widows’ pensions, if I am not mistaken. I should just like to comment briefly on the argument that is sometimes advanced, that a widow’s pension is, in fact, taxed twice. It is said that it is, firstly, subjected to estate duty and, secondly, to income tax on her pension. I should like to say that that is not correct. It is not the widow’s pension as such that is taxed for estate duty purposes, but the capitalized value of the pension—in other words, the value of the capital asset is taxed and not the yearly receipts of the pension itself. The capitalized value of a usufruct is subject to estate duty, and as it is clear that such a right is part of the rights of full ownership in the property over which the usufruct is held, obviously a capital asset passes. Property can be bequeathed in trust so as to give the beneficiary a usufructuary right or a right to an annuity, and there is really no difference for estate duty purposes. A pension payable by a pension fund is not connected with assets in a deceased person’s estate. It is connected with assets in the fund, but it must be remembered that those assets are usually built up out of contributions by the deceased and contributions made by his employer for his benefit, and the deceased’s estate would have been greater if he had not made his contributions or the employer had increased the deceased’s remuneration instead of contributing to the fund. In other words, one would have to analyse this position very carefully before one could simply say that there is this element of double taxation or an inequitable tax.

The hon. member for Yeoville also talked about estate duty. He did not argue for the abolition of estate duty, but said in effect that the State must not prejudice the accumulation of wealth particularly by the relatively poorer section. I think that was the point he wanted to make. It is a sentiment which I would certainly share with him. I think in the light of the sort of figures I quoted in respect of estate duty payable on the various sizes of estates I mentioned, one can see that the tax is deliberately structured that way.

I have taken note of the hon. member’s comment on the marketable securities tax. I will take that up further with the department. That is in fact the only other note I have. The hon. member referred to the Carter Commission. The Carter Commission, according to the hon. member, said we should not tax more than half a person’s income. Did the hon. member refer to personal income?

Incomings of any kind.

The Carter Commission had a very interesting tenet. They said a dollar was a dollar and should be taxed as such. I would like to look at the report, but one would have to relate that to the question of not taxing more than half the income. The idea of incomings is interesting. I should imagine there is an element of a capital gains tax involved here.

That is correct.

This is something which we, of course, do not have. Maybe we should have one. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked me not to allow my imagination to run wild and I will have to bear that in mind.

The hon. member for Walmer dealt with a case in the valuation of an estate which is affected by a usufructuary interest where the 12% factor in the valuation of that estate may lead to a position less favourable than, say, the factor of 6%. I think that was the point he made. It is so. You can get that position, although it is rare; it is not the general run. I have a case too where one finds that on the figures I have posed here, one could in fact get, for instance, an estate valued at R89 800 using the 6% valuation factor, whereas if one applied the 12% factor, the estate would be valued at R98 800. That is just on certain assumptions. However, in most cases it would, of course, be the opposite. In the general run of things, the capitalized value will be reduced as the interest factor is raised. It is only because some other what might be regarded as relevant factors enter into the calculation that you could indeed come to that result. These are things which I would regard as anomalies, and we could always study them further to see if it would be possible to avoid them, because it is not the sort of situation we would like to see. In fact, we are trying to get away from it. I want to point out again that is is comparatively rare.

*Mr. Speaker, I trust that I have replied to most of the points.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—85: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—40: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill merely gives effect to recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions, which recommendations have already been accepted by both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, this Bill really gives legislative effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions. If one looks at the schedule of the Bill, one sees that the majority of the benefits to be awarded are with retrospective effect to 1 April 1977. In view of the fact that we should like to see this Bill expeditiously dealt with in order that the benefits may be paid to the beneficiaries, we intend supporting the Bill at all stages.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased in the first place to be able to say that I have a very strong suspicion that this is a measure about which there is going to be general agreement on both sides of the House—or should one rather speak about all four or all five sides of the House? A memorandum relating to this Bill has been made available and this has probably been of assistance to the hon. members.

In this Bill we are amending the provisions in three existing Acts. Our policy is, of course, very evolutionary and dynamic in respect of Bantu development. Even this short Bill, which comprises only three clauses, furnishes positive proof of this, and that holds true for both the Bantu in White areas and the Bantu in the homelands. In terms of this Bill certain existing legal restrictions are being removed and more power is being given to the Bantu in certain other respects.

†Clause 1 deals with the way in which Bantu persons may organize themselves, and especially their business concerns, in the Bantu urban residential areas. This Bill enables Bantu associations, companies or partnerships to own and to run their own business concerns in such Bantu urban residential areas, whereas thus far it could only have been on the basis of one-man undertakings.

This measure is the direct result of discussions which the Black leaders had with the hon. the Prime Minister and myself some time ago.

Clause 2 has to do with the distribution of Bantu beer, in that it is now in this Bill made possible for Bantu dealers in Bantu urban residential areas and also for Coloured dealers in Coloured group areas, to sell Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder. I may add that the Coloured Representative Council asked for these facilities in respect of the Coloured dealers.

*Clauses 3 and 4 extend the powers of the homeland Governments by amending section 4 of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, thereby making it possible for homeland Governments to enter into agreements, treaties and conventions with the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Corresponding amendments are accordingly being introduced in the schedule to the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act.

As I said earlier, I really hope that this short and positive measure will be supported by both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a short Bill and the hon. the Minister has outlined it shortly. I shall not take a great deal of the time of the House in dealing with the matter. I can say at once that it is not a Bill which we shall oppose.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that clause 1 introduces two new concepts. The scope of administration as it presently exists, is to be widened. In the first part of the clause it is provided that sites can now be leased to Bantu companies and partnerships and in the second part the same applies to buildings. One knows from the statement that was issued when the Black homeland leaders met the hon. the Prime Minister in January last year, that amongst the many requests that were made was the request that this limitation on “one man, one business” in an urban Bantu residential area should be done away with. It has taken nearly 18 months for that to take place. Nevertheless, limited as it is, it is to be welcomed that this change has been made.

Clause 2 as I see it is a model of confused draftsmanship. I cannot tell you, Sir, how many hours some of us have spent trying to fathom the meaning of this clause. The clause provides for an extension of a freer trade—if it can be put that way—in Bantu beer and in this respect we are not opposed to it. However, I must say to the hon. the Minister with all sincerity that it is a thoroughly difficult and confusing piece of draftsmanship. It is very difficult indeed, even for those of us who are used to looking at legislation, to ascertain what it means. How the ordinary administrator, inspector or policeman is expected to fathom this sort of legislation, I do not know.

As far as clauses 3 and 4 are concerned, there is little one can say about them other than that they highlight the artificiality of the whole homelands concept. Here we have two amendments, the second one being consequential on the first, where the concept of international conventions is done away with, because presumably there are some of the homeland Governments that are unlikely to adopt sovereign independence in respect of the areas in which they live and over which they have jurisdiction. If one looks at clause 3, one finds that we are dealing with the following—

Previously the provision read: “… or ratification of international conventions …”, and now it is to read: “… conventions, treaties and agreements with countries other than the Republic”. I do not see that it can be designed to deal with any other situation than the one I have just posed. Clause 4 of the Bill is, in a sense, consequential upon clause 3. It is a new insertion and deals with—

This is a small Bill and, as I have said, it makes relexations in three important areas of administration by the hon. the Minister’s department. That being so, we shall not oppose the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, we do not find anything offensive in the Bill. Indeed, to a certain extent it is an improvement. It is widening the opportunities for Africans, which is something we have always supported, and therefore we shall give the Second Reading of this Bill our support.

Mr. Speaker, we also support the Second Reading of the Bill, but like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana I have some difficulty with the amendment to section 5(1A) as contained in clause 2 of the Bill. I shall deal with the matter now in order to save time during the Committee Stage. I have difficulty with the insertion from lines 4 to 9 on page 4 where we find provision for the exclusion of a general dealer from an area that has been declared a Coloured area in terms of the Group Areas Act. I think we might have a problem in Grahamstown in relation to the beer hall of the Bantu Administration Board, which falls either just inside or just outside such an area. I shall be very grateful if the hon. the Minister can clarify the situation in his reply. We support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the three hon. members on the other side of the House for the general support of the legislation. As a lawyer, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will probably know how lawyers can go to town with language and words when they draft Acts or even when they discuss matters. I had thought that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana would not have such a serious objection to the tortuous terminology of that specific clause. I must admit that I myself had to read the clause a number of times before I fully understood what it was about. One could achieve exactly the same effect in far fewer words, i.e. if one were an average person, but if one is a lawyer, one often needs more words. I do not want to argue with the lawyers any further about this, but in my opinion the aim, drift and impact of the words are very clear. That also holds true, of course, for the argument advanced by the hon. member for Albany in this regard, because we concentrated on wording the provision in such a way as to enable all Bantu dealers who have legitimate Bantu shops in the Bantu residential areas in White parts of South Africa to sell Bantu beer and Bantu beer powder. The Coloureds, in turn, can do so in the Coloured group areas of course. That was not the hon. member’s objection, however. That is why I think that as it is worded here, the provision should in fact cover the case in the hon. member’s constituency, the case to which he referred.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although tremendous progress has been made with the development of the Government’s homeland policy, attention has also consistently been given to the interests of the Black people in the urban Bantu residential areas. Apart from many administrative matters relating to these people, matters which are continually adapted and changed as circumstances dictate, let me refer to the establishment of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. In the short period of their existence these boards have already done very important work under difficult circumstances. This Bill can contribute towards considerably alleviating their task in so far as the Bantu themselves can be involved in the task of helping to administer their own people.

There are those who wish to allege that this Bill is the result of the Soweto riots. To those it can be said that ideas were exchanged and discussions held in the department about this matter long before the riots took place and that sooner or later this whole matter would have evolved as a normal consequence of the department’s functions.

The Bill is a product of the evolutionary nature of our policy and also gives proof of this. In earlier years there were only the advisory boards. Then there were the urban Bantu councils with a limited status. We now envisage these community councils with a corporate existence and with more powers than the urban Bantu councils. Since our policy evidences dynamic growth, further development in this sphere is very likely also possible, and in this sense community councils can, in the course of time, develop for the Black communities in White areas into individual bodies which can, in many respects, be compared with local authorities.

Though it is true that in constitutional and other spheres the homelands have made graphic progress, it is unfortunately also true that at this stage the homelands cannot yet supply their people with sufficient job opportunities. The truth of the matter is that conditions in the White area are such that work can be supplied to large numbers of Black people.

Many Black people who work in decentralized areas travel back to their homes in the homelands at the end of each work-day, and in the future improved forms of transport will place increasingly more people in that advantageous position. In contrast there are large numbers of Black people who live and work in White South Africa, people who are settled in urban Bantu residential areas around and close to our urban complexes and towns. The policy is still based on the natural state of affairs, i.e. that the Black man in the urban Bantu residential area is not divorced from his ethnic context and from his compatriots in the homelands, and this unitary view is maintained throughout the Government’s policy. Those people who live outside the homelands do not, wherever they live, have the franchise in and in respect of the White area, exercising as they do their franchise in respect of the respective legislative assemblies in the homelands. As far as local authority matters are concerned, these people have relatively minor powers, and that is what this Bill wants to give more substance to.

As far as local authority matters are concerned, at present the Bantu are served by Bantu advisory boards and urban Bantu councils. The former boards originally came into being under the Native Urban Areas Act, No. 21 of 1923, and subsequently their functioning was regulated by the provisions of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, No. 25 of 1945. In 1961 the Urban Bantu Councils Act was passed, an Act in terms of which an urban Bantu council could be instituted for a Bantu residential area alongside or to the exclusion of an advisory board. The Act makes provision for the allocation of a wide range of functions and duties to the councils, but throughout their function was chiefly advisory. To date 24 such councils have been instituted and have, with varying degrees of success, been engaged in carrying out their allocated task with dedication over the years. The members of both bodies must be thanked for the positive work done over many years.

It is therefore only fair that the inhabitants of the urban Bantu residential areas should be given the opportunity to participate in the administration of the residential areas exclusively reserved for their occupation. As far as their education is concerned, they already have the power to share in its regulation.

It is important that people should not only relay advice about the more personal and intimate affairs of their community to another authority, but that they should also face up to the full responsibilities, which may emanate from the practical implementation of their advice, and accept this in full.

It is likewise very important that the members of a community should have a share in the perpetuation of peace and order within their own community. The Bill makes provision for the establishment of a community guard after the necessary consultation with the Minister of Police.

The Bill makes provision for wide-ranging consultation between the community councils which are to be established, the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and the Minister. The advantage of this is that fruitful consultations can be held about what is entailed by the widely divergent duties and functions to which reference is made in the Bill and how their implementation, or failure to accept full responsibility, will either serve or harm the interests of the Bantu community. It is necessary, even at this early stage, to warn against possible harmful trends of thought: The too rapid transfer of duties and responsibilities before those who will be entrusted with them have an understanding of what they really entail; the withholding of duties and responsibilities relating to their communities of people who are competent to make a success of allocated tasks; and that no matter what the circumstances, the general welfare of the community that must be served shall be paramount, and never the positions or interests of those who have been elected to positions of leadership.

In addition, community councils must not be converted into platforms from which general political matters are discussed and non-relevant concessions negotiated. The bodies must be seen as instruments which, within the framework of the Bill, handle and administer matters of a more local nature in the community.

The idea of additional powers was discussed on a broad basis with members of Bantu advisory boards and urban Bantu councils throughout the country and the positive attitudes and views that came to the fore were encouraging.

†Mr. Speaker, I shall now deal with the clauses individually.

Clause 1:

This clause contains the definitions and provides that the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945 (No. 25 of 1945) and this Act shall be construed as one Act.

Clause 2:

This clause enables the Minister to establish community councils, which will be corporate bodies, in urban Bantu residential areas.

The establishing of such councils will take place after consultation with the Administration Board and the Bantu concerned.

The area of jurisdiction of a community council may be enlarged or reduced in size under certain conditions.

Provision is made for the dissolution of a community council, if necessary, and for the regulation of matters pertaining to the assets, liabilities, rights and obligations of a council so dissolved.

Clause 3:

The Minister has the power to decide on the constitution of a community council. It is intended that all the members be elected from the ranks of and by the persons who are legally in the area concerned. If, however, for any reason no, or an insufficient number of members are elected the Minister will have the power to appoint members in order to have a board and thereby to maintain the necessary liaison between the Government and the urban Black people.

Clause 4:

As members of community councils will often have official knowledge of matters or be able to use undue influence by which they or other people can profit, an offence is created if such knowledge should be disclosed or influence used except under certain circumstances.

Clause 5:

This clause provides for matters relating to the powers, functions and duties of a community council. Some of the powers are entrusted to the councils by the Act and others may be transferred in terms of the Act. The transferable powers are mostly those which now vest in the administration boards.

Some of the powers are advisory, but others executive, and will be transferred to each council independently depending on the needs and management ability of each council.

The most important aspect of the transfer of powers, duties or functions from administration boards to community councils is that a community council will be vested with those powers in its own right instead of doing it on behalf of another body. Any power transferred to a community council may be exercised to the exclusion of the administration board which was previously vested with such power. This brings about that a community council will have responsibilities—not only towards the authorities, but also towards the Black population in its area of jurisdiction.

Should a community council fail or refuse to accept its responsibilities in connection with any power, function or duty of an administration board with which it is vested in terms of this Act, provision is made that the Minister may determine that the administration board concerned will again be vested with that power, function or duty.

Clause 6:

Community councils will not always be able to recruit staff with the necessary knowledge and experience. This clause provides for the making available of members of the public service, persons in the employ of administration boards or other bodies established by law, to render services and assist community councils. In each case this will only be possible with the consent of the person concerned.

The position regarding pension rights of persons in the employ of administration boards whose posts become redundant under certain determined circumstances as a result of the operation of the Act, is regulated.

Clause 7:

The Minister may confer civil and criminal jurisdiction on a person after consultation with a community council. Jurisdiction conferred in terms of this provision will be the same as that which may be conferred on a Bantu chief or headman in terms of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927.

There will be an endeavour to appoint persons on an ethnic basis as the customs differ quite considerably from one ethnic group to another.

Clause 8:

This clause determines the manner of establishing a community guard. In addition to certain functions pertaining to the maintenance of law and order, community guards will also do the work of the traditional tribal messenger and will, in this way, render assistance to the courts presided over by persons vested with jurisdiction in terms of the preceding clause.

The establishing of a community guard will not in any way affect the powers and functions of other law enforcing agencies.

Clause 9:

In this clause the sources of the funds of a community council and the expenses which may be charged against its account are determined. Amongst other things funds will be obtained from a levy which may be imposed by it with the approval of the Minister, moneys transferred to it from the funds of administration boards and fines imposed by persons on whom jurisdiction has been conferred in terms of this Act.

Proper books must be kept which will be audited by the Auditor-General.

Clause 10:

Whenever a community council is established for an area for which an urban Bantu council or a Bantu advisory board has been established, the aforementioned bodies will cease to exist in that area.

*Clause 11:

Provision is also made for penalties for contravention of the provisions of regulations. A fine of R200 or, in default of payment, imprisonment for a maximum period of 6 months, can be imposed.

Clause 12:

This clause determines what courts will try cases that this Act gives rise to, or cases in which a community council is, in specific instances, a party.

Clause 13:

It is expected that administrative and possibly legal problems could crop up in the implementation of this Act because in the same area there will be various bodies co-existing and acting and functioning in related spheres. It is essential that such problems be solved with the least possible delay, and this clause creates the machinery in terms of which problems, which could possibly crop up, can be solved until such time as the Act can be amended.

Clause 14:

This clause refers to the schedule that sets out the Acts which are being repealed and indicates to what extent they are being repealed. Provision is also being made in this clause for the continued existence of urban Bantu councils and Bantu advisory boards until such time as they cease to exist in terms of this Act.

Clause 15:

This clause makes the provisions of the Limitation of Legal Proceedings (Provincial and Local Authorities) Act, 1970, applicable to community councils because such councils are regarded as local authorities for specific purposes.

Clause 16:

This refers to the short title.

As in every organization and management, success so frequently depends upon the staff of such an undertaking, and this will be no less true of community councils. I should very much like to express my thanks to White and Bantu officials who have furnished dedicated service in the employ of local authorities—and are still doing so under the management of Bantu affairs administration boards—and who have made sacrifices in serving the respective authorities and, in particular, Black members of the public. Frequently there is derogatory reference to the role that White officials play in the administration of the affairs of Black people but it is clear that those who express condemnation have no knowledge or understanding of the firm substructural support these people have always given to the administrative structure that has existed over the years, or of the building up of good relationships which dedicated and understanding officials have had a tremendous share in.

I just want to add that only this week, I think, the hon. the Minister of Police also referred to the role that the Police played during the riots, also mentioning officials of our department and of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. I am also aware of the sacrifices and the self-control with which these officials worked and acted to achieve what we would like to have, i.e. peace and quiet in the Bantu residential areas. In the new dispensation being created, as I have already said, the officials now employed will also play an extensive role in the fundamental establishment of these community councils and in ensuring that they work smoothly. The officials form the foundation and the framework and are therefore of great importance. They consequently deserve our continuous attention, and this includes their working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is apparently designed to give increased jurisdiction, in the administration of the affairs of urban Black communities, to the members of those communities themselves. The existence of urban Bantu councils is, of course, nothing new. Urban Bantu councils with very limited jurisdiction indeed and very little status have been in existence in this country for some time. The concept of a settled and well managed urban Black town is an attractive one. One likes to think of a settled and contented urban Black community living in decent conditions, with proper homes, tarred streets, electric lights, reticulated water and sewerage, parks, public amenities, schools and churches together with a local authority established in the mould we have come to accept as the norm for a local authority in South Africa amongst the other communities for very many years. That is to say, an elected body with jurisdiction over the control of water, lights, streets, elevation of buildings, building control, other matters of that kind, trade licensing and so forth, together with the essential element of the independence of any authority, i.e. a source of funds, money. In other words, one finds the concept of a properly established local authority with jurisdiction defined in the statutory instrument which sets it up and with a source of funds which is realistic and is derived from the provisions of the statutory instrument which sets it up, an attractive idea, an attractive principle. The basic principle of properly established local authorities for urban Black communities has our full support. The difficulty with this Bill is that it is so far, when you examine it, from the concept which I have tried to describe to the House. One has only to look at the long title of the Bill to see the difficulties which I have illustrated. It says in the long title that this is a Bill—

Normally, when one is establishing an urban local authority, one would not expect reference to civil and criminal judicial power and one would not expect—not in modern times, although it was present in the older municipalities—the establishment of a community guard. What one would expect is a whole series of provisions dealing with the jurisdiction of the local authority and its source of funds. In respect of this Bill there is absolutely nothing in regard to those crucial elements at all in the long title of the Bill. All we have is a reference to the fact that it is to establish community councils.

Let us have a look at the Bill itself. The Bill, throughout the manner in which it is framed, has constant reference to two authorities. One is the authority of the Minister and the other is the authority of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. One would expect, with the introduction of a new Bill dealing with urban local authorities, to see a considerable advance in the jurisdiction and the authority of the Black municipalities and a corresponding decline in the authority of the Bantu Affairs Administration Board in respect of that community. But that is not the case. The jurisdiction, the authority, the power of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards is on the increase, regrettably in my view. We have in this Bill virtually a reproduction of the very limited powers and authorities which the old Urban Bantu Councils had and as we know them at the present time. We have virtually a reproduction. There is virtually no advance at all in the authority of the body that this Bill seeks to set up.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I was painting the picture of the conventional local authority. I had indicated the point of view I held, i.e. that in two respects, power and jurisdiction and the source of funding, local authorities established in terms of this Bill would bear little relation to what we regard as the norm.

Let us first consider the question of source of funds. A conventional local authority has three principal sources of funds. Firstly, it is able to levy rates on people who own freehold property in the burrough. Secondly, it almost invariably controls townlands which it is able to sell to prospective buyers so as to acquire revenue. Thirdly, it derives money from licences and from the levying of fees of that kind.

I want to deal now with the type of local authority envisaged in this Bill. Firstly, because of the fact that the urban Black man cannot hold freehold property there is no property upon which a rate can be levied by the local authority. Straightaway, therefore, the principal source of income is absent. Secondly, because no land can be held in freehold by the citizens concerned, there can be no sale of freehold land. Thirdly, because it has no power to license there can be no income from the granting of licences. What then are the sources of revenue allowed in terms of this measure? There is, firstly, the right, provided for in clause 5, to impose a levy. However, it stands to reason that in a community so economically disadvantageous as those urban communities in which the bulk of the Black people live, any levy that can be imposed can only be for a small amount and can consequently raise only a small amount of money.

There is a further source of funds and that is provided for in clause 9. It provides that a Bantu Affairs Administration Board can, with the approval of the Minister, pay to a community council sums of money for the performance of any duty in terms of the Act. Furthermore it can, of course, receive the benefit of fines imposed in terms of any criminal juricial power granted in terms of the legislation. However, if one looks at the source of funds of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, to which goes the bulk of the money which is raised either in or in respect of the urban Blacks, one sees that one of the main sources of income is from the sale of liquor. Those funds do not go to the councils which are proposed to be set up in terms of this Bill. They continue to go to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. It is an act of grace as far as those boards are concerned as to which funds they transfer to the council in terms of this Bill. In respect of the money that is available, the fairy godmother, the rich aunt, is still the Bantu Affairs Administration Board and the poor relation is the council to be established in terms of this Bill. We regard that as wholly unsatisfactory.

I now want to consider the powers and the jurisdiction which are to be granted to the councils. One can leave aside the judicial powers because these are not typical of the powers of a local authority. From our point of view we should prefer the judicial power in respect of the urban inhabitants of the Black township to run along the channels of the normal judicial functions we know, namely the Bantu Commissioners’ courts. There is an established hierarchy of courts which are known to deal peculiarly with the interests of the Bantu community. I know it will be said in reply that the chiefs’ courts provide a cheaper and a less formal form of judicial procedure than one finds in the ordinary courts of law, but it is a hallmark of the Bantu Affairs Commission’s courts that they provide a cheaper and less formal forum for the administration of justice in dealing with complaints than the ordinary courts. Therefore, that argument holds no water so far as these Bantu communities are concerned. There are limitations and, indeed, undesirable features to some of the chiefs’ courts, as anyone who has experience of them will know. We would prefer to see the normal type of judicial administration, which is recognized and established, in place of the powers given in this Bill.

As far as the community guard is concerned—I deal with these two powers first because they are in the nature of exceptions—I know very well that many boroughs, including, for example, the borough of Durban, had a borough police force from the earliest times, but those were police forces run not as if they were something exceptional, but as an ordinary police force along the lines of an ordinary police force by police officers. If one looks at the empowering clauses, one sees that the Minister may establish these community guards not in consultation with the Minister of Police, which we would prefer, but after consultation with him. Here, again, we fully support the notion that there should be a police force in the urban local authority areas to maintain law and order and to protect the interests of law-abiding citizens. That concept is wholly agreeable to us, but to have the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his department run a police force which is not under the control and direction of the Minister of Police we consider an undesirable feature.

Having dealt with those two powers, let us come back to the clause which deals principally with the powers one would expect to find given to a local authority in the ordinary course. The powers given, as far as this Bill is concerned, are contained in clause 5, and they are very limited indeed. In terms of the Bill a community council shall, subject to the Minister’s directions, exercise certain powers and perform certain duties in respect of a number of matters. You will notice, Sir, that even in respect of the powers given, the council concerned has to exercise them subject to the powers and directions of the Minister. In other words, what is being set up here is a creature of the Minister and, where it is not a creature of the Minister, it is a creature of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, even in that limited sphere where authority is given. What is the authority given? A council may get powers in respect of the allocation and administration of the letting of accommodation to single persons or, to use the quaint phraseology of the Bill, “to persons as if they were single”, and quite a story is told there …

A shameful story.

Then, a community council can also be given powers in respect of the following: the allocation and administration of the letting of dwellings, buildings and other structures; the prevention and combating of the unlawful occupation of land and buildings; the allocation and administration of sites for church, school or trading purposes; the approval of building plans of private dwellings and the removal of unauthorized structures; the prohibition and regulation of the keeping of animals, except dogs; the control over the keeping of dogs; the promotion of moral and social welfare, which is a somewhat nebulous power; the promotion of sound community development, which again is a somewhat nebulous power; the beautifying of and the neatness of the area, although how one will do that when one has no funds to do it with, I do not know; the administration of sport and recreation; the administration of library services; the award of bursaries; and the maintenance of services determined by the Minister. Not only are these very limited powers, but in addition many of them are some of the more unpopular powers which the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have at the present time and which are now being passed over to the unfortunate councils to be established. For the rest these are nebulous powers with very little meaning so far as a community council is concerned.

There are further powers that one should perhaps mention. Clause 5(g) provides that they—

Further they may impose levies on the persons residing in the area. That is about the limit of it.

If one compares these powers with the powers of any ordinary local authority amongst the White, Indian or Coloured communities, I think the House will understand the very limited nature of these council, how very little they differ from the Urban Bantu Councils which have existed for some years and how little they resemble the norms of a normal local authority.

There is another factor which should be mentioned. The hon. the Deputy Minister said in his speech that this measure did not flow from the unrest which had taken place in Soweto and elsewhere. I am prepared to accept that it does not flow from that unrest, but I believe it would have been wise for the hon. the Deputy Minister to have had regard to that unrest and its causes in the presentation of this measure, because one of the things that has flown from that unrest is that, at least in some of the areas the Urban Bantu Councils or the councillors have either become defunct or have gone out of action. As far as one can judge, their functions have been taken over by the student councils—one might almost say “the revolutionary councils”—in the areas concerned. This is a feature of the utmost gravity. Instead of attempting to meet the situation by the establishment of simply a revamped, but equally ineffective local authority, I would have thought that one would have sought to overcome this problem by the establishment of fully representative councils with status, power and authority.

How is that going to keep the students out?

It has some chance of keeping the students out if the authorities that we put in there have status and power, which they do not have at the present time and which at a formal level the students do not have at the present time. However, if one is going to try to fight the students with a puppet authority which is seen merely as the arm of two established, unpopular authorities, one being the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and the other being the hon. the Minister’s department, one is simply setting up an authority which one is asking to be knocked down in the same way the previous one was.

The hon. the Minister has also pointed out that the measure flows from the natural evolution of the Government’s policy. Regrettably I have to agree with him. This is one of the objections we have to the Bill. The Bill reinforces the notion that the urban Black is a temporary sojourner in the urban areas and that that urban community is merely an extension of a community in the homelands. It emerges in a number of ways. It emerges with the establishment of the chiefs’ courts and from those provisions of the Bill which relate to ethnicity and structure ethnicity into the council. I have no objection to ethnicity in these councils if that is what the people there want. If that is what they want, it will emerge in the electoral pattern in the elections. However, to have it imposed as a matter of Government policy in order to further the homelands policy of the Government in respect of urban areas, is to me objectionable and will be asking for trouble. Indeed, the hon. the Minister used words to the effect—“dat hulle nie los staan van hul etniese afkoms nie”, or words to that effect.

But that is so.

I think I said enough to summarize the objections we have to this measure. I have dealt with the limitation on the source of funds available, I have dealt with the inadequacy of the status and the powers that are given and I have dealt with the objections which we have to the attempt to tie an urban community such as Soweto which, to a large extent, has no relationship with the homelands, to the homelands concept of the Government.

Accordingly I move the following as an amendment—

1. (1) it fails to provide meaningful control of and participation in their local affairs by the urban Blacks; and
2. (2) it seeks to entrench in the Black urban areas the outmoded concept that the urban Black is a temporary sojourner there and is an extention of a homeland community.”.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sad this afternoon to hear that the UP has made a further retrogressive step, on the eve of its demise, in regard to matters of this nature. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana will recall that in 1961 his party supported the passing of the Urban Bantu Councils Act. That Act was a step in the process of evolution in so far as the granting of powers to urban Blacks was concerned. The UP welcomed that step as a step in the right direction and as a step towards granting more powers to the urban Blacks. For various reasons that Act was not as successful as everybody would have liked it to be. For that reason and for other reasons the Government decided to proceed with the measure which is under consideration at the moment. One would have expected that the UP, after having learnt so many lessons in the course of their history, would have known that it was futile to oppose the evolution of the policy of separate development and one is surprised that at this very late stage they still oppose measures of this kind.

*It is actually a pity that this is the approach of the UP in this regard. Furthermore the hon. member for Umhlatuzana drew a very complete and sweeping comparison between the powers and the circumstances of a community council and those of local authority bodies which are controlled by Whites, Indians and Coloureds. He also indicated that it creates an unsatisfactory situation.

Even when one is dealing with local authorities, as they exist everywhere in the Cape, Natal and Transvaal, one will find that many of the powers which are granted to these local authorities, are subject to the consent, approval and particular powers which are granted by the Administrator and the Central Government. How much more will this process not be subject to the approval and authority of higher bodies, especially here in the initial stages of the development of community councils and the granting of powers to Bantu community councils? Then, in this whole process, we must see this legislation against the background of the Government’s policy, namely that in the first place, political rights can only be exercised by the Black people in their homelands. This is a situation which they themselves also accept. They themselves appoint candidates in homeland Government elections. They even had members in the Cabinet, and still have members even now, representatives of urban areas, in the Cabinet. One of the leaders of a Black State is in fact an urban Black. In the second place we must also see it against the background of the policy of the Government, namely that the Government aims at giving the urban Blacks greater powers in circumstances where it concerns granting them a greater say in local authorities, in their own residential areas, as well as enhanced trading rights. The object is in general to make the circumstances in the particular residential areas in which they live more pleasant in this way, and to give Black residential areas a soul. This is the policy of the Government.

A great deal was said about the fact that there is no functional differentiation in the Black residential areas, that no economic basis exists, that there is no soul or beating heart in Black communities. This matter was inter alia raised by Prof. Moolman in an article in Deurbraak. What I cannot understand, however, is why towns which arise around mines or other large industrial developments, have communities which have a soul and a heart and a character which develop a sense of pride in that community, and that at the same time it is suggested that a similar heart and soul and character cannot exist in a Black community situated around the White cities. Therefore since it does not exist, I want to suggest that this Bill offers Black communities the opportunity to channel their activities in a way that imparts a pulse, a life and a character to those communities. I am thinking in particular that a Black community is now being given the opportunity in the first place to control itself, to discipline itself and to maintain law and order by means of a civil guard for its community. It is a basic right of every civilization.

A second important, basic right is that a community council is now receiving the power to draw up its own budgets, to handle funds—as set out in clause 9—to incur expenditure, etc.

Now I should like to address myself to hon. members of the PRP, those who at this late stage have come up with a long string of amendments to this Bill. With their amendments they are trying in all respects …

This is not a late stage.

Of course it is a late stage. This Bill has been printed on the Order Paper for months already. Nevertheless the PRP, at this late stage, only gave notice of their amendments this morning, amendments which actually boil down to all authority which comes from the hon. the Minister and the administration boards, having to be dismantled. According to the PRP these Black people must have the right to act off their own bat. This, however, is so typical of the PRP. They have no respect for authority. They just do not want to accept authority; not in their homes nor their communities. They have no respect for the symbols of authority. This morning we took leave of the State President and none of the 12 hon. members of the PRP were even there to show their respect for the authority of the State. Do they mean to tell me that all 12 of them had more important appointments than to pay their respects to the symbol of authority of this country?

The hon. member for Houghton had three main objections to the Urban Bantu Councils Act of 1961. Firstly she said that no real powers had been given to these councils. In a moment, however, I shall indicate what other real powers are now being transferred to these councils. Then she made the point that the Bantu did not even have the right to allocate trading premises and to issue licences for businesses. Clause 5(1)(a)(iv) now makes provision for this. Furthermore she makes an important statement in Vol. I of Hansard, 1961, col. 8166—

That is what she said then. If that hon. member who has so much to say, will take a look at clause 9(3), he will see what real powers are now being given to these community councils as a first step as far as the control of finances, the control of budgets and the control of expenditure is concerned. Then, as Whip, he should tell his leader that they should support this legislation.

Clause 6 makes further provision for a community council to be able to carry out its functions with employees of the State, besides its own staff, under certain conditions. The judicial function is not being granted only to members of the urban Bantu councils, but to any Bantu, and consequently to people who have received legal training. This is a body with legal personality which arranges the appointment of staff, arranges the raising of funds for specific purposes or services, which has representation on a school board, and as far as a duty or function of an administration board is concerned, it receives all the rights and duties and obligations of an urban local authority in terms of certain laws. After that we come to the type of function which gives a council the opportunity to give its communities a characteristic personality, a characteristic identity and pride, i.e. the advancement of sound community development in its area, which is accompanied by the beautification and neatness of the area, the administration of sport and recreation, etc.

There is another point which I want to make to say that the Bill must be seen against the background of the policy of separate development. This can be seen in clause 5(1)(h). The council is obliged to assist the representative of a national unit, namely the delegate, and to give him advice. We know that the argument is being raised that the Black man who has been living in a White area for generations and generations, has lost contact with his homeland. We also know that this is not true. On the contrary, they are proud to say that they are Pedis, Xhosas, or a member of whatever tribe. In addition it is essential that he should maintain a close link between the community council and the homeland. The concomitant fact here is that ethnicity should always serve as basis for the formation of community councils. This will also assist in there being better liaison with the tribal country through the delegate.

I want to ask that the delegate should have greater status. I should like to see him receive an ex officio seat in the community council of his ethnic group. He acts as a constant link between the community council and his homeland Cabinet. He can even accompany his Cabinet to any discussions with the White Government. The community council should realize that the delegate is the most important link through the right channels to be able to serve its local interests. Mention is made throughout the Bill of the advice which is received from the Bantu Administration Board and that the board shall serve as an important link with the community council. I think that the success or otherwise of the formation of community councils chiefly depends on the degree in which they bind themselves to co-operate with the Bantu Administration Boards. They must realize that Bantu Affairs Administration Boards aim at all times to improve the living and working conditions of the Black man and to act as the funnel by means of which closer contact with his homeland can help to be brought about. May the formation of community councils be another strong link in the chain of sound relations between the peoples of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan certainly cannot tell this House that I supported the Urban Bantu Councils Bill when it was introduced in 1961.

I did not say that.

No, the hon. member said the UP had done so. He was quite right because they did. I opposed that Bill in 1961.I moved an amendment at that time to the Second Reading which is very similar to the amendment which I intend to move on behalf of members in these benches this afternoon. I opposed that Bill at the time because I felt sure that just like its predecessor, the Bill that set up the advisory boards which was based largely on the urban areas legislation of 1923 as consolidated in 1945, the Urban Bantu Councils Bill was going to be a failure because it did not recognize the permanency of Africans in the urban areas and it did not give them sufficient powers. Because it also attempted to perpetuate an ethnic link for Africans in the urban areas, I felt very sure that it was not going to satisfy the aspirations of people who had been born in the urban areas or who had been living in the urban areas for many years. Unfortunately all our legislation for urban Africans has been based on the concept which was advanced many years ago by the Stallard Commission which stated, in the words it used at the time—

Subsequent legislation was based on that false concept, viz. that the Africans were not here to stay. Although the Fagan Commission, which sat from 1946 to 1948, recommended many far-reaching changes as far as urban African administration was concerned, the Government, when it came into power in 1948, rejected that commission’s recommendations, and we went right back to the old concept of the Stallard Commission. It is very interesting to note, however, that in 1952 a draft Bill, the Urban Bantu Authorities Bill, was published, which gave many powers to the Africans which go far beyond the powers that even this Community Councils Bill seeks to give Africans today. That was 25 years ago but that Bill was, of course, never proceeded with. Indeed, some cynics say that it only made its appearance because South Africa was going through a pretty rough time at the United Nations at that particular time and that Eric Louw, who was then our ambassador, needed some ammunition with which to counter the accusations of South Africa’s treatment of the urban Africans. The hon. the Minister shakes his head. It may be that he knows the basic reasons why that Bill was never proceeded with. Maybe he can tell this House why that draft Bill was ever introduced. It is in any case academic because it was not proceeded with and instead we have had two further attempts in this regard. Firstly, there was the Bill which set up the advisory boards and in 1961 we had the Bill which set up the urban Bantu councils. The interesting thing about the Urban Bantu Councils Act is that although it was passed in 1961, it took another seven years before the first Bantu council made its apperance. The hon. the Minister is now casting his eyes to heaven, looking for inspiration, but let me tell him that the first urban Bantu council for Soweto which is, after all, the largest urban centre in the whole of South Africa, was only established in 1968, seven years after the Bill, which was to extend some sort of powers to the urban Africans, had been passed. Why the delay, no one will ever know. It did, however, take seven long years. Another interesting thing about the Urban Bantu Councils Act is that although quite a number of powers could, in terms of that Act, have been extended to the urban Bantu councils, hardly any of those functions were ever handed over.

Quite right.

The hon. the Minister says: “Quite right”. Why, I wonder? He never handed over any of those functions, though this Bill was propounded at the time as being the Bill that was going to extend some sort of authority to urban Africans. If one studies that Bill, however, one sees to one’s interest that a power such as that relating to the control of the influx of Africans into the urban areas—i.e. their entry into and sojourn in the urban areas—was contained in the Bill as far back as 1961. It was, of course, never extended to the Africans, together with most of the other powers that were contained in the Urban Bantu Councils Act. Those councils therefore remained as purely advisory bodies, as consultative bodies, and as a result of that they lost all credibility with the Africans whom they were meant to serve, the Africans to whom they were meant to give some authoritative powers. The result is that they became known as “talking shops”. They also became known as “toy telephones”. Amongst the younger and less reverent residents of Soweto they became known as the “UBCs—Useless Boys’ Clubs”. That is how they are referred to in Soweto today. We saw the end of those “Useless Boys’ Clubs” only a couple of weeks ago when the leaders of the Soweto Student Association frog-marched the remaining members, who had had the courage not to resign, to the UBC and forced them to resign.

Intimidation!

Call it what you like. This Government does enough by way of intimidation, so why should the young Africans not learn from the Government? Call it intimidation if you like, but it is more than intimidation—it is frustration! It is frustration because those urban Bantu councils, which could have been given powers, were not given those powers in 1961, which is a long time ago, perhaps because the Government still clings to the myth that the Africans in the urban areas are here as temporary sojourners only. The hon. the Minister mentioned today, in his Second Reading speech, that we have to accept that they are here for a long time, etc. I believe, however, that behind all this there is still a sneaking hope they will depart. The hon. the Minister has said that they are here because there are not enough job opportunities in the homelands, and of course he is right. That is the reason. People come to the urban areas and they stay in the urban areas because what the urban areas have to offer by way of job opportunities far outweighs anything that the homelands can offer. We should therefore forget this myth completely, a myth originally advanced by Dr. Verwoerd when he laid down the year 1978 as the year when we would see a whole throng of Africans streaming back to the homelands, the reverse of the urbanization stream. I must remind the House, however, that we are now in 1977. When Dr. Verwoerd advanced that theory, it was in the fifties and 1978 seemed far distant. Then there was still a lot of time for the theory to work itself out. The truth of the matter, however, is that the theory has failed in practice. It has failed completely and we now have to come to terms with the realities of the situation which have been seen only too clearly in the frustrations of young Soweto residents, in what has happened over the past year in South Africa and in the unlamented demise of the urban Bantu councils.

Now we have the hon. the Minister coming to us today with this new Bill, the Community Councils Bill. The first question that strikes one, of course, is where it differs from the old Urban Bantu Councils Act and what additional powers it is going to give. One also wonders whether they are going to be meaningful powers. Is it, in fact, going to give to the urban authorities some executive functions which the hon. the Minister promised earlier this session would be handed on to urban Africans? I want to say that unless this is going to be done we are going to have an exact repetition. What happened to the UBCs is going to happen with the CCs. I do not know what those are going to be called. What has happened to the “Useless Boys’ Clubs” is going to happen to the Community Councils. We are going to have the same repetition of a complete lack of confidence in the body and a fall-off in voting if the elections ever take place with any enthusiasm. We will have the same thing happening. I want to point out that as far as the UBCs are concerned, in the first elections in 1968 in Soweto there was a 32% poll. In 1971 there was a 21% poll and in 1974, when the last election was held, there was a 14% poll. We are going to have the same sort of thing happening with the Community Councils unless they are really given some important functions. That is the 64-dollar question that we have to answer today. We do not want a member of the Community Council saying a few years later, as did Mr. Peter Langele, the last chairman of the now defunct Soweto UBC, who said: “The UBC was established by White men and in our opinion it was never meant to help the people but to silence them.” That is the last thing that we want to be said about the community councils. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell me this: Are the functions which are laid down in the Community Councils Bill actually going to be handed over to the community councils or are we going to have a repetition of the UBC Act where the functions were laid down but were in fact never handed over to the UBCs?

I see that the allocation of trading sites, which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan, is one of the additional functions. They are going to be given greater powers in regard to schools, the appointment of staff, and so on. They are also going to have some limited funds. I stress the word “limited” because there is nothing specific laid down in this Community Councils Bill. It refers to “moneys which may be handed over by the Administration Board”, which is apparently what the hon. member is relying on, together with levies and fines which, I want to point out to that hon. member, is probably the most unpopular way of raising revenue. If there is anything that is calculated to make the community councils really unpopular with the people they are trying to serve, it is for them to have to rely for the greater part of their revenue on fines and levies which they are going to impose on the people concerned. Therefore, so far as two things are concerned, I am not particularly hopeful.

I also see that the councils are going to be made responsible for one of the more odious tasks in the urban areas, and that is the demolition of unauthorized buildings. Again, if there is anything to make the council unpopular with the people concerned, it is to have their shacks and unauthorized buildings tom down when there is no alternative housing that they can provide. They certainly have not got the funds to provide houses. I have to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that there is a shortfall of over 20 000 houses in Soweto today and that is putting it at the barest minimum, I assure the hon. Deputy Minister. I must remind him that last year 414 houses were built while in the year before something like 780 or 790 houses were built. Yet the housing shortage goes on and on and the population increases. Leaving aside the illegal cases, people legally on the housing lists, on A and B priority lists, today number over 20 000. Yet, one of the functions that is going to be given to the community councils is the right to destroy unauthorized buildings.

The councils are told in clause 5 of the Bill that they are to have the responsibility of promoting the moral and social welfare of the area and sound community development. Those are fine, rousing phrases and I agree with them 100%. The only trouble is, however, that the community councils have got to promote this moral and social welfare and community development in a society which is framed to break down the very moral fabric of the people concerned. It is a society where there is a migrant labour system, where the council is not even given the right to allow the wives and children of the men permanently working in Johannesburg—they may go home for a month in a year but they are permanently working there—to live with them. One cannot build up the moral and social responsibility of a society like that. You do not need to be a trained sociologist to know the result as far as illegitimacy, crime and alcoholism are concerned, all of which abound in the urban Black townships of South Africa today.

I want to point out that throughout this Bill one encounters all the old familiar phrases, for example “subject to the Minister’s approval”, “subject to the Minister’s direction” and “subject to the conditions that the Minister may determine”. In clause 5, which I call the functions clause, there are 10 such instances alone of the Minister directing, deciding and approving or not approving.

What is wrong with that?

If this Bill is supposed to be handing executive functions over to the urban Africans, they do not need the Minister’s direction, approval or anything else. They especially do not need the administration boards, which were set up in 1971 through the Bantu Affairs Administration Act. They came into operation in 1973 as far as Soweto was concerned. It has proved to be an unqualified disaster ever since as far as the management of the affairs of the urban Africans are concerned. I could not agree less with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said when he introduced the Bill today, namely that he was so pleased with the way in which his officials had been administering the urban townships. Had they been administering those townships with any degree of efficiency, the appalling situation which exists there today would not have existed, although I do not blame the officials entirely because they in turn are hamstrung by a lack of funds with which to supply housing, transport, recreational facilities and everything else one needs to make the life style of the people in Soweto something near bearable. Of that they have been grossly deprived, so I do not blame the administration board officials for that. However, what I do blame them for is the atmosphere which has developed between them and the residents in the township. It was no accident that the very first buildings which were burned down during the riots last year were the Bantu Affairs Administration Board’s buildings; it was because of the terrible feeling of frustration and the ill-will which has been built up by officials who have to carry out the rotten policy of this rotten Government. I seldom blame officials, as they are the unfortunate people who come face to face with the individuals about whom this Government, from a dizzy height, is legislating, without ever coming in contact with the individuals concerned.

That is why I advise hon. Ministers to go to those townships and to talk to the people concerned. They will then find a longing amongst those people for an orderly way of life. Nobody enjoys living in a township where there is arson and stone-throwing and where policemen are shooting people. Nobody likes to be prevented from going to work. However, frustrations are so unbearable that these are the physical and outward manifestations. Hon. Ministers and Deputy Ministers do not know this, because they never make a point of going there to meet the people concerned.

Rubbish.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says “Rubbish”, but I can only remind him that when I asked how often he and his colleagues had been into Soweto …

It is not the only place in South Africa.

No, but it is the biggest place, a place where all the trouble occurred and where the hon. the Deputy Minister and his colleagues should have been every week to find out what was going on instead of just relying on second and third-hand reports which stated that everything was quiet, peaceful and settling down. Even today we hear of more trouble. We have this situation because Ministers in this House have lulled themselves into a sense of false security, and because there are enough guns to keep people quiet.

You are very irresponsible.

You can say what you like. They have lulled themselves into a sense of false security and that is the grave danger this country faces.

I agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana: we, too, object to the ethnic linking to homelands of people who are permanently urbanized. Although the word “ethnic” does not appear in the Bill, it is implicit in the way in which the elections are probably going to be set up. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether they are going to be held on an ethnic basis or on a proper ward basis. That is what I should like to know. Ethnicity is certainly implicit in the attendance of a representative of the homeland government at the meetings of the council. Why should such a representative be in attendance? The urban councils do not want those people there. They object to having them there. Most specifically, the ethnicity is brought out in that horrible clause 7 which is going to legalize the makgotla system. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to me what on earth made the Government go ahead with the ludicrous idea of legalizing the makgotla system, which means that judicial and punitive powers are going to be placed in the hands of untrained and probably uneducated people.

Because they want it.

It is the most dangerous thing to do. It has been protested against by the Africans themselves. The hon. the Minister must know that when the meeting was held between the Africans, the advisory board, the urban councils and the authorities, not a single Black voice was raised in favour of legalizing the makgotlas. They know that Gen. Visser, who was praised so highly by the hon. the Minister of Police only the other day, has spoken out against the legalization of the makgotla system. What is more, the Viljoen Commission on Penal Reform has spoken out against it strongly.

I shall quote these sources at length when we come to the Committee Stage. There is no time for me to do it now. However, I want it to go on record that the Africans themselves, the head of police in Soweto and the Viljoen Commission have all strongly come out against the makgotla system. But what do we have the Government doing? Ignoring all this advice, they are now going to legalize the makgotla system. I think that it is simply not acceptable to the urban African to have punishment meted out by people of this kind. They want proper judicially trained people to decide whether they require any punishment. The punishment that can be meted out can be fines of up to R40 according to the Bantu Administration Act upon which this is based, or corporal punishment for men up to the age of 30. I think it is absolutely appalling. I am astonished that the hon. the Deputy Minister in a Bill of this kind, which is designed to extend authority to Africans, is attempting to impose a tribal system of justice on sophisticated, educated people, some of whom have been in the urban areas for two or even three generations.

Now I come to the question of funds.

You have now spoken long enough.

Too bad! The hon. member can just sit and listen, and if he does not want to listen, he can get out. In the short time at my disposal …

Too long!

I am sure the hon. member thinks it is too long. He hates every word I say, but I do not care. The question of the funds for the councils is also very important. This matter was also raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. What are the main sources of revenue? I have with me estimates of revenue for the forthcoming year for WRAB, viz. the West Rand Bantu Administration Board; I would not say it is affectionately known as WRAB, but that is in any case how it is known.

You are not interesting me at all.

The hon. the Deputy Minister can go out as well if he wishes. The estimates I refer to show the following interesting facts. The total estimates of revenue for the coming year are roughly R60 481 000. Most of that comes either from housing rentals which amount to some R19 620 000 or from hostel rentals of over R1 million. That brings us to R20 650 000. Then there are two other sources which make up nearly R29 million or almost 50%, and that is from the sale of beer and of liquor. R15 million comes from the sale of beer and R13,5 million from the sale of liquor. These may be gross figures. As far as I know they probably are gross figures, but the fact is that the income consists largely of rentals, the sale of beer and other liquor and of course also the labour services levy of nearly R10 million. There is no mention that those sources are going to be handed over to the community councils. They stay with the Bantu Affairs Administration Board and the board decides what it will hand over. It can be R1 million, R2 million or R0,5 million. Nobody knows what it is going to be. It could be nothing at all, for that matter.

It is quite impossible for an area like Soweto—I talk of Soweto because that is the area I happen to know well—where there is no rateable property, no business centre or land ownership to finance the normal infrastructure of an urban area. It is quite impossible, and therefore it has to and must be subsidized from central revenue. That is where funds should come from. One cannot expect the poorest area of a region to be self-supporting. It is quite impossible.

I believe the councils should be attached, under a metropolitan umbrella, to Johannesburg itself and the other surrounding urban authorities. I think there ought to be subsidies from the central Government and that funds should be directly provided from whatever sources can be raised in Soweto itself or the other urban areas. Whatever I say about Soweto applies to the other areas as well.

As far as we on these benches are concerned, we have to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I believe it is a grave disappointment to everybody who was hoping for a new deal for urban Blacks. I believe it will be a grave disappointment to the Africans, who have been hoping very much indeed that what they refer to as simply “talking shops”, would be converted into bodies with real powers. Therefore I wish to move as an amendment—

1. (a) although it extends responsibilities to community councils, it does not confer the meaningful powers of urban local authorities on them;
2. (b) it does not provide practical ways of adequately funding community councils; and
3. (c) it provides for the exercise of judicial functions and the application of punitive measures by unqualified persons.”.

Mr. Speaker, in contrast to my colleague, the hon. member for Brakpan, who is disappointed with the attitude which the official Opposition, or the temporary official Opposition, is adopting in connection with this Bill, unfortunately I cannot say the same of my reaction towards the attitude of the hon. member for Houghton. Once again we had to listen to the usual fulmination against the Government and its policy. Everything being done to assist the Black man and his lot, is criticized. It is actually with some relief that I heard of the hon. member’s opposition to the Bill, because if she had supported the Bill, I would have seriously considered going to the Deputy Minister in charge of the Bill and telling him that the legislation should be reconsidered because there must be mistakes in it.

The hon. member’s speech was so full of contradictions that one can hardly reply to it. On the one hand she complains because the community councils which are going to be established are being given too few powers, but in her next sentence she fulminates against the fact that these community councils are being entrusted with the function of undertaking slum clearance in the residential areas, as if that was unpopular work. Slum clearance is one of the most important, foremost functions of any body which operates at the level of a local authority.

The hon. member said: “This is a rotten measure of a rotten Government.” I can tell her that we listened to a rotten speech from a member of a rotten party. I especially hold it against her that she adopted the attitude, and in fact put a motion to that effect on the Order Paper, that clause 7 of the Bill should be deleted. This is a typical attitude of the old, obsolete, paternalistic type of liberalism of which the hon. member for Houghton is the foremost exponent in the country.

According to her view and her philosophy, the Black man does not know what is good for him and everything which has developed by tradition amongst the Black people, is necessarily evil. According to her the Black man must be westernized at all costs and cut off from his own traditions, customs and from his own cultural heritage. Only that will satisfy her. When the Black man wants to live his life as a Black man, when he wants to import the system which he has become accustomed to and which has been his for generations, it is evil. It is this type of hypocrisy which has landed us in our present position in Africa. All types of systems have been dished up and offered to the Black man, systems which do not suit his customs, his culture and his background. Other systems were imposed on them, with the result that the White man as such is associated with a tendency to domination. This paternalism is responsible for the deteriorating relations between the White and the Black people in Africa. We as Whites will simply have to realize—this includes hon. members of the PRP—that adaptations will have to be made to any system which we try and work out for the governing or the orderly existence of Black people in order to accommodate the cultural heritage, the traditions and the customs of the Black man and to allow them to reign supreme. I have in my possession a memorandum drawn up by members of the UBCs, which were referred to by the hon. member for Houghton in such disparaging terms. In this memorandum this body advocates that the makgotla system be introduced and recognized in law. However, the hon. member, the traditional old liberal, knows better as to what the Black man wants and what must be rejected.

Helen, the communists are probably paying you well for your propaganda!

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

A particularly pleasing characteristic of the Bill is that the traditional makgotla system is reactivated, placed on a proper foundation and given legal recognition. Makgotla is the Sotho/Tswana word for a traditional court, and in many urban residential areas these so-called arbitration courts have been functioning for many years on an informal basis in some form or other. The courts usually arise spontaneously around the person of some prominent personality, someone whom the people have confidence in. Usually this is a chief or the representative of a chief. In some cases a whole number of chiefs, the representatives of various ethnic groups, form an inter-ethnic court jointly. In other cases a board is appointed for a specific ethnic group, a board which only settles disputes between members of that ethnic group. Thus far the arbitration courts have enjoyed no legal or even official recognition, but have not been illegal either, in the sense that they only settled disputes brought to them voluntarily. Nor could they enforce their findings or sentences. In other words, if someone appears before such a makgotla and is found guilty of an offence, the punishment must be meted out with one’s permission. This takes place on a voluntary basis only, and as in traditional courts, the court is compensated with a nominal fee for its trouble. Those courts would not have come into being if there had not been a need for them. They are not courts which appeared out of the blue. In fact, there was a need for them because the average Black man does not always identify with the type of justice which is forced upon him by the White man. In the majority of cases they did not understand it completely either. Black people prefer to settle their differences according to their own legal system, and with the aid of people who know that law well. We also find this to a large extent on the farms owned by Whites. If a quarrel arises between the employees of one or more farms in the same area, they prefer to go to an induna or a chief in order to settle the quarrel concerned.

According to the report of the Viljoen Commission—the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of the Republic of South Africa—the following is apparent—

Heaven knows, it really is necessary for young hooligans like those in our Black residential areas to be dealt with in a traditional way. Apart from the settling of disputes, those courts have also been given an additional function over the past two years. It is the function to which I have just referred. Parents who are not able to discipline or control their children, usually take the children to a makgotla. There they are tried. They prefer to take the children to the makgotla, instead of to the police, because they realize that under the specific circumstances, and in view of the reasons why they take the children to the makgotla, the punishment is much more effective than the punishment meted out by the Police. The makgotla gives the uncontrollable boy or tsotsi a thorough thrashing—as they put it: 25 strokes without counting.

If parents who cannot control their children themselves, do not call in the help of the makgotla, the makgotla sometimes takes action on its own account. It is just as important that this action too, should take place. We are of the opinion that if the makgotla is really recognized, as is the case in this Bill, they can be put on a sound basis. Some of them asked me years ago for legal authority to be granted to them. As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, a similar request was made in the memorandum addressed to this committee by members of the Bantu Council. They consider it the key to the maintenance of law and order in their own residential areas.

It must be understood very clearly that the makgotla does not take the place of the Police.

The makgotla does not take the place of community guards either. It serves, however, as a very good complement to the functions of the police. If the makgotla carries out its functions as they have developed traditionally, it can contribute towards improving the image of the police in our Black residential areas, because the makgotla will be directly involved in punishing lesser offences, especially in the control of young hooligans and criminals. The makgotlas discipline these young hooligans without the police necessarily becoming involved. This can only contribute towards a better relationship between the police and these youths. The report of the Steyn Commission, which I quoted a moment ago, mentions this and says—

It is clear that if the police are not always to be involved in confrontations caused by these young people and hooligans, which are sometimes minor offences and things which actually waste the time of the police, the image of the police in the residential areas of the Black people could improve considerably, and that is why these makgotlas can make a very important contribution towards a better relationship not only between the police and the Black people, but also between the Whites and the Black people in that area.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cradock has spent quite a considerable amount of time in defending the makgotla system in the townships, but as far as we are concerned, we believe that in the Bantu urban areas of the Republic of South Africa the laws of the Republic should apply and should be administered by the courts, and in the Bantu urban areas between Bantu by the Bantu Commissioner’s court which, in any event, take into account, Bantu law and custom where necessary. Other hon. members on this side of the House will deal with that issue as well.

One cannot refrain from being somewhat amused, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will pardon me for saying so, when he says that this Bill which he introduced today is part of the evolutionary process that is taking place in our country with regard to the Black people. As the Bill appears to me, I would say that as an exercise in backward thinking, in paternalism, in short-sightedness, in failure to live with the events of the day, in failing to appreciate changes, where necessary to meet the normal progress of the country, and in the ability to understand the term “evolution”, this Bill must be regarded as almost a perfect exercise. Obviously the approach by the hon. the Minister in this Bill is on the basis that the whole of the Black population in the urban areas of the Republic are allied ethnically to the homelands and that they are temporary sojourners in the Republic—as has been stated so often—and that they are only here to sell their labour and for no other purpose. One can therefore understand why this type of backward form of legislation would be introduced. We obviously cannot accept this Bill, because we disagree in principle with the basis of that approach with regard to the urban Bantu.

You are double-talkers.

It is not double talk. Allow me to say further that this is not an opinion which is expressed by me alone or perhaps by others whom other appellations have been ascribed to by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and who now seems to have disappeared very quickly. I would like the House to know that in 1974, when I had the privilege and pleasure of attending a symposium on the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards at the University of Stellenbosch, certain points of view were expressed with regard to the urban Bantu, one of which was the point of view expressed by Prof. Davenport, reference to whom might raise the eyebrows of some hon. members here, who said—

Furthermore, Dr. Welsh, who spoke at the same symposium and is a man of note, I understand, in his field, said—

That is nonsense.

That is the opinion of some White academics. But let me go further.

What is the alternative?

Let me go further and tell hon. members what a gentleman by the name of Mr. Dunjwa, who is the Ciskeian Government Representative in the western Cape, had to say about this question of the temporary sojourner. He said—

It is not only we as politicians who feel that, from a political point of view, this whole approach is unsound, is based on quicksand and therefore has no foundation whatsoever. It is the point of view of Whites and Blacks. After all, the latter play a very big part in the economy of this country and they should, accordingly, have something to say about the matter.

If one looks at the Bill based on this peculiar antiquarian policy, one can well understand why the hon. the Minister has taken unto himself the power of conceiving an authority, permitting it to live and permitting himself to be the agent which will bring it to its swift end. All these powers are contained in the Bill. The hon. the Minister brings a council into being as he deems wise, he permits it to exist as he, in his discretion, deems wise and he, in his discretion dissolves it. If anyone can suggest that anything at all is being done in the field of local government, as has been threatened by the hon. the Minister and other members of the Cabinet over a number of years when they replied to protestations from this side of the House with regard to the existing system, then one can realize what exactly is taking place today.

Let us deal with the issue which was raised by the hon. member for Brakpan, namely that this side of the House supported the 1961 Urban Bantu Council legislation. We did support it, but we supported it on the understanding that the townships should be allowed to advance beyond the stage of the advisory board, which was a toothless body entirely and which led to a great deal of frustration on the part of the Black people in the townships. However, the fact that they would be allowed to establish something a little more real was welcomed, but it was asked …

Why are you struggling so?

I am not struggling. We asked that the matter be referred to a Select Committee in order that the details could be worked out. Furthermore, if hon. members would read Hansard, they will find that we on this side of the House said that we were under no illusion at all that although a great deal had not been achieved, at least some advance had been achieved. That was in 1961, some 13 to 15 years after we had the industrial surge of Black people into the cities and towns of the country, which enabled these vast urban residential areas to grow and to build up to what they are today. However, since 1961, 16 years have gone by. What has been done? At no time has the Government shown any positive intention to improve the situation. The Government was aware of the frustrations that existed. What did they do? They took away the opportunity of bringing the question of local government in the urban areas, and therefore the opportunity for people to manage their own affairs, a little closer, by substituting the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards for the local authorities. That was the only body which could give to these urban townships the experience, training and knowledge to enable them to manage their own affairs under local government. It was already obvious in the ’fifties, after the experience one had with Bantu Advisory Boards, that it was essential to substitute a much better system to put them on the proper road to local government, the details of which have been so clearly stated by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. Although the 1961 Act came into being and although the White local authorities continued to request the Government to assist in this matter by giving them the powers which were provided for in respect of the Urban Bantu Council, nothing was done at all. Therefore a law which provided the machinery which could enable them to look after their own affairs remained absolutely dormant for 16 years. Nothing was done, and now the hon. the Deputy Minister tells us, in 1977, in introducing a Bill which differs very little from the previous one—it may cite additional possible powers for the hon. the Minister—that it is in line with the process of evolution of the urban Bantu residential areas. I say that we must reject this. The Bill has no substance at all and is going to be as frustrating and as useless as the previous Bills were.

If one has a look at the contents of the Bill, a lot of which has already been made clear, one finds that there are only-permissive powers to carry out all sorts of duties, none of which measures up to the cohesive effort of a local authority, an organization that can establish proper community life, an organization that can establish a proper sense of belonging, an organization that can establish a community in the accepted sense of the term. It is perpetuating ethnicity and division. There is not even an opportunity provided in the Bill for clarity about who can be enrolled as a voter in selecting possible councillors for this community council. It is all left in the hands of the hon. the Minister who will decide, at a later stage, which categories will be available and will decide on the conditions under which persons can be enrolled and can vote. Furthermore, in order to cover the distinct difficulties which the Government already foresees in advance, it takes the power, which it took with regard to the CRC, to appoint councillors in the event of an insufficient number being elected. Also, if none is elected, or if they resign or do not stand for election, he takes the power to appoint them himself. In fact, he will actually take over powers from the councils in order to carry out the so-called duties and responsibilities for which provision is made in terms of this Bill. That is a sense of defeatism which I think must stand alone. Here a Bill is presented which is supposed to be a positive evolutionary step forward in the interests of the community, but one nevertheless covers oneself because one already foresees that in the future one is going to encounter difficulties and is going to find oneself faced with the problems which will arise because of the very nature of the Bill that is before us here.

Those are the main grounds on which one must definitely reject a Bill of this nature because we do not believe that this makes any advance at all. All that is happening is that an effort is being made to regulate the townships on the basis of ethnicity and to try to give a semblance of a move forward, a move which can actually give rise, however, to the results we have had recently.

I am referring to the resignation of councillors from the urban Bantu councils in Soweto. How can one expect the students to accept a proper local authority when they would not accept the urban Bantu councils? It is because students, mainly in their late teens, have no respect for this type of authority which has been established by the urban Bantu councils because they realize that these are frustrated bodies. If something more concrete is placed before the community, something which is a positive step and in which they can take an interest, in my opinion one would find an entirely different approach by the youth and the entire community. That, after all, is the essence of good government. The essence of good government is to arouse the interest of the community, which a Government serves, and to enable its members, with a sense of pride, to take part in the activities which they would like so that their community can thrive.

There is just something that I should like to add in conclusion. This issue with regard to levies is a simple one and not a very intelligent provision. The Blacks in Soweto, for example, have in the past maintained that if they were given an opportunity to do something for themselves, they would provide funds, if necessary. They would have the necessary sense of responsibility to contribute towards the progress and advancement of their community. That is a different story, however, to a Bill of this nature which gives a council, which will still be an ineffective, toothless council, the right to impose levies. That is not the way people want levies imposed. People want levies imposed with a sense of dignity. A man wants to own a home. A man does not just want to own bricks on a stand.

How many people do own their homes in Soweto?

Very few. There are only a few who have the 99-year lease. Do not tell me that owning a home means owning the bricks on a piece of ground which does not belong to them. We know what owning a home in this country means. In South Africa owning a home means owning the dominium in a home. One does not own a home by merely owning the bricks on a piece of ground which does not belong to you and can never belong to you. People know what local government means what a contribution through rates means and what the contribution of funds through legitimate channels are. But these means, in my opinion, carry us no further.

I think that it is a travesty that a Bill of this nature should, after so many years of expectation and pleading, be presented to this House and that this House should be expected to accept this as an evolutionary move in the interest of the urban Black population of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Jeppe whether he has any idea of the nature of local government which will be acceptable to the students under Motsesi? Is it his argument that they will be prepared to accept another form of local authority? That seems to be his argument.

*The hon. member for Jeppe is arguing here today that we are offering this form of local authority and expecting Motsesi to take it over. This is a ludicrous argument, viz. that revolutionaries are expected to take it over. Of course not. The hon. member for Houghton, the expert on Soweto, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Jeppe, who profess to know what is happening in Black politics, have either grossly misled us, or they are not informed. If they are not informed, they must not talk about this, and if they want to grossly mislead us, it is a serious matter and their credibility is in question, at least those of them who still have any. It was argued here that Motsesi was supposedly the only valid leader at the local level in Soweto. This is not so, after all. Do these people not read their newspapers?

†I would like to have the attention of the hon. member for Jeppe, who was a councillor in the Johannesburg city council and who should therefore know what is going on there. He should know what is going on in Soweto.

*The World reports that there are four groups of importance, namely the Mamati Greater Insitution, the tax-payers of Soweto, the Makgotla Party, which stands for law and order, as well as the Soweto Council of Justice. It is illuminating to note that even The World totally ignores the existence or impact of the Soweto Progressive Party of Leonard Masala. It is an important message coming to us from this direction, i.e. that these people have no impact. Nevertheless hon. members come here today and, by means of their arguments, fan the flames of doubt which can rage far beyond our borders. That is what they are doing. They are standing in the way of planning, which is being done in good faith for the Black people in the urban Bantu areas in South Africa. It is a disgrace that they display their ignorance to such an extent at this stage. It is a disgrace particularly because they make out here—like the hon. member for Jeppe, who should know better—that these Motsesi people are the representatives of Soweto. I want to leave it at that.

Today, in his customary style, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana presented arguments which create the impression that the hon. member had studied the Bill properly. It seems to me as if the hon. member has lost interest, because he is leaving the House, but I do not hold this against him. What are the facts? The hon. member argued as if there is no difference between the 1961 legislation and this. I want to point out, however, that as far as the 1961 legislation is concerned, there is no doubt that the urban Bantu councils of that time were intended to be extensions of White local authorities, whereas the creation of this authority, the community council, affords the Bantu the opportunity to exercise the functions granted to him in his own right.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also created the impression that only those powers specifically referred to in clause 5, can eventually be transferred to such an authority. Clause 5(1)(n), however, puts it very clearly that more and wider powers may be granted to such a community council in conjunction with the powers allocated in terms of clause 5. This implies that the opportunity is being given here at a local level to furnish guidance in the socio-economic spheres to people of the same race, colour and nation. It gives them the opportunity to be drilled in the techniques of proper management. Then we can expect that the hon. the Minister will take a look at this general empowering provision. That is why I deplore the fact that the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Houghton are propagating the idea that there has been no extension of the 1961 legislation.

I want to argue immediately that this Bill gives the general impression that the emphasis is being placed on the socio-economic development of the Black people in urban Bantu areas. Is there anything wrong with this? As far as the socio-economic development of these people is concerned, I want to argue that at the present time it befits an Opposition party to support everything which can possibly be done to create a climate and establish an economic system which those people will favour.

The hon. member for Houghton rejected this in unmistakable language. By doing so she rejects the opportunity—I shall refer to this in a moment—for emergence and development in two important spheres in particular. The hon. member for Houghton is making propaganda for the rejection of the proposed system by suggesting that there is no reason for these people to support a system like this, but the development and emergence of the system will in itself be a deathblow for her propaganda. Will they oppose us in the two spheres to which I shall refer, or will they assist in giving an opportunity to the Black people to develop in this regard? I am referring specifically to the provision in clause 5 which concerns the administration and allocation of the letting of accommodation, dwellings, buildings and other structures. Then I refer to the clause which concerns the administration of sites for, inter alia, trading purposes, and to the comprehensive, general clause relating to these matters, and that is the promotion of sound community development in the Black areas.

Today we are dealing here with the question of whether the new set-up has a better prospect of working than the previous one. The fact is that to date, only 24 councils have been formed in terms of the legislation of 1961 because the local authorities have been tardy in this respect. Now this matter is being tackled with a will and it will be dealt with in such a way that it will become really meaningful. That is why there must be no reproaches to the effect that the matter is being placed in the hands of the Minister. What other body or person would be able to manage it? What other body can transfer powers in the way in which it is being done at the moment? Say, for example, there were to be a UDI. What do the people have in mind? It must come from somewhere, after all.

The areas which have been identified, are areas in which there are bottlenecks as far as the Bantu population of South Africa in general is concerned, but especially, too, as far as the Bantu in our urban complexes are concerned. I refer in particular to the question of housing. This is a very serious matter, and it is a challenge to us. Despite our present total supply of 607 000 houses, a considerable shortage has built up. We all know this. We also know that by the end of the century we shall have to provide as many as 4,1 million houses. The capital available for this purpose from the public sector and the Government, is limited. We know that. We also know that whereas an amount of R6 191 million is needed until the end of the century to provide for the question of housing, an amount of R25 million, which the Urban Foundation intends making available, will in fact have an impact in the sense that it may stimulate the other local and private bodies or persons to establish similar funds, but in relation to the problem it will clearly have little impact. It will make the provision of 12 500 houses possible in the next five years, whereas the demand at the moment is much more than that. From 1975 to 1980 we will have to provide 338 400 houses in the White area, and 545 000 houses in the Bantu homelands. It is therefore clear that the 12 500 houses which the Urban Foundation will finance, will have virtually no impact, except for the example which it will set.

In this Bill we are creating the opportunity for a Bantu administration board, with its financial responsibilities and its task to develop, to establish housing which the community councils themselves can manage and let in order to learn the functions of local authorities. This, however, is being opposed. An opportunity is being created here which should grip the imagination of the world since Black and White people, the administration boards and the community councils, will have a joint and collective responsibility in this regard which will be exercised in such a way that one will not be able to call it paternalistic because the community councils will be responsible, for example, for imposing a levy on services, the reports which they can submit to the Minister in connection with housing and even for rents. I have the impression that the hon. member for Houghton is heartsore and that it is not pleasant for her that the duty of taking an unpopular decision is being taken away from the Whites. It means that she will have no target to shoot at any more.

I want to refer to a second very important sphere. The development of the Black trader depends a great deal on the development of the community. This is the sphere in which the community councils have a responsibility. The hon. member for Houghton argued very strongly a few debates ago in favour of the vision of Nafcom. She argued very strongly about the deficiencies. The Government has already taken the initiative in regard to this matter. I want to argue that by opposing this Bill in this extremely important sphere of socio-economic development, they are sabotaging the policy of the Government. In fact, they sabotage the Black people. I have read a great deal about the solution as regards the dissatisfaction with their Governments shown by the populations of underdeveloped countries and it has always been the case that a thorough information service can counter that propaganda. Then, however, there must not be a party like the PRP to hamper one’s efforts. I therefore want to appeal to the PRP that from now on, even if they have opposed the Bill, to leave the Government alone as far as the administration and handling of the matter is concerned. Specifically when we are going to discuss the trader, we want them out of the way, because matters have to be considered there. For instance, town planning efforts must be considered and the existing limitation of floor areas which apply to Black traders. One visualizes that, just as is the case with the Whites, the Blacks, too, will have to be considered if one wants to make this meaningful. The hon. members of the PRP, however, want to deny us the privilege of discussing this with the community council. I pointedly ask the hon. member for Houghton: If it is to be one of our major efforts to promote the Black trader in his area, are they going to put a spoke in our wheel? Now there is dead silence.

I refer to the financing of commercial activities as well as housing. It is in this sphere that we want to grip the imagination of the private sector so that they can help. We must get the Black people so far as to muster their savings for this purpose. I have calculated that if we can influence them to save 20% of their income, we will be able to muster nearly R260 million per annum for development in these two spheres. Does the PRP want to deny the community councils the right to take the initiative in these matters?

I conclude by saying that with the inspiration of the NP this Bill can be a great success. There are going to be stumbling blocks, not to the detriment of the Whites, but to the detriment of the Blacks, if the Opposition parties interfere with this matter any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to react in detail to the speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, but I want him to understand very clearly that those persons who vote against the Bill are not necessarily sabotaging the Government’s policy. I also want to tell the hon. member that one has no chance of commanding the world’s imagination with a half-baked idea. I shall leave it at that in the hope that the hon. member is listening closely to the arguments I am advancing.

The first question which we, as the Opposition as well as the Government will have to ask ourselves in connection with this and similar legislation, is whether or not certain Black people are established permanently in the White part of the Republic of South Africa. Is the answer “yes” or “no”? We shall have to decide on that. The late Deputy Minister Blaar Coetzee, who later became Minister, made a prediction …

May I ask the hon. member whether he concedes that the principle of the nature of the presence of the Black people in White areas was cleared up and established in other legislation a long time ago?

It may have been cleared up and established in other legislation, but it has not been established in the debate which is taking place in political circles. If it is decided that those people are settled here permanently, then the principle that there ought to be proprietary rights for the well-to-do Bantu in the urban areas, must be accepted. Once we have accepted that principle, we may establish a viable community council, because such a community council would then have the right to levy taxes.

May they work in post offices as well, then?

I and my colleagues in the SAP are fully aware of the necessity for the further extension of the powers of the Black local authorities over their own people in the Black urban areas of the Republic of South Africa. We realize and accept that, because it is of cardinal importance that the system of urban Bantu councils either be extended to something similar to a fully-fledged municipality or be done away with to make way for a new and better system of local authority. For this reason, we should have liked to have supported the Bill, because we know that the hon. the Deputy Minister introduced it with good intentions. Consequently, it is with a feeling of disappointment that we have to say after thorough consideration that we shall not be able to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

The hon. members of my party have had a number of years of experience in this regard as well as years of experience in the Cape Provincial Council. At this level of government we dealt with many local authorities. In the days before the creation of Bantu Affairs administration boards, we dealt with municipalities in particular. We are therefore familiar with the functions of local authorities and the liaison between Whites and non-Whites in our urban areas. This Bill ought to be the blueprint for the creation of responsible local authorities for the Blacks in the urban areas of the Republic of South Africa. The entire piece of legislation consists of 19 pages, but I shall come back to that factor at a later stage.

We realize that the body which can be created in this connection will not immediately be able to maintain fully-fledged municipal standards. We also realize that differences in the level of development and of sophistication will occur from place to place. The Bill is attempting to lay down the blueprint, but, with all due respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the legal draftsmen, one can only regard the piece of legislation as a superficial, ad hoc attempt to get something going, particularly because all of us realize that something has to be done. For that reason and for other reasons which I shall mention later, I move the following amendment—

Our Black people are patient people and if they know that Parliament and the Government are engaged in a study of the problem with a view to introducing a well-considered and thorough piece of legislation during the next parliamentary session, they will be prepared to wait. They know that the final result will be in their favour, because it will be aimed at a betterment of their lot in this country. Earlier, I raised the matter of local authorities and I took the trouble to look up the Cape Provincial Ordinances relating to municipalities and local authorities. When one goes through those ordinances, one finds first of all the Municipal Ordinance, a bulky piece of legislation comprising 248 pages.

The Cape Town Association Ordinance is another one of them. In addition there is the Municipality of Cape Town Administration Ordinance—another bulky piece of legislation—the Municipalities Pension Funds Ordinance, the City of Port Elizabeth Ordinance, the Auditing of the Accounts of Local Authorities Ordinance and last but not least, the Municipal and Divisional Council Pensions Ordinance. These are but a few of the many ordinances. Nevertheless, those few represent as many as seven ordinances having a direct bearing on the administration of municipalities and local authorities. What is also interesting, is the fact that certain municipalities have special provincial ordinances to cover their unique conditions. That will eventually be necessary in this case as well. One certainly cannot expect that the same conditions which exist at Smithfield, for example, will also exist in Soweto.

We must ensure that we have legislation which is very clearly set out, legislation which is in no way in conflict with other legislation and which is easily applicable to a diversity of conditions. Allow me just to refer to a few problems which I already foresee in this legislation. In clause 3(2) the Minister himself is empowered to appoint members to the community council concerned if people do not render themselves eligible for election to a community council or refuse to vote for it. I think that if people in an urban area have no interest whatsoever in electing a community council, we should not permit ourselves the right to appoint a community council. Let those people stew in their own juice. Allow the Bantu Affairs Administration Board to exercise the control there instead. As far as I am concerned, people do not have the right to lay claim to a community council if they refuse to vote for it. Therefore, I would say that clause 3(2) might just as well be repealed.

Moreover, the provisions of this Bill are read in conjunction with the provisions of the Urban Areas Act, and they make provision for the repeal of the Urban Bantu Councils Act. However, the provisions of the Act which is being repealed, remain in force until such time as the Urban Bantu Councils and Bantu Advisory Committees are transformed into community councils. Some of the provisions in this Bill are similar to certain provisions of the Bantu Administration Act of 1927, which also affect the Bantu Affairs Administration Act, as well as a great many other Acts. What we should like to see, is all these Acts consolidated into a single Act and these various factors relating to certain parts of the administration, from top to bottom, brought together in various chapters in one piece of legislation. It is a great task and that is why in our amendment we specifically ask for a commission. The poor legal draftsmen are under tremendous pressure, particularly as far as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is concerned, a department which regularly has to adapt to the development of the Bantu peoples in South Africa. According to our law, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but I challenge any hon. member to say that he knows the Bantu laws of South Africa from beginning to end. No one would say that. That is another reason why we are asking for consolidating legislation, divided up into various chapters so that it may be clearer. There is even an admission of duplication in clause 13 of this legislation. The marginal note to clause 13 reads—

Clause 13 reads—

That is an admission of the fact that there are some problems as far as duplication is concerned. Allow me to refer to only one conflict I have noticed under clause 5(1)(a)(vii). That gives the community council “control over the keeping of dogs and the imposition of a levy on the keeping thereof.” This is contrary to the Cape Ordinance relating to dog tax, Ordinance No. 22 of 1946. This ordinance gives exemptions only in terms of sections 49 and 21(1) of the Bantu Trust and Land Act; in other words, exemptions in the Bantu homelands. In other words, there is no exemption from the taxation of dogs within the White area in this province. In addition, throughout the legislation there are provisions to the effect that certain things may be done only with the permission of the Minister. There are similar provisions in the provincial ordinances relating to the administrators, but not to such a large extent as in this legislation. We feel that there ought to be more separation of authority. In certain cases there could be more autonomy amongst the local authorities. In other cases I would propose that the permission should rather be given by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. In other words, it is a delegation of powers from the supreme authority, because there must be authority, but does it have to be so centralized?

†Finally, we feel that there should be more provision for consultation and co-operation between the Minister of Justice and of Police in connection with the judicial powers and the civil protection powers which are to be granted to the community councils. I do not want to enter into an argument over the pros and cons of the makgotla system at this stage. If necessary, that can wait until the Committee Stage. However, we do feel that there should be something which makes it clear that there is a clear connection between justice, Bantu administration and the community councils in this connection. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept our amendment and to come at the next session of Parliament with a consolidated Act on the lines I have suggested, an Act which will provide a blueprint for Black local authorities in South Africa. In the meantime he can prepare the ground and he can build up those organizations which already exist and train them to take up the positions that can become available in a properly thought-out and entirely new Act.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that the position and the future of the urban Blacks is the core of our relations politics today, this Bill might perhaps have been the most important of the whole session. Here we could have taken a great step forward, because we had an opportunity here to establish something great. However, that opportunity has been wasted and instead of something great, we have something here today that is minor and of little significance. It will definitely not satisfy the average Black man, as I shall try to show. There is very little in this Bill—and we might as well admit it—that will improve the quality of life of the Black man. It is to a great extent patching and additions instead of something new and important. This is a bitter disappointment. It is going to be a bitter disappointment for the Blacks, in the same way that it was for many of us.

Because the existing urban Bantu boards have been a sorry failure—we need only look at what has happened in Soweto during the past few months—it has of course become necessary to introduce this legislation, as the hon. member for Brakpan more or less intimated. However, the fundamental question we should ask ourselves at this stage, is: Is it possible to design a successful system of administration for communities which have no character or status of their own? What is the nature of the Black residential areas that are provided for in this Bill? According to Prof. Jan Moolman—the hon. member for Brakpan has already mentioned his name in this debate today and I want to remind hon. members that he was a member of both the Tomlinson Commission and the Mentz Committee—these Black residential areas are not cities in their own right, nor are they suburbs of the White/Black urban systems to which they belong. He went on to say—

I just want to quote Prof. Moolman’s next sentence because I think it has a direct bearing on what we are discussing here today. He said—

He also felt—

The question arises as to how on earth one can design a stable and satisfactory system of Government for what Prof. Moolman calls “siek en wanskapige gebiede.” Is that possible? I doubt it. However, let us look at the legislation that is before us today.

†To the extent that this legislation was intended as an effort to give urban Africans a meaningful say in their own affairs, it ought to have been possible to welcome it. However, as I have suggested, it is anything but that. There are three primary reasons I would like to suggest for this. Firstly, the say that Africans are to be given is anything but meaningful. There is no evidence that what is contained in this Bill is what they want or what they need. This is absolutely basic in this instance. Secondly, the community councils will have no real power, as has been pointed out. In addition, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, they have been saddled with all the most unpleasant and most unpopular tasks in these townships. Finally, the hon. the Minister and the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have the final say in all areas of importance. If the Urban Bantu Council in Soweto died as it did recently because it was an impotent body with advisory powers only, then one sees little if any hope for the community council system which is to take its place and for which provision is made in this Bill. The Soweto urban council lasted less than a decade for these reasons; it had no power and the community which it was intended to serve never had any faith in it. How can they? Under these circumstances, can the people of any of these communities have any faith in the proposed community councils? Just let me quote very briefly what a newspaper like The World, which is certainly the mouthpiece of enlightened Black thinking in Soweto, had to say in this regard and writing about the UBC’s faults it stated—

I quote further—

The article goes further—

That is the essence of the whole case. Elsewhere in the same newspaper there is the following comment—

Those are the facts. What I believe this Bill simply fails to do is to give these communities any real power. If there is consequently any reason to believe that the community councils will engender a kind of faith other than that which was engendered in the urban Bantu councils, I fail to see it. I say this because what we have here is simply a projection—as has been suggested by the hon. the Deputy Minister—of the separate development philosophy, another “ontplooiing van die beleid”, and instead of moving away from tribalism, as these communities want to do, the structure is still ethnically based.

A community which is divesting itself of tribalism—and this is a conscious move—is by this legislation being tied afresh to some of the worst features of tribalism. I am referring to things like the makgotla courts with their arbitrary penalties of fines and floggings, usually in public, an awful relic of a tribal past, and I suggest that many people in Soweto want to forget about that.

You are just an old paternalist.

The hon. member for Cradock quoted here at length to show how the makgotlas were wanted by the Black people of Soweto. I want to tell him, however, that not a single Black voice was raised in favour of the makgotla tribal courts when the urban Bantu councils and advisory boards in Johannesburg and on the Rand were consulted in March. There was not a single voice! Prof. John Dugard of Wits has pointed out that one of the dangers of having to make judgements in terms of statutory or common law—and this is what sophisticated Black people are perfectly aware of—is that often the people who administer this system are completely untrained. Too often the result is therefore a total denial of justice. Can we not accept that the urban African has, as a rule, grown up with Western-style justice, and is certainly going to live with it for the rest of his life? So why this reversal, even if some people do want it? What is wrong?

The meeting to which I referred, at which there was some consultation with Black people, also discussed the suggested community guards. Interestingly and significantly enough there was also opposition to this. A leading businessman, Mr. Richard Mapanya, for instance, quoted the example of the old Sophiatown where similar organizations had got out of hand and had been used for personal gain. In any case, Sir, what is the relationship going to be between these guards and the South African Police? Obviously the S.A. Police are going to remain in control, so why not make them an integral part of the S.A. Police? What is the purpose of creating a separate organization?

Mr. Speaker, my primary reason for opposing this Bill is that sophisticated urban Africans, the leaders of the community, want something wholly different from what they are being given here. I quote a senior industrial relations officer of a leading company in Port Elizabeth, Mr. Bagwa, who says: “Today’s Black person thinks of sharing power, of representation in Parliament”—and no doubt in the provincial councils and other Government bodies lower down—“and not the creation of insignificant authorities with secondary powers.” This, I suggest, is what is being given here. Less than 10 months ago, I might remind this House, seven homeland leaders, while drawing attention to the “existence of grievances affecting millions of our fellow Black South Africans and to correct the injustices which exist at the present time”, had this to say about bodies like the proposed community councils, and I quote—

What I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he can give us any evidence that the community councils which are proposed in this measure are in fact what the Black leaders in the urban areas of South Africa want today. Will they also not be looked upon in time as something “foisted on our people” and “of no value”? Let me quote very briefly what The Star of a couple of weeks ago had to say about the UBC’s fall—

This is not what this Bill does. It does not give them a genuine chance of running their own affairs. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West talked rather excitedly about the type of person who would be chosen to run the affairs of Soweto. I do not know why he has got no faith in the people of Soweto or why he thinks elements will take over that perhaps will not share his philosophy. Be that as it may, this is the kind of organization that people are looking for in Soweto. I quote again from a leading article in The World—

This is the point. The article continues—

How is this going to be guaranteed in this piece of legislation we have before us? I suggest that what the Black man in the city really wants is not power to prohibit the keeping of animals, which is given in this legislation; they want the right to say that influx control must be abolished. I am sure that they are interested in wanting to beautify the area in which they live, as the Bill says, but they would far rather have real power to keep their families together. This is the kind of power that they are wanting.

*In this connection I should like to quote the words of Mrs. Rika Mellet, a Dutch Reformed Minister’s wife on the Rand, who resigned after 10 years of social work amongst the Black of Johannesburg because she could make no progress, because “niemand wou luister nie”. The Bill before us today deals with people. Mrs. Mellet found that 75% of the 3 000 women living alone in a massive hostel were unmarried mothers. Virtually none of these women or their children are eligible for family housing, she said. Those are the street children of Soweto and Alexandra. They know no home, because “elke stukkie stedelike wetgewing is daarop ingestel om hul van hul moeders te skei.” What are the proposed community councils going to do in this respect? Do they have any powers in this respect? What kind of powers do they have? What can they do? What can the community councils do to find a place for these children and their mothers? Can they do anything?

The Bill before us talks about “the promotion of the moral and social welfare of persons living in its area.” That is fine, but as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said, it is somewhat nebulous. How on earth is it possible for them to do anything as long as “elke stukkie stedelike wetgewing daarop ingestel is om kinders van hul moeders te skei”? This Bill makes no provision to prevent that. Does that not make a farce of the whole thing? Does that not make this whole Bill ridiculous, or how cynical can we really become in this respect?

Mrs. Mellet says that she found it impossible to help, because “ Jou hande is gebind … die beleid sê hulle hoort in die stamverband, in die sorg van die groot familie.” What can the community councils do about this? This is what worries the Blacks of Soweto and of all the other urban areas. What can they do—I quote Mrs. Mellet’s words—to prevent that “’n Swart geslag aan die grootword is as weggeekinders, met al die verskriklike implikasies van daardie feit”?

If Mrs. Mellet could not help, how are these new bodies going to help with their limited powers and no say in the making of laws that determine their whole life-style?

The Black man in the city does not want to be saddled, as this Bill suggests, with the prevention and combating of illegal occupation of land and buildings, if he does not have other powers as well. They want to be consulted about things like job reservation, influx control and—I quote from a leading article in another Black newspaper—“ander paswette”. They do not only want to be consulted about the assigning of housing to single persons as is proposed by this Bill: they also want to talk about group areas, separate facilities and their implications, tax, and, to quote the words of The World “die swetterjoel ander wette wat dit vir die Swartman onmoontlik maak om vreugde te put uit die koms van elke nuwe dag”. That is what they want to do. They want to talk and decide about those matters. This Bill does not provide for that at all. How, then, is the Community Councils Bill going to help to change this situation? Those are the things that worry the people of Soweto, although we do not want to know anything about that. I also want to quote the words of a leading Blackman, a businessman and not a politician. He is someone who is so acceptable that he appeared on television the other night. If one has appeared on television, one knows that one has really arrived! His name is Mr. Sam Motsuenyane. He wrote the following the other day—

We have been warned. This Bill is not going to do anything to deal with those problems and changes. We are heading for another failure with this Bill.

Surely it is in the long term interests of the Government to establish community organizations in Black urban areas which can effectively—and I want to emphasize that— represent the interests of Black communities. In other words, what they want are organizations which enjoy the confidence of the citizens of these areas. If that does not happen, the Government will find that it will never be able to get anyone to negotiate with to good purpose in any crisis. That was the most important lesson learnt from the recent riots in Soweto. This Bill simply proves that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and his Deputy Ministers have not yet learnt this lesson. For that reason we oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall refer to a speech of the hon. member for Parktown. I want to point out generally that the debate has thus far very clearly confirmed the fundamental difference in thinking between all three Opposition groups on that side of the House and the party on this side of the House. It is because of this basic difference in our points of departure that this debate has evidenced the pattern that has, in fact, emerged. It could not be otherwise because if it were, we would not be sitting on this side of the House and they would not be sitting on that side. The policy of the Government and of the NP has been written into this Bill in no uncertain terms. This Government adheres to the principle of separate development, a concept which implicitly embodies multinational development. That is part and parcel of this Bill.

Where do you see development in this Bill? This is exactly the opposite!

The hon. member will have his answer. He must just exercise a little patience. We on this side of the House believe in those towns and cities, within the ambit of the Whites’ political dispensation and national set-up, the Black man cannot lay claim to rights that accrue to Whites in the White area. That is basic to our policy. Within the framework of NP policy, the Bantu are here on a secondary basis and the Whites on a primary basis. If we do not accept that, we could just as well throw our policy overboard. Because that is the case, we maintain a policy of no land or property rights for the Bantu in Bantu townships in the White area, and for that reason we also maintain a policy of no political rights for Bantu in the White area.

Those are the cardinal differences in principle that exist in respect of the various political parties in South Africa. I want to ask the members of the PRP to what extent they differ from the UP in respect of their economic policy and other aspects of that kind. The fundamental difference in policy between those parties lies specifically, does it not, in their mutual view of the Coloured problem and the situation of the peoples in South Africa. That is the fundamental aspect. The reason why the members of the SAP recently left the official Opposition is because the standpoint they adopt in respect of the Coloured problem in South Africa is basic to the dispute between themselves and their former party. This has basically been applicable, throughout history, to any political party within the South African pattern, and this will also continue to be the case for many years to come.

That is why we adopt this standpoint and make no excuses for doing so. We have also, time and again, obtained a mandate from the electorate to continue with our policy and to develop it. We on this side of the House do not see the Bantu in the White area as any different from those in the homelands. That is the one argument that has repeatedly come to the fore, in this debate this afternoon, from the PRP and the UP because there are cardinal differences between us on this point. We say that the Black people in the White urban areas remain part of the same people. In this connection let me respectfully quote what the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development said last year when he made a statement specifically in connection with the announcement of this legislation. I quote from Die Transvaler of 20 October of last year—

The UP and the PRP, on the other hand, do not advocate this standpoint. As recently as 1972 the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said the following in regard to the urban Bantu, and I quote from Hansard (2 February 1972, col. 242)—

That is their point of departure, and because that is so, the same hon. member said that those Black people in the White area were “ ’n volk in ’n oorgangstadium”. I want to ask the hon. member for Parktown, the hon. member for Hougton and all the other Opposition members whether a Zulu who has undergone so-called westernization, after having lived in a White area for generations, is no longer a Zulu. Is he no longer a Zulu because he wears a suit of clothes, carries a briefcase and has obtained a degree from a university? [Interjections.] No, he is still as much a member of an ethnic unit as the hon. member for Jeppe is. I specifically want to refer to the hon. member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] What did the hon. member for Jeppe say? He said—

Is the hon. member not a living example of someone who, as a Jew, has ethnic ties and ethnic pride? [Interjections.] Surely that is so. Surely the hon. member is proud of the fact that he is a Jew, in spite of the fact that he has lived for generations amongst Afrikaners, Christians and others. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Parktown, in turn, is a living, striking example of a detribalized person. He is the other extreme, and that is why he is sitting over there. He is a living example of someone who has lost his ethnicity and tribal ties. He does not want to be what he was born to be.

What about Koos Lloyd? [Interjections.]

I want to refer to a very interesting scientific paper presented to a Sabra conference in 1975 by Dr. C. M. de Villiers, a lecturer at the University of Pretoria. The title of the paper was “Volksgebondenheid van die Bantoe in Blankestede”. He delivered a long, scientifically grounded dissertation. Let me just quote his conclusion in the closing paragraph—

That is the finding of a scientist.

That happens throughout the world.

Of course. The whole problem of the Black man in the White area, and what his rights here should or should not be, can therefore not be discussed in isolation from the problem of the Bantu’s total political future. One can also put it differently. One could also say that the Bantu are in White South Africa where the Whites are governed by the Whites. The fact that Black people have therefore lived in White South Africa for generations still does not make them a permanent part of the White national body and the White national economy.

There is, however, another aspect of our policy which is fundamental in this regard, and this can be brought into direct relationship with the factual situation of the Bantu towns or cities in the present-day White areas. The fact of the matter is that the Black man is in the White areas for the sake of his labour. This makes him present on a secondary basis. The principle, as frequently stated by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, is that the Black man must remain to a maximum extent in his own homeland. That is consequently our fundamental principle. Having said that, we must add that while the Black man is here, his stay must be such that he can lead a sound community life, and that is why we have them living in urban Bantu residential areas where they have their own churches, schools, hospitals and, as the hon. the Minister has said on occasion, where they can exercise their own authority. I want to quote again from the statement which the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made last year on 20 October—

That, however, is not all. It was in the course of this year that the hon. the Prime Minister, during the discussion of his Vote, said the following (Hansard, col. 5606)—

Again there is a fundamental difference. In the same speech the hon. the Prime Minister also said the following (Hansard, col. 5598)—

Because that is so, the Opposition is sitting where they sit today.

The hon. member for Parktown referred, inter alia, to the article written by Prof. Jan Moolman in Deurbraak. The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to it, but in the light of what the hon. member for Parktown said about the article, I think it is necessary to take a closer look at that article. In the final analysis Prof. Moolman adopted the standpoint that our Black residential areas are ailing. What basic error is there in Prof. Moolman’s thinking when he speaks about these matters? He lays down certain criteria for a city and wants to determine, inter alia, whether cities such as Cape Town, Kimberley or George are viable cities. He could even have used Umtata and tried, according to his definition, to prove that Umtata is not a viable city. He cannot allege that Umtata is a dead or an ailing city. Prof. Moolman laid down the following criteria for Black dual townships in our White cities—

In the light of that he comes to the following conclusion—

It is specifically because it is the policy of the Government, the policy of the White man in this country, that the Black man will sell his labour here, that there will be people of a specific category here. What is Prof. Moolman’s conclusion? I just want to quote one further passage. He states—

In the light of what he states here, we must therefore abolish influx control. We must therefore open up our White cities and towns to all kinds of Black people, regardless of the kind of work they do, regardless of whether there is room for them here and regardless of whether vacancies exist for them. I now just want to quote the following paragraph and then prove my view that his whole statement is a contradictio in terminis. He states—

I now ask how it is possible to create a situation which he himself, in the very next breath, acknowledges would not be a valid one since it would create chaos. By implication that is exactly what he is saying. I really do not think this kind of argument gets us any further.

One of the important arguments raised here in the House today—it was, in fact, the main argument of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, hon. members of the PRP and the hon. member for Albany—amounts to the fact that the effort, as they refer to it, being made in this legislation to give the Black man the opportunity to maintain a measure of self-government in his own community affairs falls far short of the conventional pattern of a local authority. The argument was developed further, amounting to the fact that we should get to a stage where the community councils would really have teeth and could really co-operate with us. According to those hon. members that would only happen when these councils were made full-fledged local authorities.

This standpoint links up with an article written by a certain Martin Cremer in the Sunday Times of 22 May of this year. It deals with this very Bill. He writes—

He goes on to state—

He goes on to quote what an ex-councillor of Soweto, Mr. Mosala, had to say—

Yes!

The hon. member for Jeppe says he agrees with that.

I confirm that he said it. That is correct.

In my view this again illustrates the basic difference in thinking between us on this side of the House and hon. members opposite, or people who speak in the same terms as they do. The moment the Black man is given the same local authority as the White man, he is being allowed to have a share in the political system of the Whites in the White area. The system of government of this country is a three tier system—local authority, provincial authority and central government. Between these three there is an inter-relationship, an inter-dependence, an interaction which one cannot neutralize. The result is that if we were to create a local authority for the Bantu, as he wants us to do, a local authority that falls under the municipal ordinances, we would be making them part and parcel of the Whites’ political system.

What about the division of power?

We cannot even consider that. That serves, at the same time, as a reply to the allegation of the hon. member for Houghton that because that is so there are frustrations amongst the Black people in Soweto. She pointed to the conduct of the students in regard to the urban Bantu council in Soweto and said that that was due to frustration because, she said, they want full municipal status. That she stated very definitely. The hon. member spoke about the frustrations of those people. My answer to her is that she knows—the hon. member for Parktown quoted this here—that there are Black people who are on record as not being satisfied with municipal rights only, the next step being provincial rights shared with the Whites in South Africa, and the third step political rights shared with the White man in this Parliament. She says that if we give them full municipal rights, as the Whites have, that would eliminate those frustrations. I allege that it will not eliminate those frustrations because the other two objectives still have to be achieved. That is only the first hurdle. Thus she and her party are conceding one hurdle after another to them so that Black majority rule in this country, as she advocates it, will eventually be fully realized. For that reason we cannot accept any of the amendments those hon. members have proposed because they are diametrically opposed to the principle the Government must maintain towards this type of legislation in terms of its policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member for Koedoespoort is not prepared to accept any amendments. I would have thought that he would have looked with a little more interest at the amendment with regard to the appointment of a commission, although I can quite understand that he cannot support our amendment. I should like to talk to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He says the community councils are not going to be in conflict with the whole principle of local authorities. But let us look at what he has said—he is supposedly so true to his principles and the hon. the Deputy Minister is so consistent. If his statement that I am now going to quote is not based on an assumption, I do not know what it is—

If the hon. member for Koedoespoort and the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to establish meaningful local authorities, surely it is necessary that they be established under the homeland Governments and not under the administration boards. If they are now looking for the three levels of government as far as the Bantu is concerned, the first level is the Minister, the second level is the homelands and the third level is the community councils. As we understand the position, the Minister should make even the community councils ethnic and then he could have connected the community council with the homeland. If I were a Nationalist—an unhappy thought—I should have thought that a more consistent approach than the Bill that is before us now. I am surprised that the hon. member for Koedoespoort is not prepared to adopt a consistent approach to this kind of legislation. The fact is that this legislation, as I shall indicate later, is actually an abortion by the standards of South African legislation. I think we are going to be very sorry if the legislation is going to be placed on the Statute Book.

†When we heard about this Bill we looked forward to seeing it and reading it with a great sense of anticipation. I suppose the main reason was that hope springs eternal in the human breast. Alas, even after ten years of the present hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, our hopes are dashed once again because we ought to know by now that hope should never spring eternal in the breast of anybody who has to deal with the NP.

The second reason why I feel we looked forward to this Bill with great anticipation is because we know that the urban African situation is the crucial factor in South African politics at the moment. If we talk to our colleagues in the party opposite in our quiet moments out of this House or in the passages, the lobbies or on tours—because in this House, as the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development always says, one is either 100% right or 100% wrong and members will never concede anything—they will all concede that the crucial problem, the “onoplosbare probleem op hierdie tydstip”, is the urban African situation. I believe this is another reason why we were desperately interested to see what this Bill was going to bring forth. All of us realized that here was one of the most important issues from a political point of view. The urbanizing of rural people out of a tribal background is a very real human problem in any society. If one is going to have people coming from the platteland into an urbanized situation, it is extremely difficult. Anybody who has dealt with the history of South Africa, whether it be with our White community, with the urbanization of the Afrikaans-speaking community at the turn of the century and during the 1920s, our poor White problem, with the movement of the Afrikaans-speaking people into the cities or whatever aspect of the history, will know that urbanization is a very difficult social problem. That can also be borne out by those of us who have read the report of the Theron Commission and who have examined the situation of the Coloured people on the Cape Flats. There again we have the problem of a rural population who are urbanizing. With it come tremendous human problems. I do not care where it happens; even if it happens in the very best environment, there are problems of adaptation, family life, adjusting to new moral standards, the business and the change from that kind of existence. That is one of the reasons why we were very interested in this Bill. When one goes to a place like Soweto, one has a tremendous sensation of poverty. Those of us who know Soweto well will have noticed that the moment the Government refused to allow people to own property any more and when they placed further restriction on the possession of business properties some ten years or more ago, the condition of buildings and the whole life of Soweto declined.

You are talking a lot of nonsense.

Has that hon. Deputy Minister ever visited Soweto at eight o’clock on a winter morning? Under the circumstances that prevail there one cannot even see the Brylcreem on another man’s hair because the smog is so thick. If hon. members have visited Soweto as I have done, they will realize that it is the most unpleasant atmosphere to live in. That is the other reason why we were interested in these community councils. We realize that nothing has in fact been done during the past ten years in Soweto to improve the material way of life of the people. That is why we are worried. We really hoped that legislation would now be introduced that could in fact do something. There is another reason why we hoped that something would happen, because we were afraid that the anger towards the administration boards shown during the recent riots would spread further. We hoped that these community councils would be able to take over the work of the administration boards in a purposeful and successful manner.

†There was also another reason, and that was that we have been concerned about law and order. We know that ultimately one cannot impose law and order externally upon a people. One has to have the will in the community, and we believe that in view of the Soweto problem, and the potential flashpoints of all our Black urban areas—largely because of Government policy—we might well see a genuine attempt to defuse that situation. I was one of those people who was very interested because I had serious doubts about the concept of using the makgotla system to maintain order. I do not believe that it is going to work. I believe that the Police have serious problems as far as that is concerned. The point is, however, that the concern and the discussion was, I believe, an indication of a genuine realization by members opposite that unless a community itself is responsible for law and order, there will never be real security in such a situation.

There was another reason why we were interested in this Bill. The reason was that we do not, of course, only have urban Africans. We also have other people of colour in South Africa. Coming from Natal, where in the past 15 years, under the Provincial Administration, we have launched successful local affairs committees which have now produced municipalities run by Indians, we obviously are concerned to have this extended to Black people as well. In Natal, of course, we do not have Black spots. We have White spots in a huge Black sea. There we live right next door to homeland areas and we are concerned to see good government in these areas. We want to have peaceful, effective local government to develop our very rich province as well as we can. We really felt that this was going to be a Bill which would make a big difference to the whole situation. In the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he said, with regard to this Bill—

What, however, is a local authority basically? It is, firstly, a body that has the right to levy rates and taxes. That usually implies freehold title, though not necessarily. Implicit, however, is the right to levy rates and taxes. That is the first distinguishing characteristic of a local authority. The second is the right to borrow money, and the third is the right to make regulations. Those are the things that distinguish a local authority. As I see it, the powers which are given to these community councils are very far removed indeed from those particular powers as we understand them. There is no freehold, so it is very difficult to levy rates and taxes anyway. Furthermore, the communities that they serve are the communities at the lower end of our socio-economic scale, certainly at this stage, so the rates revenue that can be derived from those properties is very low. They are not allowed to borrow money. They can only receive money as a gift, and it has to be approved by the hon. the Minister first. They can also make regulations only to a very limited extent. Even regulations relating to sports facilities at schools have to be approved by the hon. the Minister. As I see it, what this Bill is doing is virtually making these community councils agents for the administration boards. The Minister, in fact, goes so far as to say that.

*In his speech he expressly states that he believes that the most important purpose of these community councils is to take over much of the work of the administration boards.

†Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that many people opposite appreciate how much the Black man who lives in the urban area depends on a rubber stamp. These Bantu Affairs Administration Boards represent rubber stamps. If you have anybody knocking on your door to collect money for a church, you will always find that he has a rubber stamp on his form saying “God’s Zionist Church” or “Evangelical Zion Church of the Holy Jesus Christ”. It will have a rubber stamp. Why? Because, to him as a Black man, all his life he has had these magenta stamps stamped all through his life. They are stamped in his reference book and relate to every aspect of his existence.

When the hon. member collects money for his church or for his party every now and again, does he not get the official signature of his chairman or whoever it may be to say that he is in fact allowed to collect?

That is not the point. They will not only have a letter on which it is indicated in writing or in print what church it is, but they will always, and particularly in the right colour—the “Government’s magenta”—carry a stamp.

One’s passport and book of life also carry stamps.

But of course. To me that argument is really typical of the argument that I have heard from another member when he spoke about migrant labour. What did I ask a previous Prime Minister? I asked him: What about migrant labour in this country? He said: “Oh, they have migrant labour in Europe and all the sailors are migrant labourers.” What nonsense! Migrant labour is enforced here. That is a half truth and a sophistry. The hon. member for Vereenging is master of the art of basing a major argument on a false premise. Both he and the member for Bloemfontein West, who spoke in this debate, state a premise and then they debate with each other. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West uses the name of Montsesi and no one else has even used Montsesi’s name in this debate, not even the hon. member for Jeppe. That kind of argument might sound scientific, but it does not impress us, because we are aware of the half truths on which it is based.

I believe that we must realize that the Blacks will not accept such a community council that in fact only does the unpleasant work of the Bantu administration boards. I think it is a great pity that this type of legislation has been introduced. The Black man in the town is not ashamed of his ethnicity, but he is proud of being a Zulu, for instance. We are now talking about this Government of which the hon. member for Koedoespoort is so proud. Initially, when Bantu homelands were being considered and planned, we heard what would happen with the Bantu homelands, i.e. that they were now going to do everything in a genuinely Black way. However, what is happening now? It is in fact based on the Westminster system. There is a mace and everything is exactly the same as it is in the case of the Whites. That does not mean that the Black man has rejected his ethnicity, but he recognizes something which is better for him. I do not tell him that it is better, but the Black man realizes in many cases that the White legal system is in many cases better than its own system, because he will have more justice thereby. That is why he does not want the kind of local government which the hon. the Minister now wants to establish.

†I believe that this is bad legislation too. I believe that this legislation will increase the frustration among urban Blacks. First of all, if they give advice and it is not accepted by the Minister or his Bantu Administration Board, that will create more problems and they will resent that. Furthermore, their demands will become more extreme and they will become unbalanced. The stress will be on rights, privileges and shortcomings and there will be no respect for the positive aspects which there may be. It will lead to more and more confrontation between the Black community and the hon. the Minister. Those people who serve in these community councils, will avoid issues which may upset them. I believe the law is hopelessly inadequate.

To summarize my basic objections, I want to say that there are no real powers and no adequate financial means. The hon. the Minister’s power overrules all the time. The Bantu Affairs Administration Boards also overrule. There is the possibility of entrenching tribal conflict and there is the extension to them of civil and criminal power in ways which we do not approve of and which have been touched upon by other speakers. There is also the creation of community guards outside of the control of the hon. the Minister of Justice. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what consultation there has been. Has he for example consulted with the homeland Governments and has he listened to what their opinions are, or has this legislation just been pushed through his department and the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and consistently chewed off until any real sharp-cutting effect this Bill might have had, has been got rid of?

Unfortunately powers greater than my own do not allow me to carry on to discuss the rights of the Minister.

*However, we shall have a chance to deal with these matters in more detail in the Committee Stage. We have added up and found that the Bill mentions the authority of the hon. the Minister 38 times. What it amounts to, is that he has absolute power over these organizations. I believe it is a very sad day when we have to introduce a piece of legislation like this in the House, because I believe that it will afford no solution. We shall only be very, very sorry when we see the results it will have.

Mr. Speaker, I never expected the Opposition to support this legislation in any way. I did not even expect them to support aspects of this Bill. However, what we did expect was a more balanced judgment, because when one discusses these matters, one at least expects more positive suggestions. We did not expect generalizations about how the population in our urban Bantu residential areas should manage their own affairs, but more to the point suggestions, upon which we could work. Ethnicity has been acknowledged by that party. However, when even faint reference to it is made in this legislation, they regard it as the most objectionable matter that could have been referred to. The hon. member who has just sat down, has mentioned complaints about powers which have been retained for the Minister and the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. They forget that this situation is comparable to the situation where local authorities are under the direction of the Administrator and the provincial administration.

*In my reply I shall continue to reply to hon. members’ speeches. By now one has at least accepted the fact—one could have guessed it at the start—that there would be some dust kicked up at this stage of the debate and of the history of that party. I do not want to be nasty, but I do not think they have done much more than kick up dust, from the very first speaker onwards. The hon. member for Koedoespoort—I want to congratulate him on a very well-prepared and well-delivered speech—hit the nail on the head when he said there are basic differences in the points of departure amongst the various political parties. It is surely true that we are not trying to accommodate Black people, on an equal basis or even a similar basis, within the political set-up of White people in White South Africa. We are not trying to do so because we must remember that there is no equality of political accommodation possible within the ambit of our policy. Whether there are frustrations, or whatever the case may be, we simply have to accept this. There are, however, at least the safety valves to regulate these things in terms of our policy. I am not going to cover that field again, however, because the hon. member for Koedoespoort has done it exceptionally well.

There are complaints about the functions and powers that are going to be transferred, and in that connection there are complaints about so-called unpopular tasks that are going to be transferred to the community councils. Some of the tasks which are to be transferred in terms of the Bill will be popular and others perhaps less popular, but surely we cannot first transfer the popular tasks and say: “First gain a little experience with the popular tasks, and if we see that you really enjoy handling them, we shall add one or two unpopular tasks every now and then.” Surely that is not the way it can be done. One must be prepared to accept management responsibilities in respect of both the popular and the unpopular tasks. Leaders are not created merely by way of handling popular tasks. Particularly in respect of the Black community it is necessary for leaders to stick to their standpoint, even if they are also dealing with something that is unpopular.

I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown at once that he is very wide of the mark when he alleges that the present position of the Urban Bantu Council in Soweto is merely the result of the limited powers they have and the fact that they have thus far only been able to act in an advisory capacity. Surely he knows that that is not true. Even in this case, with significant powers being given to this body, one must not seize upon what is popular and be afraid of what is unpopular. Only when one can also meaningfully handle what is unpopular does one give evidence of what one’s leadership characteristics are, what the true value of one’s leadership is.

Reference has been made to many problems within urban residential areas for the Bantu. I have acknowledged, on many occasions in the House, that there are problems. There is, for example, the problem of housing. In that connection, however, I have already pointed to what the department and I are engaged upon, i.e. discussions, the application of building society funds, etc. In the present political climate in South Africa, however, I have not yet heard a single positive suggestion about what methods, other than the usual ones, we can employ to escape our dilemma. In particular I have not yet heard the hon. member for Houghton addressing employers and telling them to make a greater contribution.

What about the Urban Foundation? You have done nothing about its efforts to improve conditions.

Let me say at once that throughout my career I have always had the utmost respect and esteem for such bodies. I have played my part with a view to helping the less privileged. I have the utmost esteem for such people. So I am not running down any member of the Urban Foundation either. I am grateful for what they are going to collect and for what they are going to contribute. What I dislike, however, are those people, who now suddenly ooze paternalism and civility, being held up as saviours whilst departmental officials and others, who have worked amongst Black people with love and dedication over the years, are outweighed. I think that is terribly unfair. I repeat that I am exceptionally grateful for what certain people are doing, but I predicted that people, whom we had never heard of before, would now suddenly come to the fore. I question the motives, the reasons why they are doing this. There are those, however, for whom I have the utmost esteem for what they have done over the years.

There is frequent mention of the supply of electricity to Soweto. I can also make a few things public in this connection. When things were going well and they had no need to do any work for the Black man, certain companies were not interested in the Black man at all. At the time there were White people who borrowed money from financial institutions and had buildings constructed, and they had a jolly time of it. Now that the economy is a little tight, however, it suddenly strikes them that buildings can be constructed and electricity supplied to the Black people. Consequently they have decided to have a look at the possibilities in that sphere. Let us be frank with each other: Money is not dished out. That workers done for hard cash. And it is at a high interest rate, not a low interest rate, that that money is loaned out.

12½%!

I have an interesting extract from a document—I shall deal with it in the House one day—in which a certain public figure, Dr. Selma Browde is mentioned and in which it is suggested that she be used as a “front” to keep a certain company’s name out of the limelight so that it is not revealed that it is actually the company which is engaged in the matter. It is no use our pretending here in the House that they are suddenly the people who are going to bring about the improved conditions for Black people. [Interjections.]

Please elaborate a little.

There are people who have been doing work for the Black people for years at some sacrifice to themselves. If we do not have the necessary finance, however, because only a little money is allocated to me, how must I extricate myself from that situation?

There has also been mention of contact with the Black people. A great fuss is continually being made on that side, as if they are the only people who have contact with the Black people. There is constant mention of how many times people have been in Soweto. I am not, however, all that stupid. If I have been in Soweto four, five or six times, I surely have a good idea of what Soweto looks like and can surely then readily rely on the information supplied to me by senior officials. Surely it is not specifically necessary to go into Soweto to talk to the Black people either. If the hon. member for Houghton does not know, let me inform her that they are allowed to come out of Soweto to talk to us. Only yesterday, in Cape Town, in a building across the street, I had an enjoyable time sitting around a table, as it were, and holding discussions with 100 Black people. I am prepared to supply the hon. member for Houghton with the names so that they can go and ask those Black people on what terms we took leave of one another.

Do not mention names.—

Yes, one ought not to do that.

She will get at them!

Yes. I am merely mentioning this because this impression that only certain people in South Africa have contact with the Black people and are working for their welfare must finally be quashed.

I have here a research document of Prof. P. A. Nel, the director of the Bureau for Market Research of the University of South Africa, a document in which the incomes of Black people in certain large urban areas are given. He indicates that from 1970 to 1975 there was an average increase of 110,96% in the income of the Black people. According to that document the average per capita income of the Black people in the Pretoria area in 1970 was R225. In 1975 the average per capita income increased to R532. In the Cape Town area the average annual income was R367,94, whilst in 1975 this had increased to R877,84. We have, after all, made progress in South Africa in the past 30 years; we have not stood still. And under whose auspices has that progress been made? Under the auspices of those people who have been the destructive elements over the years? Far from it! It specifically took place under this Government, under the auspices of people who have more contact with the Black people than people who merely set out to emphasize the negative elements, the points of dispute. That was also stated at the discussions I held yesterday, and the Black people understand it. We do not, of course, agree about everything, but even if there is only one aspect about which we agree, we should take that aspect as a basis and work from there. If we do so, we shall gradually discover how many other matters there are on which we wish to co-operate with one another. It is not going to get us anywhere, however, just to pick out the points of dispute because then we shall drift further apart and never find one another. I really mean it when I say there must consequently be an end to this deleterious impression hon. members are trying to create because it is not the truth. I am not depriving them of the opportunity and the pleasure of raising it here if they feel inclined to do so, but they must just not try to create the impression that they are the only people who have contact with the Black people.

There was also a question about what progress had been made during the past year in connection with the administration of communities. Reference was made, amongst other things, to the transfer of administrative responsibility from Bantu advisory boards to urban Bantu councils, etc. That is perhaps a good question. I want to counter it, however, with a question: Who had the authority to transfer the responsibilities and the duties? According to the provisions of the old Act this was vested in the local authorities. I am not saying anything disparaging about local authorities, but even in Johannesburg the Urban Bantu Council only came into being in 1968. What significant powers were transferred to it? Now that administration boards exist, they are spoken of in terms suggesting that they were responsible for what happened or did not happen. If we want to single out one city council that has had direct contact with Soweto over the years, let us speak about what the City Council of Johannesburg has done. I do nevertheless greatly appreciate what local authorities have done in that connection. The impression must not be created, however, that the administration boards or the Government can be held responsible for everything that was not done, because there are certain matters that were handled by other authorities in South Africa. While the legislation was in force, from 1961 to the present day, 24 Urban Bantu Councils have been instituted. I already mentioned that fact in my Second Reading speech. It is not our fault completely, however, because we also—if I might put it this way—delegated powers to other authorities which were in closer contact with the Bantu at the time. Hon. members on that side of the House made a basic error in this respect. Here we are trying to institute a body that can give more attention to matters of a more local nature in the Bantu communities where they are actually situated so that the Bantu can handle those matters affecting their communities at the local level. We are not creating a body whereby every conceivable objective can be achieved, a body that can handle every possible matter. The hon. member for Parktown alleged that even job reservation and influx control should rest with this body, and I find it strange that he did not put forward a whole string of other functions. We are trying to create a form of local government, and in my Second Reading speech I said the following—

Surely it is senseless wanting to add these other matters to the tasks and obligations of these councils.

I now want to discuss certain matters to which hon. members specifically referred. Reference was made, amongst other things, to the question of the funds. In the Bill itself methods and sources are mentioned by and from which these community councils can obtain money. The Opposition immediately alleged that those sources were inadequate. I would be the last to allege that the sources are, in fact, adequate. We must bear in mind, however, that when a community council has come into being—even before its inception— it will have to consult with the administration board concerned, an authority under whose control the community council will have to work, with which it will have to co-operate in many instances and whose obligations it will have to take over in other instances, and the consultation will involve the duties they see their way clear to handling. Everything will not simply be handed over just like that. At a later stage I shall come back to the question of consultation to which the hon. member for Pinetown referred. A few interesting aspects came to the fore when we were holding consultations with these people. For the moment, however, I shall leave the matter there. As I say, a community council will start off with certain functions and certain obligations. Then it will also become apparent what financial means a community council needs specifically to carry out the functions it has thus far taken upon itself. By degrees, therefore, sure progress will be made, and this also goes for the supply of funds.

It was also alleged that insufficient powers are being allocated to the community councils. In the Bill a whole list of matters is referred to, but there are complaints that insufficient powers are being allocated to community councils. I would like hon. members to delete certain of those matters they are not in favour of and insert others in their place. Then they can say: “Look, this is where we start.” I already know, however, what their classification is going to be They are first going to select all the popular aspects and leave out the unpopular ones. We do not, however, intend to do that.

Reference was also made, inter alia, by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, to the ties with the homelands. I think there are about two references to that in the Bill. I said a moment ago that those hon. members also profess that ethnicity and ethnic ties do exist. As soon as one broaches the matter, however, inter alia, in a Bill such as this, it is alleged that this is something that should preferably be left alone. It is wicked. Something we would do well to accept, however, is the fact that the overall majority of the Black people in our cities—I would rather not venture to state a percentage—would still like to retain those traditional ties. When it comes to the allocation of civil and criminal authority, however, I do not allege that it should be applied in the form we are familiar with and about which the hon. member for Houghton painted the gloomiest of pictures. She referred, amongst other things, to the number of strokes that are permissible, and I do not know what else.

If we are to grant the authority in the Bill, surely the traditional and modern aspects can be allowed to develop jointly. Surely a fine system can be instituted. The last thing we have in mind for the urban Bantu areas is the implementation of a poor form of administration.

The hon. member for Houghton, of course, measures everything by Soweto standards. It is true that Soweto has the greatest concentration of Black people in South Africa, but there are also concentrations of Black people in other areas in South Africa. They do not all speak the language of Soweto. I can assure the hon. member of that. It is our task to look to the welfare and interests of all the Black people in South Africa. If there are consequently people who would like some or other form of civil or criminal jurisdiction, why do we not give them the powers to achieve that by way of legislation? As civilized people, however, we shall have to ensure that it is not specifically the most primitive of system that is implemented, but that an adapted system is developed. Why must we deprive everyone of this if one specific area does not want it? I want to refer the hon. member to clause 11(3), which reads as follows—

This will, of course, be done with due regard to the circumstances and needs of a specific group of people and of a specific society. The hon. member also referred to the fact that various terms of abuse were applied to the present urban Bantu councils, inter alia, those of Soweto. I do not think I am going too far, however, if I allege that there are hon. members who are responsible for the fact that that body no longer has any status or esteem. It is interesting to note that they are suddenly the friends of those Black people when they can use them to clinch an argument. When it is a matter of the kind of argument advanced here today, however, they are suddenly described as people of no significance; then various terms of abuse are applied to them. There lies a major cause of the situation in which that Urban Bantu Council has landed itself. It is because those marching pupils and their companions have suddenly become the heroes of hon. members on the opposite side of the House. People who have tried, however, to serve their community for many years, under difficult circumstances, are of course not those hon. members’ heroes.

The hon. member asked me whether functions would be transferred. I have already said so, and a few months ago we asked the administration boards to speak to the leaders of their communities. Provision is being made for certain things in the Bill and there are certain of these things which we mentioned to them when we told them that they should talk to their communities so that they could, together, determine what functions could be taken over. That is the reply I wish to give to the hon. member. We shall not determine this from the top. They will decide together on which functions they can handle and which functions can be transferred according to the provisions of the Act. The hon. member also referred to the unpopular tasks. I shall leave it at that. She also referred to the housing shortage, and so on. I have already said something about that.

The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to basic rights. I think he summed up and explained the matter very well. The hon. member also explained, clearly and correctly, the fundamental thinking on which we, inter alia, formulated this Bill as well. I thank him for doing so.

The hon. member for Cradock also referred to the so-called makgotla system. He explained it to us very neatly. He pointed out how such a body could in fact be of exceptional value within the community with its traditional characteristics, particularly in these times in which we are living.

The hon. member for Jeppe did not really have very much to say to which I need to refer. Ethnicity only suits him on some occasions; on others he does not want to touch it with a barge-pole. He is the hon. member who asked: “What was the advance and what has been achieved since 1961?” I referred to that a moment ago in my general observations. The hon. member for Jeppe was a member of the Johannesburg City Council, and now he is laying everything at our door. He raked up his sins here as though we were the people who had done wrong and had acted incorrectly. He also referred to the income of the Black people. I have already told him how their income position has improved, and I shall not spend any more time on that matter.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West made an excellent appeal to us to give the legislation a chance; he appealed to us not to shoot it down in flames and to cause it to miscarry at this early stage. There are the positive aspects—the hon. member singled them out very well—which we can use as a foundation, as a starting point, for an established administrative system and management system for our Black people in the urban residential areas.

I have tried to deal with all three amendments in the general statements which I have made. The hon. member for Albany said, inter alia, that we should first have consulted before we came forward with the legislation. The hon. member for Pinetown said the same thing.

I asked for consolidation.

I shall still come to that. However, the hon. member also referred to consultation. I had my first discussions on this matter with the department in 1975, long before the riots. There were certain basic things which we then had in mind. Those things were then incorporated in a draft Bill, simply as a basis of discussion. We had many discussions on that measure. Inter alia, there were several discussions and talks with administration boards, with Iana, the Institute of Administrators for non-White Affairs, for their officials are the people who are out in the field and who do the work every day. We even went further. We issued a directive to the Chief Bantu Commissioners in the eight Chief Bantu Commission areas of South Africa, to consult with the administration boards and Bantu leaders, i.e. the members of advisory boards, of urban Bantu councils and others whom they were able to get together. At that stage this Bill was not yet in its final form. They had to clear up certain principles with these people. Here I have their reports in this regard. They comprise no less than 52 folios. It is instructive to read these reports.

In other words, there was consultation. Many proposals were made by these people in regard to what the qualifications of voters should be, what the qualifications of prospective council members should be, and so on. As far as I know this was, since I have been in this department, the most comprehensive consultation that has ever taken place with Black people in regard to a measure of this nature.

The hon. member also referred to the consolidation of certain laws. There was merit in what the hon. member said. Even I sometimes find it a little difficult to establish to which law reference is being made. That is why it would be quite a good thing if we could consolidate many of these statutory provisions. But we do not need a commission of inquiry for that. Although the hon. member was critical of this measure, he stated it in a way to which we have already grown accustomed, for even if the SAP is critical, their criticism is stated in such a way that one can have appreciation for their standpoint, for the way in which they are stating it.

I want to make an appeal to the hon. member to accept the Bill as it is before him and to give it a chance, even though I do not accept his amendment. We believe that it can work, and with the positive co-operation of the hon. member, it will work.

I have already referred to certain of the statements by the hon. member for Parktown. He also referred to the makgotlas. He is afraid that these will be applied in the traditional manner, as they are utilized in the remotest parts of the homelands. This very year we discussed this matter with leaders in Soweto, when we granted a delegation of the Urban Bantu Council and leaders of a makgotla movement a hearing. It seems that there is a difference in viewpoint. Not all the leaders of the Urban Bantu Council of Soweto object to the makgotla system in its entirety. They only reject elements of it, but also admit that there are some of the traditional elements which are worth keeping. The hon. the Minister of Police and I held talks with them. We asked them to thrash out the matter among themselves and then to come to us with proposals in regard to a system which would be acceptable and in terms of which a form of traditional law could still be applied so that that particular method of maintaining discipline could be preserved in the community. I am merely mentioning this to the hon. member, and I wish to ask him to refrain from always stating matters in their extreme form. That is not the idea. I want to emphasize that it could be an adapted form.

I have already referred to the fact that the hon. member wants to grant considerably greater powers to these local authorities—if one may call them that—including influx control and work reservation. Apparently the hon. member is completely confused as to what tasks ought to be designated to a local authority.

I have already referred to the speech made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort and I have thanked him for his exceptional contribution. I have also referred in passing to the matters raised by the hon. member for Pinetown, and I have also dealt with the question of consultation and to what has already been done in this regard during the past few years.

I do not have very much more to say and I am not going to take up very much more of the time of this House. We are coming forward here with a very honest endeavour, after having consulted the Black people. I do not wish to deal with everything contained in the report of the Chief Bantu Commissioners now. I just want to refer to three aspects in connection with the attitude of the Black people. Even the Black people of Johannesburg stated that although, in some respects, this was not what they wanted, they were prepared to give it a chance and to begin with this as a basis.

In addition there is the question of funding. They made it very clear that they wanted nothing to do with any form of levy or tax. The money has to come from some other source. They are prepared to accept it and to apply it, but they do not want to have the obligation of imposing taxes and levies. That is interesting. It is perhaps one of the aspects which we still have to thrash out with one another. Many of these people are even chary of the question of the provision and maintenance of services. In other words, we cannot simply say that functions and obligations have to be given to people if it eventually appears that they will not be able to handle many of those functions and obligations. We have a sound foundation on which we can begin and then develop, and I believe that the necessary co-operation will be forthcoming. The will is there to make progress, and we believe that it will be successful.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Ayes—97: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; De Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—38: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.;. Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: T. G. Hughes and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Clause 2 is possibly the most important part of this Bill, as it provides for the establishment of community councils. Clause 2(1) reads as follows—

the notice whereby he establishes the urban Bantu council. We believe that the community which exists in an urban residentail area, as it is defined in clause 1, which has just been approved by this Committee, is a heterogeneous community. It is a community which exists and has a community of interests. We do not see that, within that community, there are different units. We believe that, if a community council is to be established, it should be established for the whole urban residential area concerned. For that reason, I move as an amendment—

The effect of the amendment will be that a community council shall be established “for an urban residential area”. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Committee that here we are not only dealing with urban areas within the so-called White areas of South Africa, but with any urban residential area, including urban areas within the homelands.

No, man.

You must not say “No man”. The hon. the Deputy Minister must again have a look at the definition of “urban residential area”. That is the way I have read it. Without any further ado, I want to say in advance that the amendments of the hon. member for Houghton which stand on the Order Paper, are totally acceptable to us. I shall not waste the time of the Committee any more in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I shall support if for an additional reason to the one he has already enunciated and that is that we are also anxious to avoid any ethnic boards in these areas. I think the inclusion of the word he seeks to omit will give the hon. the Minister that power. We shall therefore support that amendment.

I move now the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper as well as two further amendments which have come to mind since I drafted these amendments—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 27, to omit all the words after (1) up to and including “and” in line 28 and to substitute “An urban local authority may”;
2. (2) on page 2, in line 33, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “urban local authority”;
3. (3) on page 4, in line 6, to omit “if he deems it in the public interest or”;
4. (4) on page 4, in lines 7 and 8, to omit “and after consultation with the administration board concerned”;
5. (5) on page 4, in line 11, to omit “when he deems it in the public interest or”;
6. (6) on page 4, in lines 12 and 13, to omit “after consultation with the administration board concerned”;

I just want to motivate these amendments. They sound complicated, but are really very simple. Whereas, of course, the idea is to try to exclude the Minister and to replace him by an urban local authority, I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that there has to some extent been culpability on the part of the Johannesburg city council because when it had the power under the Urban Bantu Councils Act of 1961, it did not pass the functions onto the urban Bantu councils. However, since 1971, when the Bantu Affairs Administration Act was passed, that responsibility rested with the Government in the form of Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. They could have passed those functions on, but they did not do so either. Therefore, if I were offered three evils, I would choose the city council as the least of them; in other words, the evil of the hon. the Minister, of the boards or of the city councils, the local authorities, having the power. All these amendments therefore replace the Minister by the local authority concerned. They omit the words “if the Minister deems it to be in the public interest”. These are words to which I am particularly allergic, I am the first to admit, because Ministers have the most extraordinary means of defining what is or is not in the public interest. Finally I also want to excise from this clause the authority of the Minister to consult with the Bantu Affairs Administration Board.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton wants to have the provision deleted in terms of which the Minister is to have certain powers after consultation with the administration board concerned, as is provided for at the beginning of clause 2. The hon. member even said that she was allergic to many of these things. I said in my reply to the Second Reading debate that it was our experience of ordinary local authorities that in the normal course of events the Administrator and the provincial administration were the authorities under which the local authority functioned. In this case it is virtually no different. The Minister’s power cannot be eliminated in this regard. In many cases he will also have to consult with the administration board concerned, just as the administration board in its turn will have to consult with the community council. I can see no good reason for omitting from the clause the authority which the Minister has in terms of the clause, or the concession made in the clause in this regard, to have consultations with the administration board. Consequently, I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that we in these benches cannot support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton, nor can we support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. The question of removing “for any area in an urban residential area” will cause confusion. Let us, for example, take the area of the Cape Peninsula in respect of the Whites. There are various local authorities within this area. As regards the Black people, we and also the party of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South have accepted ethnicity. These people like to be among their own kind and it may well be that the townships of Guguletu, Nyanga and Langa in the Cape Peninsula might choose to have separate authorities over each one. For that reason we cannot support the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton, I should perhaps have raised a point of order, but I shall put it by way of a general argument that when amendments are moved which will have the effect of obliging a local authority to take over the powers of the Minister, such amendments are in effect out of order as the principle has already been accepted at the Second Reading that community councils shall be established in their own right, and, secondly, that they shall be juristic persons. An urban Bantu council, on the other hand, is not a body which is a juristic person. It is simply an extension of the local authority. At the Second Reading of this Bill we accepted the principle that these bodies should no longer be an extension of the local authority or of the administration board concerned, but that the community councils should receive certain powers in their own right. Consequently it is my contention that the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton, as well as further amendments on the Order Paper, are in effect out of order.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised a matter just now to which I, through an oversight on my part, have failed to give a reply. I want to remedy the matter at once by saying that there is no reference here to townships in the homelands. Urban Bantu residential areas were defined in the Urban Areas Act, 1945. The hon. member can accept this as being the position.

The hon. member for Albany is correct in saying that there are areas which one may wish to deal with as one. It may be that for specific purposes and after consultation, it will be necessary to make provision for an individual community council in an area within a very large existing Bantu residential area, if that is what any particular group of people prefers. Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South either.

Amendment (1) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived and amendment (2) dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived and amendment (5) dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (4) moved by Mrs H. Suzman negatived and amendment (6) dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 21, to omit all the words after the second “the” up to and including “question” in line 24 and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 4, in lines 25 to 27, to omit subsection (2);
2. (3) on page 4, in lines 28 to 31, to omit subsection (3);
3. (4) on page 4, in lines 41 to 45, to omit subsection (6).

The amendments are self-explanatory, but I would like to motivate them to some extent. What I am trying to do is to ensure that the voters for representatives to the community council shall include all the persons who are included in the housing permits in the Bantu urban areas.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member for Houghton that I am unable to accept her second, third and fourth amendments as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time. She can, however, move the first amendment and discuss that.

Mr. Chairman, is it an accepted principle that the hon. the Minister can appoint people if the council is not elected?

Yes. The hon. member may proceed.

I am sorry to hear that, because I was hoping to get the support of the hon. member for Albany on my other amendments. [Interjections.] It would have been an historic occasion to have had the hon. member for Albany’s support. I shall, however, continue with the first amendment. The idea is to ensure that it is not only registered tenants who are going to have the vote as was the case with regard to the urban Bantu council in Johannesburg. That meant that many adult women and all the lodgers were cut out completely. When I speak about “lodgers” I mean the subtenants of the tenants. All the adult members of the family who were registered and who were lawfully residing in those houses, were also cut out. Since we heard so much from the hon. member in the corner over there the other night about the NP backing “one man, one vote” I am sure the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we shall be supporting the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment and we shall be opposing this clause. I believe that if ever there was an admission in advance of failure, it is this clause. We have here the hon. the Minister accepting, in statutory form, the fact that these community councils could well not get any meaningful popular support. To me it is astonishing and an incredible admission of the level of support which this Government enjoys from Black people, if a Minister has to have these clauses requiring that he has the right to appoint people if nobody is elected, that he can run the councils if necessary or that his officials can do so. I believe this clause in particular is typical of the bankruptcy of this whole piece of legislation. I really wonder how, after all the nice words and the great phrases which we have had from hon. members on that side of the House, they have the incredible ability for self-deception to put a clause such as clause 3 of the Bill before the House. We shall be opposing the clause, because we believe that it emasculates the whole point of giving real power to Black local authorities.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry about your ruling on the second and third amendments of the hon. member for Houghton, because no doubt I would have supported them, but for different reasons from those she expected. I am surprised, however, that the hon. member for Pinetown is supporting the first amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Pinetwon is a Zulu linguist and he knows the traditional way of life of the Black people. One of the mistakes which the Government itself has made, is to introduce the franchise on the basis of “one man, one vote” for those over 18 years. That is one of the mistakes they have made, because traditionally, it is counter to the way of life of Black people to have this type of voting. I believe we should leave that clause as it is, because if the Government is going to make it a universal franchise down to 18 years of age, they will really start having trouble in the townships, because the elder Blacks are not going to accept that principle at all.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, I just want to say this: The idea is not to exclude people unnecessarily from the privilege to vote. As regards the consultations to which I have referred, it is rather interesting to note that people throughout the country do not see this matter in the same light. Some want a franchise based on an educational qualification, some want an age limit, some want this and others want that. The idea is not to deprive people of that right to vote but to include as many people as possible. We have to reconsider all those proposals, however, in order to extract the majority opinion from the proposals. We have such proposals, from the Black communities as well, in front of us. I would be grateful if hon. members would accept it like that and would leave the clause as it is. I am not going to react any further to the hon. member for Pinetown. He is condemning the whole clause in any case. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that fortunately you do not find the last three amendments of the hon. member for Houghton acceptable either. It is necessary to retain the present wording of the clause as circumstances may arise under which there will not be a sufficient number of people to deal with the administration of their community’s affairs. Therefore, we should leave it exactly as it is.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to know whether my fourth amendment is also out of order. That is the amendment in connection with the ethnic representatives. Does that also involve a principle of the Bill?

Yes, I ruled that out of order.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—92: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, A. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, P. C. Roux, N. F. Treurnicht and C. V. van der Merwe.

Noes—35: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F

Tellers: D. J. Dalling and R. J. Lorimer. Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.