Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches cannot support the motion. The suspension of the automatic adjournment at 22h30 creates an unreasonably long day for Parliament. At the moment we are sitting unreasonably long hours already, sitting as we do mornings, afternoons and evenings. We regard it as totally ridiculous to expect hon. members to make an adequate contribution if they have to go on all night. At the end of a session during which the sitting hours were reasonable right through, then perhaps a motion of this nature might have been reasonable. We have, however, been sitting morning, noon and night over a long period. We do not believe that good legislation can come out of that. We believe that reasoning is inadequate and cannot be well thought out if hon. members are exhausted. Therefore we just cannot support this motion at all.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition shall support the motion. [Interjections.] I admit that we want to get away for our congress, and the one fear that the two parties to my left have is that our congress is going to be a success. [Interjections.] If they could block that congress, they certainly would do so. I have been here much longer than the hon. member for Orange Grove and know therefore that this is a customary motion at the end of every session. It does not mean that we must necessarily sit for hours and hours tonight and on Monday night, but it does mean that if we only need half an hour or an hour to finish off the work of the session tonight after 22h30, we shall be able to do so. It is surely not asking hon. members too much to sit for an extra half hour or an hour. It may mean that this session can be ended on Friday instead of on Monday. That will mean that hon. members and public servants will be able to depart for their homes and consequently a big saving on expense. I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the official Opposition has got its second wind, because I remember there was a time, not so long ago, when they said that we could not go on legislating through exhaustion. I am very glad that they feel better about the matter now. As regards the SAP, we have put our standpoint before, that we are already sitting abnormal hours and that to ask a further extension will not promote the work of the House. Therefore, we oppose the motion.

Mr. Speaker, we could have progressed much further with the business of the House if hon. members had not used this customary motion to use up even more time. The hon. member for Griqualand East is quite right. This step has been taken in all the sessions of the past 29 or 30 years to bring matters to a head. It is intended to enable us to dispose of measures for which we may need only a few minutes or half an hour extra.

May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have spent more than ten hours on divisions during this session. We are turning divisions in this House into an absolute farce, and each division costs the country at least R70. I do not think we are making any impression on the country in this way. If we had had fewer divisions, the business of Parliament would have been finished by now. I think the objection by the hon. member for Orange Grove is just one of those objections he has to make to prove that they still exist.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Mr. T. Aronson, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. W. H. D. Deacon, R. M. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. E. Enthoven’t Hooft, T. Hickman, R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. H. E. J. van Rensburg and J. W. E. Wiley) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, before progress was reported by the Committee, I had moved four amendments. The hon. the Minister indicated that he was unable to accept the first, third and fourth amendments. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw the first and second amendments.

Amendments (1) and (2), with leave, withdrawn.

In place of the second amendment I should like to move the following amendment—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 2, after “transportation” to insert “or the recovery and re-refinement”.

†The effect of this amendment is precisely the same as was intended, but I accept the suggestion of the hon. the Minister to use this phraseology rather than that in the amendment which I placed on the Order Paper. I regret that the hon. the Minister cannot accept the third amendment which was to omit clause 2(1)(b), which will take away from him the power to regulate the whole of the petroleum industry. We remain quite steadfast in our belief that he should not have this power and we will vote in favour of that amendment against the hon. the Minister.

I am also afraid that we cannot accept the interpretation of the hon. the Minister regarding the fourth amendment, which provides that he may prescribe a maximum price and not an absolute price. We have heard the hon. the Minister’s argument in regard to the disruption of the existing industry and so on, but we feel that by establishing a maximum price he is not going to interfere with the normal tenets of industry and business. We will therefore continue to press this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the changed amendment of the hon. member, in other words his first amendment which he withdrew. I just want to point out that I am unable to accept the third amendment, which now becomes the second. What is involved in this regard is not my wanting to regulate the industry, but that the industry itself, in its own ranks as well as with the department, has come to an agreement on a rationalization plan. This clause merely seeks to give recognition to the rationalization plan which is in operation at the present time and, which has in fact, been in operation since 1960. This is not a new concept. I already have the necessary powers. The hon. member evidently disagrees with me. I understand that he is opposed to the clause. I just want to point out that in this regard we are not dealing with powers which do not already exist.

I just want to reiterate my standpoint in connection with the matter of prices, because evidently in pursuance of my reply to the hon. member on this clause last week, an incorrect report was published that we had discussed a uniform price with one another in this House. We did not discuss uniform prices at all. We discussed fixed prices as against maximum or minimum prices. Now, by way of repetition, I should like to place my standpoint on record. In principle I myself am against the fixing of prices. I want hon. members to understand that. There are certain circumstances, however, which may make it imperative—and I am not putting it any stronger than “may make”—for me to use the powers. But I repeat that I shall not use these powers unless I am convinced that it is essential for me to do so in the general interest.

Amendment (1) agreed to.

Amendments (3) and (4) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—96: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; 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.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; 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.; Schlebusch, A. L.; 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.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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: P. C. Roux, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 deals with the appointment and powers of controllers and inspectors. We find that the hon. the Minister is asking for two powers. The one contained in clause 3(1)(a), is the power to appoint inspectors and controllers. That we are quite prepared to concede him. But when we come to clause 3(1)(b) we find that he is asking for the power to appoint, just in general, a class or category of persons to act as inspectors. We had a similar provision in the Publications and Entertainments Bill. On that occasion the hon. the Minister indicated that it was his intention simply to say that all members of organizations such as the Vroue-vereniging or the Rapportryerskorps or the Boy Scouts or the Girl Guides or the Housewives’ League shall be inspectors and that they should be allowed to go into the cafes and look at all the books on the racks and then to take action in terms of the Act. I believe this is a false concept. It is not the sort of concept that we want to see in any Bill at all, let alone this Bill. For that reason I move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in lines 35 to 40, to omit paragraph (b).

We find that in subsection (4) the hon. the Minister is circumventing all the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, which we were at such pains to pass earlier this session. In section 334 of that Act there is a provision for the appointment of certain persons as peace officers. This confers upon them certain powers, powers of search and of arrest and powers to take certain action. However, certain safeguards are built into the Criminal Procedure Act. The hon. the Minister of Justice, for instance, must first publish in the Gazette. I admit there is a delay, but that delay has been designed by this House and that is why the provision has been inserted. With this Bill the hon. the Minister asks for the power to circumvent the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act so that he on his own can immediately and without any notice invest people with the powers of peace officers. We do not like that provision at all. Accordingly, I move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) On page 4, in lines 56 to 64, and on page 6, in lines 1 to 8, to omit subsection (4).

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

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has outlined his dissatisfaction with certain aspects of this clause. I can only endorse what he has said, because I think it gives the hon. the Minister very broad powers. He can determine the powers, the duties and the functions of these officials. I am aware of the provision contained in subsection (4) which refers to section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, notwithstanding that, the hon. the Minister may in terms of this clause confer by regulation any necessary powers such as searching without a warrant any premises, any vehicle, any vessel, any aircraft and any receptacle of whatever nature. Furthermore, in terms of the powers given to officials by this clause, they can effect seizures without warrant and the disposal of any petroleum product. Subsection (5) also states that all inspectors shall be subject to the directions and control of the Minister.

I shall accept it.

Has the hon. the Minister indicated that he will accept it?

Mr. Chairman, I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment as formulated by him. However, the hon. member for East London City discussed an alternative with me which I shall accept. Perhaps he should move it so that we may see whether we can come to some arrangement.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s intervention to clarify the position in order to save time, but I am afraid that it does not meet my case. Let us assume that the hon. the Minister conducts a Gallup poll amongst 100 members of the public on the subject of this Bill concerning petroleum products, the control of wastage, and the checking up of any “oortredings”. In that poll he asks them whether they would like an inspector with the power to go to somebody and say to him that he is an inspector who wants to see his books, etc., and that he has the right to do whatever he likes, leaving it to the person involved to demand to see his bona fides, or whether they would like an inspector who says that he is an inspector in terms of this Act, who shows his authority and says that he wishes to conduct an inspection and carry out the powers which he is empowered to exercise in terms of this Act. Let me say, Sir, that the hon. the Minister will know in his heart of hearts that those 100 people would all prefer the second course, viz. that the inspector should identify himself. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that if he rejects this amendment, an amendment which has been accepted in previous legislation, and provides that an inspector shall exhibit his authority on demand, it can engender racial friction and have racial undertones. If the hon. the Minister would care to consider that aspect for a moment, he would agree with me. When there are inspectors of different race groups carrying out searches, seizures and the disposal of property, it can happen that the person who is subjected to an inspection is of a different race group to the inspector. If that person knows for sure that the inspector is not a bogus inspector because the latter has already indicated his authority without the person having to demand to see his authority, I believe this will eliminate the undertone of racial friction and the possibility of racial difficulties.

The hon. the Minister should know that there are many departments which make use of this system. I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee at this stage by quoting figures, but there are over 400 inspectors who are appointed by the Department of Health, and every one of them operates in that way. Those inspectors are concerned with the implementation of seven or eight different Acts. There are other cases I could quote and which are on record where this sort of amendment has been accepted in the interests of protecting the public against bogus inspectors and creating the best possible relationship between inspector and inspected. I believe that, although the hon. the Minister has a duty to his department to see that they are clothed with the necessary powers, he also has a very serious responsibility to see that every member of the public is given as much protection as possible. I appeal to the hon. the Minister please to reconsider this aspect, because I believe it to be a very important one.

Mr. Chairman, I am truly sorry, but I am unable to accept the amendments of either the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South or of the hon. member for Berea.

Allow me to explain my standpoint with regard to the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In general the powers we are taking in this Bill, seek, in the first place, to render fuel rationing possible, in addition to the present methods. Should we want to implement rationing—I emphasize “should we want to implement”—clearly we would not be able to do so merely with the assistance of the officials employed by the department. We should also be able to use the knowledge of people closely connected to the petroleum industry. One would like to involve that class or group of people. At the moment, however, it is essential for the implementation of this Bill that traffic officers be clothed with the power to act as inspectors in terms of this Bill. They are not civil servants at the moment. In order to give them the necessary powers, I need this clause. It will be completely impossible to implement the provisions of this Bill if we do not have the power to appoint people who are not in the service of the State. In that case I would not be able to appoint traffic officers, for example, because they are not civil servants. For that reason I am unfortunately unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Now I come to the proposal contained in the hon. member’s second amendment. This clause contains certain provisions laying down what may be done. I do not believe that there is anybody who will argue that we should not be able to do these things. The object of the amendment moved by the hon. member is to remove the powers the Minister of Economic Affairs is to obtain in terms of this Bill and in terms of which inspectors may be authorized to search premises, vehicles, vessels, aircraft and receptacles without warrant, to seize petroleum products without warrant, etc. If these things were to be removed from the Bill, the Bill would be totally ineffective and we would not be able to implement it. I do not want to argue the matter any further and occupy more time by doing so; I merely want to place my standpoint on record.

From the nature of the case it is not possible for me to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea either. Let me give an absurd example. In many cases it is not physically possible to do what he asks. When a traffic officer stops a motor-car he is acting in terms of the Act. How on earth is it possible for him at that stage, before the motor-car has stopped, to show his letter of authority to the motorist? It is just not possible in practice. Once he starts stopping the car, he is acting in terms of the provisions of the Act.

And when he has stopped the car?

Then the motorist can ask the traffic officer to show his letter of authority. I just want to explain the implication of the wording of the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. I want to concede that there is a valid argument for the requirement that such an officer should be able to show his authority on demand. That is why I am prepared to consider it. That will oblige him to have it on his person, because if he is asked to show it and is unable to do so, he cannot exercise his powers. I shall consider this requirement, because I think it is fair.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that one practical difficulty that the hon. the Minister has, but I want to suggest to him that with the natural wit and ingenuity of his law advisers they should be able to frame some method whereby it will be possible for an inspector or anybody employed under those circumstances to disclose his authority and to ensure that the man who is being inspected realizes that he, the inspector, is not a bogus person. It should not be necessary for the individual to demand it. I would ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity to give consideration perhaps to framing something which would take that particular request of mine into account.

Mr. Chairman, we are naturally disappointed that the hon. the Minister will not accept the amendments moved by the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Berea. Before we go any further I would like to move a further amendment, as follows—

To motivate it I would like to mention that in terms of clause 3(4) the hon. the Minister is actually taking over the powers which normally would be exercised by the hon. the Minister of Justice in terms of section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In terms of this section the person who acts in terms of an authority granted by the Minister of Justice has to do certain things when he exercises his powers. Those things I am now repeating in my amendment because I believe they should be incorporated in the Bill if the hon. Minister is quite adamant that he is not going to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City. We think it is a very reasonable amendment. I see the hon. the Minister indicates that the amendment is acceptable, so we are quite happy to leave it at that.

Mr. Chairman, simply to illustrate my strong desire to co-operate, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Berea has already spoken three times. I cannot allow him to speak again.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Order! I cannot allow a question now because the hon. the Minister has completed his speech.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, the hon. the Minister brought a valid point. It is quite correct that when an official is stopping a speeding motorist, it is impossible to show his authority. However, the hon. the Minister has taken literally what the hon. member for Berea has put here. The hon. member has said it is not beyond the wit of the legal advisers of the hon. the Minister’s department to design something. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he was to take the amendment of the hon. member for Berea and substitute for the words “before he exercises” something along the lines of “in the exercise of such powers”—it does not mean that he physically has to do it before he takes the first step, but that he shall produce the authority during some stage of the exercising of his powers—I believe the hon. the Minister would be able to overcome all his problems. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should take the amendment of the hon. member for Berea to his legal advisers and ask them whether they cannot draft something along those lines.

Regarding my own amendment, the point made by the hon. the Minister regarding my first amendment is well taken. I take what he has said as an undertaking, that he is not simply going to appoint all sorts of odd people to do all sorts of inspections. I accept that it is going to be a physical impossibility actually to appoint every traffic officer in every town throughout the country. Therefore, with the approval of the Committee, I shall withdraw my first amendment.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea is accepted, we shall not be able to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for East London City. These two amendments are mutually inconsistent.

Which one are you going to accept?

Consequently I am unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, because it is often necessary in the interests of implementing the Act for that authority not to be shown.

Order! I should just like to point out to the Minister that the two hon. members may move their amendments in that way. It is for the Minister to decide whether he is to accept them or not, but they are entitled to move the amendments in that way.

I have no objections to that.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. L. F. Wood negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, this clause has been debated at length on numerous occasions and I now would like to move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In this regard I would like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. I have, on numerous occasions, explained to the hon. the Minister exactly how this side of the House feels about this matter. This clause was inserted in a similar type of Bill in June 1975 and it was operative from that date. I have taken the trouble to examine the law reports from that date until now and I can find no law report which deals with any question in regard to the operation of this particular subsection (2) of that Act. That does not necessarily mean that the provision has not been brought into operation. Can the hon. the Minister tell us now whether in fact this clause has been used at all in prosecutions against persons and, secondly, if it has been used, whether it has been found that it is causing the employers against whom it has been used grave difficulties. Thirdly, can the hon. the Minister tell us whether there have been any approaches to him by the administrators of justice, the law officers, indicating that they have difficulty in applying their minds to the question of what is a reasonable measure to prevent an act or omission of the nature in question when they are actually prevented from, by virtue of subsection (2), investigating whether the mere forbidding of the act or omission was reasonable or not? In other words, we want to find out whether, during the past two years, this measure has been efficacious or not. We believe it is not necessary. We firmly believe that the courts should be allowed to retain the right of deciding whether a measure to prevent was reasonable or not, without the provision of subsection (2). This is mainly what we are objecting to.

Mr. Chairman, I think that as far as the principle of legal presumption is concerned, the standpoints of the various parties are clear. I think that we agree with one another in that respect. The only difference is that when one is burdened with the administration of legislation, then one has to deal with a practical situation and sometimes one lands up in circumstances where it is not always possible—for reasons of effectiveness—to comply with the general principle. I want us to understand one another very well on that point. I should like to reply to the three questions which the hon. member asked me.

In the first place he asked whether I am aware of cases in which the provisions of this clause—where they are contained in other legislation—have been implemented. As far as I know, the answer is “no”. This does not mean, however, that this provision is unnecessary or superfluous. On the contrary, I think that the existence of this provision puts the principals on their guard to see that their employees comply with the provisions of the legislation. We need not argue about this. I am just making the statement because the gist of the hon. member’s argument seems to be that if the provision is not being used, it does not belong in the legislation.

It is a deterrent.

Yes, it is a deterrent. The hon. member knows just as well as I do that apart from rehabilitation, compensation and prevention, one of the primary purposes of punishment is also to serve as a deterrent. Therefore we need not argue about this.

In the second place the hon. member wants to know whether people have experienced problems in discharging the onus which is laid upon them by this clause. Naturally the answer is “no” again. Thirdly the hon. member asks whether the presiding officers—I assume he means judicial officers—have addressed any representations in this regard to me or to my department. Once again the answer is “no”.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, in terms of clause 2 the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, make regulations and in terms of clause 8 the Minister may make those regulations applicable to any person or category of persons in the service of the State while acting in the performance of his or their duty. I believe there has been confusion here. I believe that rather than to specify that a particular regulation shall specifically apply with reference to civil servants in the execution of their duties, the hon. the Minister should rather make all regulations applicable to all civil servants and then exempt those whom he wishes to exempt.

I say this advisedly, because if we think of the hundreds of thousands of civil servants we have in this country, many of whom are in one way or another in connection with their duties involved with petroleum products, and primarily with petrol, when we think of the thousands of civil servants to whom, I believe, these regulations should apply—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me … take for example a clerk in the employ of a Bantu Administration Board. When he goes to a meeting, should he be exempted from the speed control regulations?

No.

The hon. the Minister agrees with me. There are many more of them than those persons who I believe should be exempted. I agree with the hon. the Minister. There is the Defence Force, to start with, the S.A. Police, traffic “cops” …

Members of Parliament.

We can always make a case for them, but at this stage those sort of people, I agree with the hon. the Minister, should be exempted. The amendment which I have proposed will have the effect that every regulation which the Minister issues shall apply to all public servants, with the exception of those who will be specifically exempted. I believe it will be a far greater task if in the case of every regulation that he issues he has to say that a particular category of a public servant is bound by those regulations, than if, by way of a general exemption by regulation, he says that none of these regulations shall apply to traffic police, members of the S.A. Police Force and the members of the armed forces, or whatever their categories are. I would therefore, like to move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper …

Order! The hon. member may not move his amendment now. The clause must first be negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder wether the hon. member will give me a chance to consider this matter. My information from the department, which administers the Act, is that if we do it in the way which the hon. member suggests, it will be much more cumbersome than the method which is being proposed now. Therefore I ask that we should accept the clause just as it is.

You will have a look at it?

We shall have a look at it. The department tells me that this is a more effective and less cumbersome way of doing this. If it is proved the other way, I shall come back to the hon. member.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, we cannot fully understand the reason for this clause. However, we do understand that what the hon. the Minister is attempting to do is to provide for admissions of guilt to be accepted, not only up to R100 as is now provided for in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act, but up to R500 and that flowing from that there are certain consequences. For example, in the case where a magistrate is obliged to lead evidence in regard to an offence which is over a certain amount, it will now have to be changed if admissions of guilt are accepted in cases up to R500. Secondly, the figure in the law in regard to the issuing of notices of admissions of guilt has to be changed to R500. Furthermore, in respect of the review, it is consequential that if there is an admission of guilt up to R500, review procedures should be amended so that any case over R500 only should be taken on review. The assumption is that if a person admits guilt up to R500, and he is taken before the court for any figure below that, it is not necessary to take that matter on review.

Is the hon. member talking about the automatic review?

I am only talking about the automatic review. It is the matter which is dealt with under subsection (4) of clause 10. I now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 8, in line 38, to omit “five hundred” and to substitute “two hundred and fifty”;
2. (2) on page 8, in line 44, to omit “five hundred” and to substitute “two hundred and fifty”;
3. (3) on page 8, in lines 45 to 49, to omit subsection (3);
4. (4) on page 8, in lines 53 and 54, to omit “, or in section 302 of that Act to an amount of two hundred and fifty rand,”;
5. (5) on page 8, in line 55, to omit “five hundred” and to substitute “two hundred and fifty”.

The amendments are consequential; they are all the same. We believe, in the first instance, that if the admission of guilt is pushed up to R500 in respect of an offence in terms of this Bill, it is indicative to the presiding officers or the inspectors that they have virtual carte blanche up to R500. It is only human, it is the approach which any human being adopts, that when he sees that he has freedom to operate up to a certain amount, he invariable starts adding on a little bit and coming near to that figure. That is why we feel that R500 is excessive. We are thinking now of fines, particularly in respect of contraventions by motorists in the use of petrol. Where spot fines are incurred, up to now it has only been R100. If it is higher, one has to appear in court. This is a good thing. By having this system of admissions of guilt it means that those people will not have to travel miles to appear in court. However, I believe that if we push it up to R250 it will be adequate. As I see it, the quantum of the fine is not going to stop the person from travelling at a greater speed than has been set down. It is a known fact that it is a built-in-propensity of people to travel at a great speed. I know that the hon. the Minister was a great speedster in his younger days. I remember that he used to travel from Cape Town to George on numerous occasions at tremendous speed. I do not accuse him of having contravened the criminal law at all, but I am quite sure that he travels at the maximum permissible speed when he drives a motor-car these days. This is a propensity with certain people. They simply have to travel at that speed. The quantum of the fine is not going to prevent them from doing so. The people whom we have to motivate are those who patrol the streets and who have to catch people. We have to motivate our traffic officers to be on patrol and to take steps as often as possible. That is, I believe, the way in which we are going to stop people from doing this. It will not be achieved by putting the fine up to R500.

I want to come back to a matter of principle, and that is the matter referred to in clause 10(4), where the hon. the Minister is now going to change the question of automatic reviews. We have spent hours dealing with the Criminal Procedure Act. When discussing the provisions of that Act, we went into the question of how we would standardize or how we can try to retain our automatic review system, which is an excellent system. On the other hand, we tried to alleviate the tremendous pressure of work which was being imposed on the courts as a result of the review procedures. We decided that magistrates of a certain standard have to have their cases sent on review if the sentence exceeded a fine of R250. That was the standard that was set, and another standard was set for magistrates with seven years’ experience and more. However, we now come along and suddenly change that standard completely. I believe that we must retain that standard and we should see how it affects the normal procedure of justice. If the magistrate has one procedure for his cases and another procedure for this particular type of case, it is going to make it difficult for the magistrate to decide whether it is a case that must go on review, or whether it is something that does not have to go on review. I believe that we should clarify such a situation. The hon. the Minister will see that the question of bringing the limits down to R250 fits in perfectly with the standard laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act. If the whole of this clause is adjusted to amend the R500 to R250, we believe that justice will be served and that we will be able to accept this particular clause, which is mainly aimed at enabling people to pay admissions of guilt. In this way we will be successful in what we are attempting to do, namely to deal with the control of petroleum products.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept the amendments, and I should like to explain why I cannot do so. The hon. member for East London City would have been quite right if the rationale for the section had been what he said it was. However, it is not, and I shall explain why not. The procedure is already being followed in practice in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act. The provision that an admission of guilt above an amount of R100 can be accepted is therefore already being applied in practice. Why is this being done? It is being done to oblidge the travelling public. This is why we make a special exception. Hon. members in this House requested me to do so during previous debates. What was the argument at that stage? The argument was that, for example, a person may be summonsed by a traffic officer for a traffic offence in Graaff-Reinet in terms of the regulations.

We accept the principle.

Give me a chance. I did not interrupt that hon. member and he must give me a chance too. If his speed was so high that it would justify a heavier penalty than a fine of R100, such a person, who came from Johannesburg, for instance, would have to come to Graaff-Reinet for the trial. In this respect my predecessor and I were accused of wasting fuel instead of saving it. As a result of that we decided that we should therefore deviate from the principle of the Criminal Procedure Act in this regard, with a view to the special circumstances and objectives of this legislation. I just want the hon. member to have understanding for this practical problem. The fines for admission of guilt for specific offences in terms of this legislation are determined by the judicial officers in the first instance. They determine the corresponding fines for a specific speed at which a motorist travels. They also determine when people must be brought to court. I do not want to interfere with that. It is the prerogative of the judicial officer to do so. I only want to prevent us from frustrating the objective of the Act in applying it, and the objective is to save fuel. When someone contravenes this, he must be punished in accordance with the Act, but I do not want to force him to use more fuel to appear before a court while it is actually my purpose to reduce the consumption of petrol. This is the rationale, and under these circumstances I ask the hon. member whether he will not concur in this.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, with the consent of the Committee I wish to move an amendment other than the one printed on the Order Paper. My amendment is as follows—

We regard the provisions of subsection (2) to be exceedingly severe and submit that section 4 and section 7 offences should be exempted from those provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I am just standing up to indicate that the principle of the hon. member’s original amendment on the Order Paper was acceptable to me. The way in which he is wording it now is also acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that we appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister has accepted this amendment. It goes some way towards alleviating the hardship as a result of these particular provisions. I should like to address the Committee briefly on the harshness of clause 12. Because of the harshness of the penalties which it is the intention to apply, we cannot vote for this clause. In subsection (1) of the clause provision is made for a fine of up to R2 000 or imprisonment for up to two years, or for both such fine and such imprisonment. In other words, a person convicted of an offence in terms of this Act will be liable to be fined R2 000 and to be imprisoned for two years. That I believe is a tremendous penalty to pay for having contravened a provision.

I see the hon. the Minister of Defence looking at me, and I will concede to him right away that he knows the attitude of this side of the House towards the security of the State and the fact that this has now become a strategic commodity that we are dealing with. All these things I concede to him. But in addition to that, the hon. the Minister asks for powers that the court may in addition to what I have just outlined as tremendous penalties, suspend or cancel a driver’s licence of a person who perpetually commits the offence. I do not believe that it will happen the first, second or third time. If a driver, however, continually does so, his licence may be suspended. I do not believe this is such a wide power and we are therefore prepared to accept that aspect of it. But when you consider that this also involves the livelihood of people in that you can have a motor carrier certificate cancelled or suspended for a bus driver, taxi driver or transport driver who depends upon that for his livelihood, I believe we are now going too far. Secondly, the same applies when we come to clause 12(2)(b), which provides that he can suspend or cancel the trading licence, permit or authorization of a person to carry out a business. Again, this is the livelihood of a person. This can mean the closing down of garages. It can also mean the closing down of businesses, of industries, and I believe that the hon. the Minister is going too far with this. When we come to the last provision under clause 12(2)(c) we come to the worst of the lot and that is the confiscation of any property of the person convicted which was used to commit the offence. This means that if I happen to have more than five litres of petrol stored in the garage at my hourse, the hon. the Minister could through the court confiscate my house. I can lose everything that I have. Not only a motor-car, but everything I have. The same applies to businessmen and so on.

I felt it was important that we should place our attitude on record and to say that for those reasons, and for those reasons alone—because we do believe that these provisions go too far—we will vote against this clause.

I just want to reply briefly. I find it strange that the hon. member now indicates that he is going to vote against the clause, even though he moved an amendment which I am going to accept. I find it strange. I do not know exactly how that works.

It softens it a little bit.

All the hon. members on that side and on this side of the House often debate the fact, and quite rightly so, that the discretionary powers of judicial officers should be maintained. This is exactly what this clause does. Naturally it is altogether academic to argue that since maximum penalties are determined, they will be inplemented under the circumstances to which the hon. member referred. If they were to be applied in accordance with his example, I think my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, would immediately have to make a plan as far as such a judicial officer is concerned. I am satisfied that the legislation emphasizes the seriousness of the problem we have to deal with. I am also satisfied that the penal provisions are adequate. The penal provisions are the maximum for the maximum offence. If someone keeps petrol in his garage, it is argued that his house can be confiscated. This is, of course, untrue. Any presiding officer who did so would be a fool. The penalty is always determined in accordance with the offence and in accordance with the circumstances of the person involved. That is why I am honestly prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for East London City, but I cannot accept the reasoning of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been amended in various important ways. At the outset I should like to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for being willing to meet us on these points, which we believe are of some significance. In spite of the Bill being amended, however, it does not yet meet the requirements and the aspirations which we expressed at Second Reading.

We share the hon. the Minister’s anxiety about the oil situation and the impact it has on the economic situation as far as South Africa is concerned. We believe that oil has become a most vital strategic commodity in respect of which we shall have to change the energy consumption patterns of South Africa. We regret that this Bill does not provide for these matters. It is mainly a prohibitory Bill which enables the hon. the Minister to take powers to do certain things. In looking at this Bill in retrospect, at Third Reading, we find that a great deal of the onus now rests upon the hon. the Minister as to how he uses these powers to regulate and to prohibit.

We believe the hon. the Minister has extremely wide powers. If he uses these powers wisely and well he will in fact be able to make a considerable contribution. Negative and inhibitory though this Bill is in many ways, he will nevertheless have power to regulate the use of oil products in such a way as to achieve some of the objects. I hope that when he frames his regulations he will be well advised. I just want to give one brief example. There is the question of insulating oil, which is a kind of oil which is derived from a particular type of crude oil. Because it contains naphthenic constituents it is particularly adapted for use in connection with electrical equipment and with generating plants. This naphthenic oil is specially imported for use in connection with generating plants. It is for example very largely used by Escom, Iscor and other people who have large electrical plants.

The ordinary crude oil which is imported from the Middle East will not do for this purpose. It is not very widely used and the amount of foreign currency involved is not very large. However, this particular type of oil has a very high strategic importance because of its rarity and its special characteristics in regard to the generation of electricity, which, as the hon. the Minister knows, accounts for a higher percentage of energy use in South Africa than in most other countries. Electricity is a very vital part of our energy spectrum. In respect of this oil, I believe it should be possible to recover a far larger quantity of this oil than is at present being recovered …

By re-refining?

… for re-refining. The facilities are available for re-refining. That is not the problem. The problem is that the oil is not being returned to the refineries. I believe that the kind of regulation the hon. the Minister could make which would have great strategic importance would be to ensure that this type of oil, which is not used in very large quantities in small places, but is used in concentrated form in large places, could very easily be recovered.

This particular type of oil is at the moment being used for the manufacture of soluble cutting oils. There are other materials that are used as cutting lubricants. This particular strategic commodity should not be used for that purpose. Other industries buy up the insulating oil for the purpose of making soap, pomades, scent and so forth. This is also, to my mind, a wasteful use of a very special strategic kind of oil. I believe that this is the sort of thing that the hon. the Minister should look at. There is the further difficulty that some industries are not yet properly motivated as regards the very high strategic importance of certain kinds of oil. They assume that all oils are the same. A lot of old oil is being used today to lay dust around industrial plants. This is the sort of thing which, I believe, should not be permitted, and I hope that when the hon. the Minister comes to exercising the wide powers given to him in terms of this Bill, he will exercise them with due regard to the important matters I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that this Bill does not contain any of the things we hoped it would contain. I do not intend repeating our arguments, but in many respects we disagree with the kind of measures the hon. the Minister has taken. So far as the Opposition is concerned, we will however do what we can to achieve the strategic objects which the Bill has in mind. To that extent we shall give the Minister our full support, but regrettably we cannot at this stage give the Third Reading of the Bill our support.

Mr. Speaker, before I conclude, I should like to refer to the imminent retirement of the Secretary for Commerce, Mr. Joep Steyn. He has served his country, the Government and this House over many years and he has served them well. I believe he has been working under very great pressure because, as the economic situation in South Africa has become more sophisticated and more wide-ranging in all its ramifications, he has been at the heart of the process of adaptation and modernization and has had responsibility for a great deal of the work and changes that have taken place. Sir, one could say a great deal more about Mr. Steyn and his services to South Africa, but, since today we hope to save as much time as possible, we of the Opposition should like to take this brief opportunity to thank him from our side also for his services to this country and to wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, we of the SAP should like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the hon. member for Von Brandis in relation to Mr. Steyn. We have always enjoyed the greatest co-operation from him and we certainly believe he has been a cornerstone in that department. We also know he has been of great benefit to the country as a whole and, obviously, to the various Ministers he has served under from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, to come back to this legislation, the Argus of 10 June 1977 reflects on us for supporting legislation in general, but then fails to publish the reasons we advanced for giving our support to, for instance, the Second Reading of this piece of legislation.

*Legislation that we regard as being in the interests of South Africa will have our support. We shall also oppose it strongly when we think that the Government is not acting in the interests of all our people. We shall always try to answer to the call of South Africa in our conduct in this House. [Interjections.]

†The effect of this Bill is, firstly, to conserve petroleum products; secondly, to economize on the cost of the distribution of those products; thirdly, to ensure a particular kind of service. The Bill further makes provision for the possibility of a service-station nationalization plan. If the purpose of this Bill is achieved, it means that all South Africans will be motivated to conserve petroleum products which are the lifeblood of this country. This liquid gold drains much of our valuable financial reserves and it is absolutely vital that South Africa must as far as possible be self-sufficient as regards petroleum products. Hostile foreign elements may attempt to harm our economy in this particular field and we must at all times be in a state of preparedness. The security, defence and economy of a country cannot and must not wholly be controlled by foreign countries. Therefore it is absolutely imperative that the local subsidiaries of international oil companies be bound by the provisions of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister told us that the oil industry arrived at an agreement with him on the Bill and thus it came to this House as an agreed measure. The hon. the Minister in fact quoted from a letter by an oil company to a member of this House giving support for the Bill. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I asked the hon. the Minister whether it was addressed to an Opposition member and that he refused to tell us. I think he correctly refused to tell us the name of the member, but certainly would have cleared the air had he indicated whether it was addressed to the Opposition, and if so, to which section of the Opposition. I have checked with my five colleagues in the SAP and they assure me that the letter was not addressed to them. In view of the delicate situation in regard to oil, I am not going to press the issue any further, except to say that whoever received the letter from the oil company should ensure that his party votes in favour of the Third Reading of the legislation.

You know nothing about the issue.

The hon. member for Von Brandis suggests that I know nothing about the matter. I would like to quote to him two lines from the hon. the Minister’s Hansard in which he quoted the last two lines of the letter from the oil company, which read—

The hon. member for Von Brandis says that I know nothing about the matter. However, the oil companies say that this legislation is in the interests of the country, but the hon. member for Von Brandis seems to think that he knows better.

There is more than one oil company.

The hon. member says that there is more than one oil company. The hon. the Minister announced during the Second Reading debate that it was an agreed measure. The oil companies agreed to it. Some people are in a daze. In the next few days they are going to form new parties and therefore I will excuse the hon. member for Von Brandis.

I am convinced that the industry accepts this Bill and its effects in a spirit of patriotism, despite the fact that inherently this is not the sort of measure that in normal times would have found favour with them. It is sad that the official Opposition, whilst being shunted around by the Prog-Refs in a joint strategy, sees fit to oppose a Bill which the oil industry says is in the interests of South Africa. In this Third Reading debate the official Opposition has told South Africa that they are voting against conserving petroleum products. By this action they will oppose another measure aimed at economically securing South Africa and, consequently, they will be voting against the security of South Africa. [Interjections.] The Prog-refs fall into the same category. I hope that even at this late stage some of my hon. friends in the official Opposition will change and put the interests of South Africa first. Sir, we will not oppose the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Von Brandis for his suggestions in connection with this specific type of oil which is used in generators. I shall ascertain whether the definition of petroleum products is wide enough to cover it. There may be some doubt about it, and if it is not wide enough, I shall effect the necessary extension to the definition in the Other Place. In that regard I want to say that in respect of the re-use of used oil, South Africa is far from doing its duty and that there is a lot of scope for the increased re-refining of oil. In this legislation I am adopting the very powers that will enable us to re-refine this oil. Other countries reclaim as much as 40% of their used oil, and there is no reason why we cannot do so as well, even if we were to do so for strategic reasons, apart from the improvement in our balance of payments which this would bring about. I want to thank the hon. member sincerely for those hints and assure him that I shall be glad to give them some attention during the recess.

Secondly I want to say that this is the legislation that was agreed to by all the relevant parties in the oil industry. These are consequently not powers which are being taken by me or my department on an authoritarian basis, without regard to the standpoints of the people concerned. The Bill in its present form was also cleared with the companies in discussions which I myself and the head of my department attended. I think South Africa owes a vote of thanks to the oil companies in South Africa for the way they have acted, frequently under difficult circumstances. I want to record my gratitude for their accommodating attitude.

I do not want to delay proceedings in regard to this Bill, but I should like to mention that the department, the Government and I do not view the legislation in isolation from the general energy problem with which the world and we have to contend. All that is happening here is that we are dealing with special legislation relating to a specific product. In my opinion it is good legislation, because the results prove that we are attaining our objective by the implementation of the legislation. Certain problems have arisen, however, and I briefly want to mention the most important ones. Our neighbouring States do not always necessarily have the same hours of sale as we do. For example, they supply fuel over week-ends. As a result the tourist industry in South Africa is being adversely affected in the sense that tourist traffic is now being diverted from our own tourist and pleasure resorts to those of these other countries. Although I do not begrudge any country economic progress and prosperity, I believe that hon. members will agree with me that we cannot do so at the cost of our own industry. As far as I am concerned it is therefore essential that we look at whether we cannot introduce an alternative measure so as to continue to serve the fuel conservation objective, but not at the cost of our own tourist industry.

Are you not of the opinion that the increasing oil prices—an increase that cannot be controlled because of the attitude of the Opec countries—will have the same effect as the week-end measures? In other words, will the high cost of fuel not have the very effect the hon. the Minister desires and will it not therefore be unnecessary to apply the existing measures, the restrictions?

My reply to that is that the increased price of crude oil, and hence the increased price of fuel, naturally has a restrictive effect on its use. The high price of fuel, however, is not in itself an adequate restrictive measure. A good example in this regard is the issue I have just been debating, viz. that owing to the fact that no petrol is available to motorists in this country over week-ends, they cannot, for example, drive from Johannesburg to the Kruger National Park and back. There is consequently a very clear drop in the tourist traffic to the Kruger National Park over week-ends. There is, however, a corresponding increase in the number of tourists who visit our neighbouring countries. In other words, although the price of fuel is in itself a restrictive factor, it is not adequate, the results we have obtained so far being the cumulative product of all the measures we have implemented, the price of fuel and the co-operation we are getting from the general public. I have great appreciation for the public’s co-operation in this regard. There must be no doubt about that. We must therefore not judge the success or otherwise of the measure by the small number of offenders. We must test it against the vast majority who adhere strictly to the restrictions. In this regard I am not necessarily thinking only of the penal provisions, but also of the fact that there is a natural reaction amongst people to act in the interests of their country if it is being threatened. I should like to thank them for that. I also want to avail myself of the opportunity of thanking our traffic officers. Hon. members will recall that when the local authority areas replaced their normal traffic regulations and penalties which were in force under the old fuel restriction regulations so that offenders could be charged in terms of the fuel saving regulations and would therefore have to pay higher fines, the various communities rebelled against the regulations. Now that this is no longer happening, there is generally a far greater willingness amongst the public to co-operate with us in this regard. Although we differ about the methods to be employed, I nevertheless want to appeal to hon. members not to attack us publicly, after the legislation has been passed, merely because we differ in this regard. That is in the interests of all of us.

Because I have not had the opportunity before, I should like now to express my personal gratitude, as well as that of the Government and of the NP, towards Mr. Steyn who is retiring at the end of this year. This, then, is his last session, and for that reason I think it fitting that I should avail myself of the opportunity, in conjunction with the hon. member for Von Brandis, and on behalf of other hon. members as well, of taking leave of him here where he dedicated such a large part of his life to his country.

Mr. Steyn was appointed to the Public Service as a full-time official 39 years ago. Initially he was appointed to the diplomatic service of the Department of Foreign Affairs, after having been in the employ of the South West Africa Administration on a temporary basis. Let me say at once that he is, of course, a former student of the University of Stellenbosch. A few weeks after the outbreak of the Second World War, Mr. Steyn was transferred back to the Department of Commerce and Industries where he had previously worked. He was seconded to that department to be of assistance in the implementation of the Government’s economic war measures. He was therefore pre-eminently qualified for the special post he has held in recent years, particularly in view of the fact that the total threat to South Africa is largely being centred and concentrated on the economic field. We and he could therefore draw on the years of knowledge and experience he has had. At the time Mr. Steyn also participated, on behalf of South Africa, in the initial discussions and activities of the GATT organization.

In 1958 he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the department, and when that department divided up into two departments in September 1967, he became Secretary of the newly-founded Department of Commerce. Apart from his post as Secretary for Commerce, he is also the Price Controller. That has probably been the most unpleasant aspect of his activities. He is also Controller of Petroleum Products, which is not very pleasant either. Then he is also chairman of the S.A. Shipping Board, a member of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council and a member of the Government’s Energy Policy Committee. He has rendered excellent service in all of those capacities.

Officials are naturally expected to render the best possible service. However, Mr. Speaker, permit me to make a few remarks in this regard. I want to record the fact that Mr. Steyn was more than just a good public servant. His career as as a public servant is well-known to all hon. members. To praise him in full for that would take up a great deal more of my time. I just want to make three further remarks, however, which do not necessarily relate to his work as a public servant. I want to make a few personal remarks. To me Mr. Steyn was a wise counsellor, a patient teacher and one of the most loyal and patriotic South Africans I have ever come across. Apart from that he was one of the most devoted friends I have ever met in my life.

Hear, hear!

I am very grateful to have been able to have such close ties with someone of Mr. Steyn’s calibre because, unlike many other people, his preferences differed from theirs, and he drew his happiness and joy from his service to his country, irrespective of which political standpoint he had to deal with. I want to praise him and I want to take leave of him here in the place to which he has dedicated such a large part of his life. I want to praise him for his expertise, his efficiency and his patience, but particularly for his friendship. That is something for which no one could ever repay him.

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

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Clause 1 of the Bill is aimed at increasing the monthly benefits or pensions and certain special grants payable in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 1973, by 15% as from 1 October 1977.

As hon. members know, it is the practice, whenever social or old-age pensions are increased, to consider the position of those persons who receive compensation for occupational diseases as well. Old-age pensions were increased in 1975 and 1976 and, as hon. members know, this year they are being increased once again as from 1 October 1977, whilst pensions payable in terms of the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act were last increased in 1975.

It is therefore a pleasure for me to announce that the Government has decided to raise the pensions and certain special grants payable in terms of the Act, by 15% as from 1 October 1977. What this will entail is that a person who has contracted a 20% to 50% impairment of the cardio-respiratory functions through pneumoconiosis and who is presently receiving a pension of R61 per month, will receive R71 per month after that date; a person with a 50% to 75% impairment of those functions who is presently receiving a pension of R110 per month, will receive R127 per month and a person with an impairment of more than 75% who is at present receiving a pension of R159 per month, will receive R183 per month. Widows’ pensions of R83 per month are being increased to R96 per month and a child’s allowance is being increased from R36 to R42 per month.

The Act makes provision for two groups of beneficiaries, viz. one group of persons who received pensions before 1 October 1973 and who have retained those pensions, and another group of persons who first became entitled to benefits after 1 October 1973 and to whom one-sum benefits, and not pensions, were awarded. The State is responsible for the payment of the pensions, whilst the payment of the one-sum benefits is the responsibility of the mines and works.

I want to make it clear that clause 1 provides for an increase in only those pensions and certain special grants the payment of which is the responsibility of the Government. The Mine Workers’ Union has accepted the increase of 15%.

An increase of 15% in the one-sum benefits will hit the mines and works very hard at this stage, since such an increase at this stage will give rise to undesirable cost increases in mines and works, and in the case of gold mines, which receive Government support, this will have an extremely adverse effect on both the State and the mines. It is true that in the case of one-sum benefits, the interest rates and average interest earnings have increased substantially since the last increase in 1975 and that in that respect, inflation has in fact been compensated for to a certain extent. The same does not hold true for the pensioners.

The reason for the amendment of section 102, as set out in clause 2, is that the prescribed maximum of R1 200 per annum which may be awarded to a dependant of a beneficiary, for example, by means of a bursary for post-school training, and the aggregate maximum amount of R150 000 which may be utilized in a single financial year for the purpose of training, has become inadequate due to cost increases and an increase in certifications owing to the more reasonable dispensation under the present Act with a consequent increase in the number of applications from dependants of beneficiaries. Bursaries of more than R1 200 per annum may be awarded only if the Act is amended. The amendments being moved in clause 2 of the Bill will make it possible for the Compensation Commissioner, with the concurrence of the Advisory Committee, to award bursaries, having regard to prevailing tariffs and conditions, and for the Minister of Mines, with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, to determine from time to time the aggregate amount which may be utilized annually for training; in other words, it will no longer be necessary to amend the Act in order to make adjustments in this regard.

With reference to the amendment proposed in clause 3, I want to point out to hon. members that in terms of the Act, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is responsible for the payment of benefits to Bantu persons. Over the years this department has built up a substantial amount of unpaid benefits and is in a position to make special grants to needy Bantu beneficiaries, grants which are considerably larger than the prescribed maximum amount of R180 per financial year. Meanwhile, social pensions paid to Bantu persons have been adjusted so that they are much higher than the amount prescribed in the Occupational Diseases Act. It is suggested, therefore, that the limit of R180 per annum be done away with so as to enable the Department of Bantu Administration and Development to adjust the special awards paid to needy Bantu beneficiaries without always having first to amend the Act in order to do so.

This legislation is actually consequential legislation and it was initiated in the Other Place. It was passed easily and with acclamation, and no opposition was met with. At the introduction of this legislation I, too, wish to express the hope that because it is in fact aimed at improving the situation and because it is to everyone’s advantage, hon. members will also accept it unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, we shall raise no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, I want to be of assistance to the hon. the Minister. If he will clarify one point for me during the Second Reading, it may be possible to agree that the Bill shall not be committed.

The clarification which I should like is in respect of section 101 of the principal Act. Special benefits are payable in terms of the principal Act and special assistance and awards may be given. As far as the special awards which may be given in terms of sections 101 and 115 of the principal Act are concerned, a ceiling is imposed as to how high these special awards may be. A ceiling is also imposed in section 102 of the principal Act in regard to the maximum that should be applied to the award of such benefits.

Clauses 2 and 3 of the legislation before us today provide for these ceilings to be removed so that a ceiling no longer applies and that the additional benefits that the hon. the Minister wishes to grant will not be impeded by the ceiling which is imposed by the principal Act. This we entirely agree with.

However, what I am not clear about is whether the ceiling of R70 per month provided for in section 101 of the principal Act, will still be applicable. If the hon. the Minister gives increased benefits, does the ceiling of R70 remain or is the ceiling raised to allow for the additional benefits? The reason why I ask the question is that in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill provision is being made for the removal of those ceilings in respect of the benefits provided for in sections 102 and 115 of the Act. I am anxious to know whether in respect of the section 101 benefits the ceiling of R70 per month is also, in fact, being raised. If the hon. the Minister would clarify this for me—and I have no doubt he will be able to do so—all that there is left for me to say is that we welcome this Bill. We think it is a timely one and we shall raise no objection to its quick passage through this House.

Mr. Speaker, we shall not oppose this Bill. We welcome it. The provisions that have been made, as outlined by the hon. the Minister, are necessary, particularly at this time, and the people who will be receiving the benefits are people who well deserve them. I just want to make a brief reference to clause 3, in which the limit is also now excluded. I think that is a step in the right direction. I merely have a couple of questions to put in connection with procedure, with particular reference to clause 1(a). I would also be more than willing not to have this Bill discussed in Committee if these questions can be answered by the hon. the Minister at Second Reading. In clause 1(a) an amount of 15% is suggested, but in clause 1(b), in the event of a special award being payable, such payment is left to the discretion of the Commissioner, subject however to a ceiling of 15%. I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is really necessary, in clause 1(b), to leave this to the discretion of the commissioner up to an amount of 15%. Could that not also simply be a flat rate of 15%? That, of course, applies also in clause 1(c). In clause 1(b), of course, the commissioner is involved, whereas in clause 1(c) the Bantu affairs authority is involved. If we could therefore have some response on that aspect, I would be grateful.

I also want to raise a point bearing on clause 2(b). I quote—

I believe that that is also a step in the right direction. All in all, therefore, we welcome this Bill and we hope that it will be dispatched as speedily as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we in this party feel that this is a very reasonable amendment and, what is more, a very necessary one. For that reason we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this entire matter can be cleared up very easily. What hon. members opposite are asking, really concerns the principle as to whether there is a ceiling and as to whether or not that ceiling will be raised. The answer is “Yes”. A further question is whether there will be an adjustment in the future. My answer is that we shall be able to adjust it in the future. If the question is how this will be done, whether the department or the commissioner are highhanded enough to do it as they please, the answer is “No”. That is not the principle according to which I work. I hold discussions with the parties concerned, and therefore I can completely satisfy the requests of hon. members. My answer to them is that it will in fact be possible to do what they have asked.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The independence of Bophuthatswana will have certain consequences as far as the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. The position will be as follows: (1) The Act will no longer be applicable in Bophuthatswana as from the date of independence; (2) employers who fall under the definition of employer in section 4, will be excluded and they and their employees shall cease to be liable for contributions; (3) in terms of section 41(1)(h) of the Act, persons outside the Republic are not entitled to benefits and as from the date on which Bophuthatswana becomes independent, it will not be possible to pay any benefits there; (4) employees who are recruited on contract in Bophuthatswana for service in the Republic and who have to return to their country upon termination of service, will, as in the case of citizens of all foreign countries, be excluded in terms of section 2(2)(a) from the definition of “contributor”; (5) inhabitants of Bophuthatswana who are not serving under contract in the Republic and who do not have to be repatriated upon termination of service, will be contributors unless they are otherwise excluded from the definition of “contributor”, just as in the case of all other persons in the Republic; and (6) in terms of a notice published under section 2(5) of the Act, all Bantu who were not born in the Republic, are excluded as contributors.

The question has arisen as to what obligation there ought to be towards contributors resident in Bophuthatswana, in respect of benefits and grants when Bophuthatswana becomes independent, and as to what steps ought to be taken. As hon. members know, benefits from an unemployment insurance fund serve as a temporary source of income to support the worker until he can obtain other employment. With a view to a gradual transitional stage, the Government felt that the status quo had to be maintained for a certain period so as to prevent disruption and dissatisfaction in respect of workers who have been contributors and who have built up credits prior to the date of independence. During the transitional period, therefore, the Bophuthatswana Government may decide what its own wishes are in relation to the establishement of an unemployment insurance fund for its territory.

Certain proposals relating to the application of the Unemployment Insurance Act after the date of independence, were submitted last year already to the Working Committee which was appointed to undertake the necessary preparatory work for Bophuthatswana’s independence. The proposals were similar to those which were submitted in the case of Transkei—this is important—viz. the persons in Bophuthatswana would still be able to apply for benefits for three years after independence, despite the fact that they were no longer contributing to the fund.

After considering the proposals, however, the Working Committee told the Minister and the Government that the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana was considering the possibility of establishing an unemployment fund in Bophuthatswana after independence. It was also asked whether the Government of the Republic was able and willing to make a sum of money available from the Unemployment Insurance Fund so that Bophuthatswana could establish its own fund. After further negotiations it was agreed—I think it was a very reasonable agreement and a major concession, I am tempted to say a dowry, on our part—that a lump sum of R300 000 would be paid after independence instead of benefits for three years. This was at their request. This amount was based on the amount which was paid out in benefits in 1976, viz. R94 000. The amount which is now going to be paid to them is therefore actually a little more than the amount which was paid out in 1976. Provision is made for this in clause 2 of the Bill, i.e. in the new section 64C.

In order to afford protection to those persons who were drawing benefits even before independence, it was agreed that they would continue to draw benefits after independence until this could be stopped in some way in the normal course of events, i.e. when their credits were exhausted or when they started work again. However, no applications for benefits will be considered after independence. Provision is being made for this in clause 2, i.e. the new section 64B.

As far as payments to dependants of deceased contributors are concerned, these are not affected by the amendments. It will still be possible to submit such applications after the date of independence. They are not being stopped. This is important. That is also the position in the Republic in respect of foreign citizens. Their dependants may apply, irrespective of where they live. The qualifications for this, however, is that applications have to be made within a period of three years of the date of death of the contributor concerned and that evidence has to be furnished that the deceased contributor was in employment as a contributor for not less than 13 weeks during the five years immediately preceding the date of his death. That is merely routine procedure.

In outline, Mr. Speaker, those are the amendments arising out of the draft agreement and the ones which have been considered by the Working Committee and accepted by the Cabinet of Bophuthatswana. I trust that they will meet with the approval of this hon. House.

I also just want to say that the Other Place passed the legislation which was initiated there with acclamation and without discussion. I am very pleased to introduce this legislation and I am convinced that hon. members will facilitate its passage here, too, because in this regard we are really bending over backwards to be of assistance and, in consultation with the Bophuthatswana Government, to make this concession to them so as to get their fund off the ground so that their people will have nothing to worry about because we are giving them a dowry.

This legislation differs from similar legislation pertaining to Transkei. The Transkeian Government preferred responsibility to be retained by us for a period of three years. However, the Bophuthatswana Government preferred to start off with a clean state and we therefore want to transfer this amount to it. That is what this legislation deals with.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the soundness of the approach of the hon. the Minister concerning what will probably become a fact in time, viz. that Bophuthatswana will become an independent State. Certain consequences must flow from this in many directions. As far as this particular field of labour is concerned, we are pleased indeed with the hon. the Minister’s approach in the matter. He has made full provision to cover those who will only be in a position to make applications after Bophuthatswana becomes independent and has its own Government. I think adequate provision seems to have been made to cover the possible applications which can be made. Furthermore, those who are in the course of receiving benefits are fully secured. If one looks at this Bill, one sees that it is the normal, natural thing which must follow. We on this side of the House appreciate the fact that so much thought has gone into the matter and that adequate and comprehensive provision has been made. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support this Bill. We fully appreciate the necessity for such legislation to be placed before this House. It is particularly important that in this time of the downturn in the economy and the unemployment rate increasing as it is, adequate provision be made so that no single worker should suffer from any change in the legislation which will come about and the independence which will follow in December.

Most of the questions I had jotted down have already been answered in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. I shall therefore not belabour those points. I just want to put one question concerning the implementation, in order to have reassurance. In subsection (2) of the proposed section 64B we are told that—

Is it the intention that in the dealings with those who become unemployed and therefore become eligible for the benefits under this fund, they will have to liaise with officials in Bophuthatswana rather than with the officers in the Republic? Is this a further request which has been made by the Bophuthatswana Government or is the hon. the Minister in terms of this legislation allowing for both possibilities?

That is right.

Having had that question answered and having received that reassurance, we welcome the legislation and will support it.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have no problems with the Bill. In fact, we think it is an exceptionally reasonable arrangement with Bophuthatswana. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the 15 amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 63, to omit all the words after “area” up to and including “council” in line 4 on page 6 and to substitute:

exercise the powers and perform the duties relating to the undermentioned matters

1. (2) on page 6, in line 31, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “urban local authority”;
2. (3) on page 6, after line 31, to insert:
   1. (xv) the regulation of entry into and sojourn in the area
3. (4) on page 6, in lines 36 and 37, to omit “, the administration board concerned”;
4. (5) on page 6, in line 39, to omit “, such board”;
5. (6) on page 6, in lines 41 and 42, to omit “or the administration board concerned”;
6. (7) on page 6, in lines 54 and 55, to omit “on the conditions determined by the Minister and”;
7. (8) on page 6, in lines 57 to 61, to omit paragraph (h);
8. (9) on page 6, in line 62, to omit all the words after “may” up to and including “determine,” in line 64;
9. (10) on page 8, in lines 1 and 2, to omit “, with the approval of the Minister and after consultation with the administration board concerned,”;
10. (11) on page 8, in lines 31 and 32, to omit “, subject to the conditions determined by the Minister,”;
11. (12) on page 8, in line 36, to omit “administration board and”;
12. (13) on page 8, in lines 38 and 39, to omit “subject to the conditions determined by the Minister and”;
13. (14) on page 8, in lines 55 to 60, to omit subsection (4);
14. (15) on page 8, in lines 61 to 63, to omit subsection (5).

Mr. Chairman, to the extent that anything as anaemic as this instrument can be said to have any kind of heart, I would say that clause 5 is the heart of this Bill, basically because it defines the powers and duties of the community councils which are to be established in terms of the Bill. As we explained at Second Reading, one of our major objections to the Bill is that the community councils will not be given adequate powers. In fact they will have no teeth. What they can do is almost invariably “subject to the Minister’s directions”, or at least at the behest or with the consent of one of the administration boards. In other words, these toothless bodies are really the creatures of either the Minister or of an administration board. This is hardly good enough under the circumstances.

Sir, the object or purpose of my amendments is threefold. Firstly, it is to reduce or eliminate altogether the powers and functions of the Minister and/or of the administration board concerned. Secondly, it is to make the community councils more their own masters and not in fact creatures of what will inevitably and with the best will in the world be regarded as White authority or officialdom. Thirdly, the object is to vest in these community councils some real power; that is to say, to give them some kind of a bite, some kind of authority. Our argument simply is that a body which is as subject to discipline and/or directions or instructions by some outside agency as these community councils are going to be, cannot possibly have or develop any self-respect, without which they are crippled, if not doomed. What is even more important from this point of view is, I think, that if they do not have that kind of authority and independence, they are certainly not going to instil any kind of public confidence in those whom they are supposed to serve, and without that confidence, as we have seen in the case of the urban councils, they will be totally handicapped right from the start. I need hardly remind the Committee that it is precisely this kind of subservience, this kind of impotence, as one might call it, which was the fatal weakness of the old advisory boards and, more recently, of the urban councils. As the hon. member for Houghton pointed out yesterday, they were given all sorts of names. They were called “toy telephones”, “dummies”, “phoney councils” and a lot of other things. In other words, they had no kind of respect in the community which they served and it is no wonder that they have gone out of existence.

The 15 amendments which I have moved are intended to rectify or at least improve this situation. In other words, they are aimed at reducing if not eliminating the power of the hon. the Minister and the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. It is no secret that often there is little love for these official agencies. We suggest in the third amendment that the words “the regulation of entry into and sojourn in the area” should be inserted. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that this wording is taken from an earlier Statute, the Bantu Urban Councils Act, but the fact of the matter is that this was a power which was never conferred and, therefore, was never exercised. This Committee, or at any rate some hon. members of the Committee, know that influx control and the manner in which it has been administered, have been the source of infinite bitterness and hardship amongst the African people and, of course, also a source of infinite criticism. The pass system, however little this may be accepted or condoned by officialdom, has in fact led to dislocation and the break-up of family life and is deeply resented generally. I need not go into that any further. We all know exactly what influx control means. Why not allow these proposed community councils to decide who or who not to let into these White urban areas and under what conditions and circumstances? Do the hon. the Minister and his Deputy not have sufficient faith to invest these councils with these powers? I suggest that in this particular instance we have something of a test case, a test case of the Government’s bona fides, a test of their good faith, to put it more simply, in relation to the powers they are prepared to give to these community councils.

If the Government refuses to relinguish this power which is now proposed, and with which this legislation is peppered from beginning to end, it would, I suggest, in advance pass a vote of no confidence in these councils. It would simply be saying to them: “We do not trust you and, therefore, we are going to keep this tight rein and control on you all the time.” If there is that lack of confidence today, when, if ever, will the elected or nominated people of the non-homeland Africans be entrusted with real powers in sensitive areas? This, I suggest, is a key question which the hon. the Deputy Minister must answer.

The point is that if this request to give some of these powers to the community councils is refused, then the Black people can hardly be blamed if they begin to look upon these community councils as further products of a kind of paternalism. It will mean that there is always someone in the background who knows better and who must decide what is best for his wards. I want to suggest that this is plain and simple “baasskap”. It is discrimination which is based on race and nothing else. That disposes of amendment No. 3.

For the rest we suggest in amendment 1, for instance, that in clause 5(1)(a) we should remove the Minister’s discretion and the administrative boards’ consultative powers in regard to the functions of the community councils. In subparagraphs (i) to (xiv) those powers appear and we suggest that they should be eliminated. A community council will then simply carry out the functions assigned to it without the constant danger of intervention by either the hon. the Minister or one of these boards. In clause 5(1)(a)(xiv) we propose to remove the discretion of the hon. the Minister and substitute for it that of an urban local authority. This has worked in the past and it does not breed the kind of resentment which ministerial interference does.

I am obviously not going to go through all the other suggestions. They speak for themselves and concern paragraphs (c), (d), (g), (i), (j), (m) and (o) of clause 5(1).

We also move to omit paragraph (h) altogether. This paragraph deals with assisting and advising any representative of any national unit. We also move to delete clause 5(4) and clause 5(5) on page 8. These are the subsections which give the Minister total power and discretion with regard to giving or withdrawing certain powers of these community councils. Subsection (5) states that the hon. the Minister may take such steps as hy may deem necessary to ensure the continuation of the functions of a community council. This last provision really seems to me to be another vote of no-confidence in the whole community council system, even before it has come into operation.

I would say that if these 15 amendments are accepted, we believe that the community councils will have a little bit of authority and that they will have some teeth. They will then stand a chance of developing some self-respect and one hopes that in time they will be able to engender some kind of confidence in the community they are intended to serve. I want to suggest in all seriousness to the hon. the Deputy Minister that without these powers, I prophesy a pretty bleak future for these community councils.

Mr. Chairman, on the premise that we believe that a community should be allowed the maximum degree of control of its own affairs, we shall support most of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Parktown. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister of what he said when he introduced this measure. He said—

With respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I believe this clause is a total negation of that statement he made. We agree with the statement he made, but this clause negates it completely. I must say that the amendments moved by the hon. member for Parktown go a long way towards making it possible for these people within these communities to look after their own affairs. For that reason we shall support the amendments of the hon. member for Parktown.

There is, however, another reason why we shall support his amendments. If we look at clause 5(1)(m) in particular, we find that it is anticipated that the hon. the Minister shall confer upon these councils the power to handle matters of a very sensitive and delicate nature, i.e. the whole question of influx control, etc. How can the hon. the Minister impose upon those people—I use the word advisedly— those powers and responsibilities without giving them a full autonomy, the autonomy to which we believe they are entitled?

We shall support all the amendments of the hon. member for Parktown, with the exception of his amendment No. 6, where he proposes that the reference to an administration board in lines 41 and 42 on page 6 should be deleted. This provision allows the council to make recommendations to the hon. the Minister or to the administration board, recommendations concerning the making of regulations which are desirable in the interests of the people living in the area. Although, like the hon. member for Parktown, we do not like this control by the administration boards, I think we shall have to live with the fact that these administration boards are going to exist and therefore I believe it will be desirable that these councils should be able to make recommendations to the administration boards. The same goes for his amendment No. 8, to omit paragraph (h), which is to the effect that the council may assist and advise any representative of a homeland. I agree with him that the whole principle of the homeland’s ties to the urban Bantu is abhorrent to the urban Bantu. They do not like the idea themselves, but it is a fact of life that these representatives exist and, as long as they exist, I believe the council should be allowed to assist them and to advise them in matters concerning their own communities. For those reasons, we shall vote accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading of the Bill we asked that it should be referred to a commission for enquiry, but the House decided otherwise. Therefore we believe that it is our duty now, in this Committee Stage, to see that we shall get a law which functions smoothly. For that reason most of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Parktown will not be supported by the SAP. These amendments serve to create a council in vacuo, with no authority to which they can refer and with no authority to guide them. It is clear that the proposals intend to remove the tiers of government which are constituted at the present time by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and by the hon. the Minister’s department. One amendment that we can possibly accept from the hon. member for Parktown is his third amendment, where he asks for a further power to be inserted in relation to the regulation of entry into and sojourn in the area.

We would be prepared to accept this because it does not automatically give that power to all boards. The power to regulate which power goes to the board lies in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The first amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown absolutely takes the grist out of this. In that amendment he seeks to remove the words “subject to the Minister’s direction exercise such powers and perform such duty in respect of those of the undermentioned matters as may be vested in it and with which it may be charged by the Minister”. I believe that in those words which the hon. member wants removed is to be found the whole elasticity of the clause. I mentioned at Second Reading that one could not expect the community council of Soweto to have the same properties as the community council of Smithfield, for instance. There has to be elasticity; we have that in our Municipalities Ordinance.

The second amendment moved by the hon. member for Parktown, in which he seeks to insert the words “urban authority” instead of “Minister”, also gives rise to problems. Firstly the question arises as to which urban authority he is referring. The hon. member did not explain which urban authority he wanted to be in charge of these matters. Is it going to be the Bantu Administration Board? According to the particular Act it is a local authority. Is it going to be the city council of the city concerned? In many cases—and the hon. member should check with the cities—they would be horrified if this hot potato were handed back to them. The cost of it alone creates difficulty. Therefore I and my party believe that if one is going to establish a community council there should be different tiers of government. We also believe that, as it is now, in order to get something going one has to accept the tiers which exist, viz. the Bantu Administration Boards and the hon. the Minister’s department. We cannot support the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Parktown, with the exception of his third amendment, which, I believe, is quite sufficient.

Mr. Chairman, if we look at the powers which the hon. the Minister has, I think, there is the possibility that if he hands over to the community council the powers vested in this clause, community councils could in fact have very wide powers. Particularly in clause 5(1)(n), we see that the hon. the Minister has the right to confer on them very wide powers. During Second Reading, I believe, we have already expressed our concern that this clause does not give genuine powers. I believe we should be frank and accept that, theoretically, in terms of this clause the hon. the Minister could give a community council considerable, effective and wide powers. However, I wish particularly to draw the attention to clause 5(1)(a)(i) as it relates to clause 5(1)(a)(viii). Here again we have one of the typical bits of legislation that we get from the Government—lovely-sounding words, wonderful phrases, but in fact entirely empty. I think we ought to remember that last Sunday, there was a headline in Rapport on the Rhodesian situation, under the heading “Owerspel pla Rhodesië”. This is the effect where one has a war situation and where there are many single people around. It immediately affects the moral life of a community. How the hon. the Minister expects the community council to be able under the present migratory labour policy of the Government to implement subsection (1)(a)(i) and (viii) is to me entirely mysterious. We know that as soon as one puts a group of single males into a community, it disrupts the social pattern. In any community, if one puts an army camp or a military camp of whatever kind next to a small town, one immediately finds that the moral life is seriously affected. This is the precise policy of the Government and I believe …

Order! I must point out to the hon. member that under clause 5 we are dealing with the powers and duties of community councils. This clause has been very fully discussed in the Second Reading and I cannot now allow a repetition of those discussions. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South has already addressed me on this in Committee and I therefore cannot allow the hon. member to continue along those lines.

I wonder then whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would explain to us in his reply what these other authorities are under paragraph (n) and whether they would possibly include community councils. Paragraph (n) is an important part of subsection (1), as it allows the Minister to give considerable powers to the community councils.

Mr. Chairman, the crux of the matter we are dealing with here, is the allocation of certain powers, of certain functions and powers. In my Second Reading speech I stated very clearly that we did not want people only to give us advice, but that they should also bear the responsibilities and consequences of that advice. They should also get the opportunity to exercise executive powers. That being our endeavour, for what good reason would the Minister use his powers in such a way as to destroy that very endeavour? Surely that is not the intention. As I said yesterday, whereas we have a system of local authorities in our White political dispensation, the Administrator and the provincial administration act as controlling bodies. It is their endeavour, too, that local authorities should perform certain functions and fulfil certain obligations. But they are the authorities between whom the necessary negotiations take place. Because they constitute that controlling authority, surely they are not causing their own endeavours to fail now. Why should we cause our own efforts in this case to fail by having the Minister use that power in such a way that no obligations, no functions, will be transferred to these bodies? The hon. member for Pinetown has begun to see the light. He said that if one reads the legislation, one sees that in theory wide powers may be transferred. That is indeed what is stated in the legislation, and by a process of evolution, as the boards develop, more and more powers may be awarded to them. As to exactly which powers will be transferred at the outset, that will also be thrashed out between the bodies and persons mentioned in those clauses. I want to give the assurance, however, that what we have in mind is not to award greater responsibilities and then, immediately afterwards, nullify them by the authority of the Minister. That is more or less the crux of the aspect which the hon. member for Parktown raised. He also objects to the fact that a representative of a homeland may participate at the meetings. That is all that is happening. He may take part in the discussions.

Let us accept that there are still some people even in Soweto who take an interest in what goes on in the homelands and who would like to have links with the homelands. Because they cannot go to the homeland every day, there are respresentatives for them inside the White area. Why do we not give those members of the Black public who would like to contact a representative from the homeland, the opportunity of doing so? Why must we withhold such a person from furnishing certain information at a council meeting, where he does not have a vote? He is not a factor in the decision-making process, because he does not have a vote. While he is present there, while he is furnishing information and giving advice, he is also available, as stated in another clause, so that they have to give him the help he wants. They will thrash that out at the meeting and they will say: “Good, we have listened to your case. In future we shall give you this or that type of help.” There is no reason to exclude the homeland representative from that.

After all, it is not a motion of no confidence in the boards if there is a controlling body over them, as is also the case with ordinary local authorities. On what matters do the Administrator and the provincial council have the final say before an ordinary local authority may perform certain functions? They may not even close a street—no matter how small the street is, or where it is situated—without the consent of the Administrator. Their budget must be submitted to the Administrator and approved by him.

But not the taxes which they levy.

They have to obtain the approval of the Administrator for all functions relating to graveyards as well. They are responsible for public transport within their area of jurisdiction and in that respect, too, they must obtain the approval of the Administrator. That also holds true for the laying out of new townships, drainage works, sanitation works, the sale of land, donations, town planning, borrowing powers and certain aspects relating to health services. Here we have an almost analogous case. But because the Administrator has that power, surely he is not now going to jeopardize the functioning of the bodies over which he has that power. Why should we multify the execution of authority and the fulfilling of duties in this case?

Then there is the question of influx control. A community council can exercise better control over the people entering its residential area. However, that residential area forms part of a larger prescribed area, and as far as entry into that prescribed area is concerned, they did not have any say in terms of the old Act and we are not giving them any say in terms of this legislation either.

Moreover, hon. members wish to substitute local authorities for the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards—I am not certain which clause is involved here. When it comes to the question of supplying services, etc., local authorities play a major role. In this regard, I should like to quote to hon. members an excerpt from a document of the United Municipal Executive. I shall read only one paragraph—

The request comes from the United Municipal Executive of South Africa—

Order! I do not want the hon. the Deputy Minister to go into that point in too much depth, because it is dealt with under clause 6 and other clauses, and because it is not relevant to the amendments before this House.

I shall leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. As matters develop, however, there could in fact be closer liaison and there could be three bodies: administration board, community council and the local authority which could deal with those matters later on.

The hon. member for Pinetwon referred to another matter. He posed a question in relation to the powers in clause 5(1)(m) and referred to wide powers. An evolutionary interpretation must be attached to them. It is possible that in future many other powers, which are not spelt out specifically in the legislation, could also in fact be awarded at a later stage in the evolutionary process.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to clause 5(1)(n). It states in the last part—

What are the “other authorities concerned”?

It could, for example, be a local authority.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—95: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; 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.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, D. 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.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. F.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: S. F. Kotzé, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause agreed to.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend moving the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper. However, instead of that amendment I should like to move the following amendment—

This will have the effect of enabling local authorities, as well as administration boards, to second some of their experts to help the community councils. I think that is a more practical amendment than the one I originally intended to move, because it is obvious that when the community councils are established they will have need of expertise which probably is not readily available in the townships at present. To the best of my knowledge I can say there are not many persons who have been trained, for instance as town clerks, engineers or in any of the technical services. There is no doubt about it that there are many able people who are capable of being trained—I believe that some courses are in fact going to be offered to train these people—but they will in the meanwhile need the services of experienced and trained officials. That is the reason why I move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin this so-called maiden speech by saying that we shall support the hon. member for Houghton in this amendment. We think it is justifiable. I would urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept it as well. Why should we limit the scope within which the community councils may seek for staff?

I want to discuss with the hon. the Deputy Minister the second last subsection of this clause, which provides that no person in the employ of a community council may belong to any trade or staff association which is not approved of by the hon. the Minister. This smacks of dictatorship. We have said all along—the hon. the Deputy Minister himself has said so in his speech—that we believe that these people should look after their own affairs. It might—I say “might” advisedly— be desirable for the council concerned to say that it will recognize certain trade unions, but that it will perhaps not recognize other trade unions when it comes to negotiation with the staff. I believe it is utterly wrong that this should be in the hands of the Minister. It is not the Minister who will be employing people, but the community councils. On every occasion it is the right of the employer to recognize the association to which his employees belong and with which he will be negotiating. In this Bill we find on 38 occasions—in 16 clauses— that the hon. the Minister acts the power to do something or to refuse something. The hon. the Minister is aware of the sensitive situation in which trade unions are placed at the moment in regard to the whole question of trade union rights, particularly of Black employees. I want to urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider the question of subsection (6). For that reason I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Houghton is certainly better than the one she had on the Order Paper. However, I cannot see the need for her amendment because the experts she spoke of in her motivation for the amendment have already been seconded to the Bantu Administration Board. Why must we also bring local authorities into this? As far as I know, we had long debates over the transition of the pension schemes and employment schemes for the employees of local authorities when the original Bill on Bantu boards was introduced. Therefore, I do not see any necessity for that amendment.

As regards the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, let me say that I believe there is a necessity to have some control over the organizations one’s staff can belong to. Sir, this amendment has come suddenly, it has come out of nowhere, but if my memory serves me, the municipal ordinances of the Cape Province give the Administrator some say in respect of the staff associations or trade unions members of staff of municipalities can belong to. I cannot swear to that, but I think that that is the position. Since this amendment was not on the Order Paper, I have not had an opportunity to check on that. I believe that, perhaps due to some short-coming in the trade union organization, there are trade unions that operate outside of the ambit of the Industrial Conciliation Act. Since they can operate outside of the ambit of that Act, they can be trade unions of a political nature. I would like to see the retention of the relevant subsections and therefore I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South either.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for Albany for his support. I agree with what he said. It is actually fundamental to Government administration that staff members of the Public Service do not have the right to strike, and we should like to include the same principle here. The hon. member for Albany also pointed out quite rightly, that I should not like to join issue with the local authorities. In the past we have been accused of luring away their officials. That is a matter about which there is even now a bit of bad feeling left between the two authorities. Most of the people who used to work for local authorities in connection with Bantu affairs, came over to the administration boards. Therefore, we have the necessary competent officials there, and we shall make use of that source. If there should be no qualified official available in isolated cases, people can be attracted to those bodies by advertising the posts. Consequently, I cannot accept any of those amendments.

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

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, we shall vote against this clause. Of all the clauses, this is one of the clauses to which we have the most fundamental objections. The hon. member for Parktown has, of course, discussed clause 5 which is the other clause to which we basically object. I cannot understand the purpose of including a clause such as clause 7 in a Bill that is designed essentially, if not entirely, to cater for the needs of urbanized people. It is true, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said in an earlier debate, that there are people in the urban areas who maintain strong ties with the tribal homelands, but basically areas like Soweto, Langa, Nyanga and other urban townships consist of people who consider themselves to be urbanized people. It is an insult to most of these people to have a sort of tribal court imposed on them in the year 1977.1 think I pointed out at an earlier stage in this debate that the original Urban Bantu Councils Act also contained a provision which enabled the Minister or the urban authority to pass the function of these kangaroo courts, as I call them, on to the people in the townships, but that function was never officially passed on. There must be a reason why not. After all, that Act was passed in 1961 though it really came into effect in 1968 with the establishment of the first urban Bantu councils. Nevertheless, that function was never handed on. Why not? Presumably because the hon. the Minister or the urban authority decided not to give this authority to unqualified persons in the urban areas. I want to point out that what this clause does is to hand judicial power, such as may in terms of sections 12 and 20 in the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, be conferred on a Bantu chief or headman, to somebody in a place like Soweto. If one examines the Bantu Administration Act, one finds that these people can be empowered to deal with a wide variety of cases. They are empowered to impose punitive measures for crimes up to the value of R40, and they are also allowed to impose public corporal punishment if they so wish on male persons up to the age of 30. Imagine this in Soweto in the present tension and climate which obtains in that area. Powers like this are to be handed to illiterate, uneducated people who are then going to be allowed to inflict corporal punishment—and they do it publicly; we have seen pictures of this—on their fellow citizens. It is absolutely abhorrent to anybody with any idea of human dignity. We constantly hear about human dignity in this House, but yet here we are in this day and age, introducing a measure of this kind.

They have a completely different version of it.

The hon. member for Cradock, who spoke on this issue the other day as well, says to me they have a completely different version of it. There is no such a thing as “they”. “They” consists of a million and a half people in Soweto who range from the most highly educated people, civilized Western people, to people who are migrant workers who have come into the cities for the first time. [Interjections.] This hon. member tells me that all of them are prepared to accept this type of punishment. [Interjections.] The Committee need not listen to me. Let me quote the views of other people in this regard. These are not my views or the views of the hon. member for Cradock. First of all I am going to quote the views of no one less than Brig. Visser, who is in charge of the police in Soweto. This is what Brig. Visser had to say after witnessing a punishment carried out by what I call a kangaroo court, the makgotla. I want to quote from an article on his reaction—

That is Brig. Visser’s opinion. He ought to know something about the people with whom he is dealing.

It has nothing to do with human dignity.

Nothing? I wonder if the hon. member has ever witnessed one of these public corporal punishments.

Yes.

Yet, he says it has nothing to do with human dignity. [Interjections.]

Let me quote somebody else. I want to quote one of “them”, viz. Percy Qoboza, who is the editor of The World, who had this to say—

At the end of the article he says—

That is one of “them”.

Let me now, if I may, quote one of “us”. Let me quote from the report of the Viljoen Commission. The hon. member for Cradock was a member of the Schlebusch Commission and I remember …

Hear, hear!

“Hear, hear!” says another ex-honourable “Schlebuschnik”. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should give the hon. member the opportunity to deliver her speech.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. When that hon. member was a member of the commission he used to throw up his hands in horror that anybody could cast aspersions on the work or recommendations of the Schlebusch Commission. The Schlebusch Commission was neither a judicial commission, nor an independent commission. Let me point out that it was a commission of politicians, and there was not a judge amongst them. [Interjections.] The hon. member must listen to this, because I am now quoting from the Viljoen Commission’s report, which was a commission to inquire into the penal system of the Republic of South Africa. That commission was headed by Judge Viljoen. After having listened to evidence not only from Soweto residents and the police, but also from the makgotla themselves, who had been operating unofficially in Soweto for many years, this is what the commission said and I quote from paragraphs 3.2.16 and 17—

For very good reasons which are stated very clearly earlier on.

The report continues—

The commission goes on to say in paragraph 3.2.19—

The commission says further on in paragraph 3.2.22—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches are also opposed to this clause. The clause seeks to introduce the courts of tribal jurisdiction, the chiefs’ courts, into an urban environment. One can understand the desire for any administrative authority to introduce into an urban Black community a system of justice which is informal and cheap, because the people concerned do not have much money to spend on it and one wants justice administered expeditiously. Having said that, one also wants justice that is impartial and that is administered by people who are trained to do it. The courts of Bantu Commissioner do have those qualities. They have trained officials administering the law … [Interjections.] I wish the hon. the Deputy Minister would stop his running commentary.

Order!

They have trained officials administering the courts, they have a simpler system of procedure, which means that the administration of justice is more expeditious and cheaper, and they are entitled to take account of Bantu law and customs, which means that the rigidities of our laws are tempered to the needs of the community concerned. If those courts were to be used to administer justice in the areas concerned, it would have our support. I have experience of the chiefs’ courts or the tribal courts in the sense that I live in a rural environment where my employees are from time to time required to invoke the aid of those courts. These courts are neither expeditious nor cheap. You have to pay the tribal messenger to summon your opponent. You have to pay the judicial officer to hear the case and it is the norm, rather than the exception, for the cases to be adjourned time and time again, further fees having to be paid for every adjournment.

“Bulomloma.”

Yes, exactly. Both the judicial officers and the messengers who fetch the parties on both sides and the witnesses have to be paid these fees. In a rural environment where time is not so important and where the community is settled into a leisurely existence, these things, whilst perhaps undesirable in my view, are nothing like as undesirable if that sort of system is to be imposed on an urban community where catching trains and buses is important to the earning of one’s livelihood and where staying away from work means a loss of income. My experience of the tribal courts is that they are wholly inappropriate to an urban community, even if properly run. If run in the manner in which many of those courts are run, according to my experience, they would be positively disadvantageous to the community concerned. It is for those reasons that we are opposed to this clause. It is in essence the introduction into an urban community—some of whom are sophisticated people; some of whom are educated people—of a system of courts which is wholly inappropriate and which would not advance their cause.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon. member to address the Committee, I want to point out that I regard this clause as one containing one of the principles of the Bill as read a Second Time. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of the House, I am prepared to allow one hon. member from each Opposition party to reiterate his party’s opposition to the clause, and the hon. the Minister to reply thereto. However, I am not going to allow any other hon. member to discuss the clause. That can be done during the course of the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Houghton. I believe quite honestly that both the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana have not made a careful study of this clause and of the position as it pertains at the moment in Soweto where the makgotla courts are operating.

Illegally!

At the present time the makgotla courts are operating outside the law. People get a thrashing and they have the right to lay a charge of assault, but because of fear of the makgotla no charge of assault is ever laid. This is the position as it pertains at the moment with such courts operating outside the law.

It is being alleged by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that his experience of this type of court is that it is often adjourned. However, what happens when a case is brought before a magistrate or before a court of Bantu commissioners? Those courts are also often adjourned. As far as my experience goes, they are frequently adjourned, despite the inconvenience of the people involved. What happens to the person concerned there who might have to catch a bus or a train to go to work? He is often remanded in custody. In a makgotla court he is not remanded in custody. The messenger will go and fetch him. However, what is also being forgotten is that by bringing this system under the purview of the law, the clause itself states, and I quote from subsection (1)—

There is an immediate right of appeal against a sentence, in both civil and criminal cases, before sentence is passed. In case hon. members are in doubt about what I say, I would ask them to look at section 12(4) of the Bantu Administration Act 1927, which reads—

That is in regard to a civil case. Let us look at what it says in regard to a criminal case, as set out in terms of section 20(6) of the same Act and which reads—

We regard this as a distinct improvement over such courts operating on their own without any control by the law of this country. That is the reason why we cannot support the amendment of the hon. member.

It should be stopped.

The hon. member says it should be stopped. How does she wish to stop malpractice if she does not bring the malpractice under the purview of the law and allow the person who is affected the right of appeal? We have so often heard from the PRP that the rule of audi alteram partem should always be recognized.

Yes, that is right.

The amendment distinctly allows that law, because one has the right of appeal to the court of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

They can still carry out corporal punishment.

I have already dealt with the argument that the court of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner often adjourns. I believe that this is a step forward and not a step backward. My colleagues in the SAP agree with me on this. We shall therefore support the clause as it stands, because we believe it is an improvement.

Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to reply to this?

No.

But I have not yet finished my own argument.

The hon. member has already stated her case and I have already given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, I told the hon. member for Houghton yesterday that she was arguing from the point of view of the most primitive form of the court which exists. She also gave examples. We also condemn that, but the problem with the hon. member is that she does not want to improve it by accepting this very clause. The situation to which she is referring is illegal and we also condemn it.

Charge them.

Now we want to give it proper legal authority and we want to control it properly. It should not be on the pattern which she condemns at all. I said yesterday that discussions were still taking place, even in Soweto, between the supporters and the opponents of some adapted system. Why should we not allow this discussion to continue? Why should the Police, together with this department, not join the discussions at some stage? Why can an acceptable form of court not arise from this discussion? The hon. member keeps on arguing on the basis of what is at present being done illegally, which we ourselves condemn. Nor should the hon. member forget—in that respect the hon. member for Albany is quite right—that these courts do not exist to the exclusion of the courts of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. They exist side by side and the individual has the choice of which of those courts he wants to go to.

Therefore I am not harming the individual in any way. The choice of the individual remains. Consultation will take place with these community councils. It says so in the clause. They themselves have to recommend someone who can be appointed. Will they go and recommend the weakest, the most primitive, the least educated person with the least knowledge of judicial affairs? I cannot imagine that. That is why I say the hon. member is arguing on a level which we should get away from, because she is quoting the most primitive instances. Now we want to give legal sanction to this matter and we want to place it under control. This is what this clause provides for.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

No, I want to reply to the hon. the Minister.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to do that. The hon. member may do so during the Third Reading. I cannot allow her to make another speech now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order! You have not heard what the hon. member has to say. Prior to hearing what the hon. member has to say …

Order! I have given my ruling at the commencement of this debate. I have already given the hon. member for Houghton the opportunity to put her party’s case on this clause. She can raise any further points during the course of the Third Reading. For now she can confine herself to the details of the clause. I am not going to allow any further discussion on the principles of this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—92: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; 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.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heerver, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Noes—31: Basson, J. D. Du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with the clause which establishes a community guard in the urban areas. There is some merit in the establishment of a municipal Police Force for an urban area, provided it is a properly administered Police Force and that it is administered under the proper police authority. In this instance the community guard is to be established by the hon. the Minister and is to be under the management—directly or indirectly—of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This means, in practice, that it will be administered by one of the officials of his department. In our view this ought to be administered by police officers in the normal manner of a Police Force, and we believe that whatever is done by the hon. the Minister should be done with the concurrence of the hon. the Minister of Police and not merely after consultation with him. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (1) On page 14, in line 3, to omit “after” and to substitute “in”.
   This would mean that the clause would read that “The Minister may, in consultation with the Minister of Police” do certain things. I move further as an amendment—
2. (2) On page 14, in lines 11 to 14, to omit paragraph (d).

That would be to exclude the right of the Minister to prescribe the functions of a messenger of a tribal court to be carried out by the police in question. We wish to exclude that not only because we disapprove of a tribal court being used in the area, but because it would bring odium and a certain amount of antagonism against the police in our view if they were to be used in that function.

I now move my third amendment—

This would mean that the constitution, the powers of control and the functions of any such police could only be prescribed with the consent of the Minister of Police. In short, what we have tried to do with this amendment is to bring in the control of the Minister of Police and, consequently, also the officials and officers of his department to the greatest extent that is possible.

Mr. Chairman, may I consult you on a point of order concerning the second amendment moved by the hon. member? This deals with the performance of the functions of a messenger. I believe in the acceptance of clause 7 the Committee has accepted that in principle. I believe that this particular amendment might well be in conflict with the principle embodied in clause 7.

Hon. members may continue to address the Committee while I consider this point.

Mr. Chairman, we said at Second Reading that a very substantial part of African opinion was opposed to the constitution of these community guards. They feel it is open to all kinds of abuse. They speak from a lot of experience in this regard. I want to quote to you from the leading article in The World of March 23, 1977, in which this is stated—

It seems to me that the danger of allowing community guards of this nature to be established is that they get completely out of hand. They become a force within a force. They have no experience; they have no background; they are being set up by bodies which have no experience in setting them up, and sooner or later the guards turn into private armies. This is what has happened in the past. They become the instrument of individuals fighting for power. Why should we run this risk?

They are asking protection money.

Yes. Of course. The system is open to all kinds of financial abuse also. These gangs or groups go around making a living out of protecting gangsters and thievery. Why should we run the risk of this happening? Why can we not learn from the experience in inter-war Europe, where incidentally armies of this nature grew up all over the place? We ourselves had some experience of this before the Second World War. I would like to know that while we need law enforcement, why can we not make these guards an integral part of the S.A. Police Force? According to this legislation the community guards are in any event going to be subject to the jurisdiction of the S.A. Police. So why not make them operate as an integral part of it? I can see no reason for not doing this. It can, if necessary be an all-Black force. There is no problem about that. I am afraid that what we are doing here is to create something simply because it is an extension of the apartheid or separateness mania of the ruling party. I urge the hon. the Deputy Minister to forget about separate forces and to leave law enforcement to the S.A. Police, which, as I said earlier, can have an entirely Black force operating in these areas. It would then be part of an established country-wide force not liable to operate independently, as it will almost inevitably otherwise do.

The Viljoen Commission was unable to recommend that any vigilante group should be legally recognized in any form other than a reservist force. This is precisely the point we are making—it should be an integral part of the police, operating under the jurisdiction of the police.

The Viljoen Commission went on to state that since this situation existed in the country, there was no need for any vigilante force to act on its own. The main risk is that a vigilante force which is not subject to official control, may eventually turn into criminals like the Msomi Gang. That is precisely the point we have been trying to make, namely that it is open to all kinds of possibilities. I cannot see any merit in the suggestion. We are entirely opposed to the establishment of such a force.

Order! I just want to reply to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Albany …

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that point of order?

No, I do not think it is necessary. In regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Albany, I want to point out that according to clause 7, the hon. the Minister may appoint those people and in terms of clause 8 he may appoint the community guard. Different persons may be appointed. That amendment is thus in order.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling on the point of order. We can support the first and third amendments proposed by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana because it is in line with our thinking. We believe that there should be closer co-operation between the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and the hon. the Minister of Police in the establishment of the home guard. I personally believe that these two amendments will probably be accepted by the hon. the Deputy Minister, because I do not think they are out of line with his thinking.

I want to refer to the second amendment. In spite of the fact that a different person appoints the messenger, I think one is going to run into difficulties if that is permitted, because if one looks at clause 12 one will find that the chief or headman has to collect his fines by way of his deputy or a messenger. Having accepted in principle the fact that that particular piece of legislation is now part of this Bill, one cannot then exclude the right of the chief or headman to have a deputy or a messenger. I think we should retain that provision in order to ensure the smooth functioning of a Bill which has shortcomings. Therefore we cannot support the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. member for Parktown said is already contained in the clause. I am prepared to accept the third amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The crux of the matter is that the constitution, control, management, appointments, powers, functions, duties discipline of those members will take place in consultation with the Minister of Police. We shall have no problems with that. With regard to the appointment, referred to in clause 8(1), I should like to leave things as they are so that the Minister has the discretion to decide whether or not such a body should be established. If such a body is established, it will have to be done in consultation with the Minister of Police. As far as paragraph (d) is concerned, clause 7 provides that there will be some form of court. If we were to delete paragraph (d) of clause 8, I feel we would be removing a part of the machinery in accordance with which that court has to operate. That is why I cannot accept that amendment in respect of the deletion of clause 8(1)(d). As I have indicated, I do, in fact, accept the amendment in respect of clause 8(2).

Amendment (1) negatived.

Amendment (2) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (3) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; 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.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—28: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

1. (1) On page 14, in line 28, to omit all the words after “amount” up to and including “Act” in line 31 and to substitute:
   accruing by way of rentals, sale of beer or liquor, or composite fees
2. (2) on page 14, in line 47, to omit “as determined by the Minister”.

The object of these amendments is to try to provide some sort of financial viability for the community councils. At the present stage clause 9, which controls the manner in which the funds of the community councils shall be made available, limits this to a fairly narrow scope, although, of course, clause 9(1)(b) is not defined and the administration boards may, with the approval of the Minister, pay over additional amounts. However, they may also pay no amount so that the community councils may be left to flounder along simply on the levies or the fines which they are empowered to impose on the residents of the area which they control.

We all know that the major sources of revenue of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards are, firstly, the connection of rentals in the area concerned, secondly, the money which is made by the sale of liquor and of beer and, thirdly, the composite fees paid by employers. These three are the main sources of revenue.

I have attempted to enable the community councils, as of right, and not just simply as a hand-out from the administration boards concerned, to get this revenue to enable them to have funds with which to provide the services that they have to provide for the residents of the area. I do not believe that these community councils are going to have any respect from the residents in the areas unless they are able to provide the services that they are supposed to provide, and they cannot do so unless they are given proper funds. These areas are areas without rateable properties, they do not have the infrastructure of a business community and there is no money forthcoming from those very lucrative sources that most urban local authorities enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, apparent in this clause is the philosophical difference that exists between the NP Government and the UP. We have believed that these local authorities, the local bodies, should have the power to control their own affairs, but without funds they cannot do anything at all. Inherent in this clause is the attitude of the NP which, over the years, has said to the provinces that they cannot tax, that they must not raise any money of their own and that if they want anything, they must come cap in hand to father who would give them the pennies that would come from his coffers. This is apparent in the clause and for that reason we cannot support the clause as it stands. We shall support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton, which do tend to give them a degree of autonomy, a fiscus of their own and the opportunity of having money which they can say is their own of right, so that it will not be necessary for them to go cap in hand every time either to the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards or to the hon. the Minister.

Read the clause.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must not lead me astray because he knows I am right. Of course I have read the clause. For those reasons we shall support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that once again I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Houghton. Her first amendment again, as in so many other amendments to the Bill, takes away the second tier of Government, i.e. funds provided by the administration boards. The administration board has certain funds available to it and there should be a second tier. These hon. members are always talking about the different tiers of Government and I believe there should be three tiers of Government. The hon. member for Houghton proposes to insert, after “amount” the words “accruing by way of rentals, sale of beer or liquor, or composite fees”, but if the hon. member looks at clause 9(1)(e), she will find reference to “any amounts obtained from any other source”.

If the hon. member had read the Bill correctly, she would have realized that a council will have the power to sell its own liquor, and that it can get its own funds from that. It will have the power to sell its own Bantu beer and it can also get funds from there. The board will have the power to run these sorts of schemes and therefore there is no need to put that extra provision in here in order to take away the third tier of Government.

The hon. member’s second amendment refers to the provision that a council shall manage its financial affairs “as determined by the Minister”. It is argued by both the official and the unofficial Opposition …

The future official Opposition.

The official future Opposition sits in these benches. It is argued by both parties to my right that this places a restriction on a local authority. Every single local authority in the Cape Province has to manage its financial affairs according to the ordinance relating to auditing of the accounts of local authorities. Every single local authority is bound by that ordinance and they may not do it in any other way. The Administrator is the big boss. How can one establish a local authority to run its financial affairs in its own sweet way without any prescribed manner in which it should be run? I think this amendment is utterly ridiculous and that we should stop wasting the time of the Committee with this sort of thing.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say “selah!” in regard to the last words of the hon. member for Albany. The hon. member was entirely correct, because how is a local authority or a form of local authority administered? The hon. member hit the nail on the head, and I do not even want to add anything to that. The crux of the matter is that the financial provision for these councils will be proportionate to the services they render. If the scope of the services were to increase and if more responsibilities were to be entrusted to them, it surely goes without saying that the finance provided would also have to be increased so that they can render those services. However, everything is not spelt out in such exact terms in the Bill. As regards that part of the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment concerning house rental, I want to point out that there are fixed amounts—this relates to house rental as such—which have to be repaid to the Department of Community Development at a specific rate of interest. It need not therefore be transferred. It is possible that all the rental on premises, including the money paid for services, will be channelled to that body. Depending on the progress that is made, a decision will be made on the obligations and functions to be awarded to that body. The other amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton is actually too ridiculous to be true. Its intention is that there should not even be a prescription relating to the way in which books are kept and the way in which funds may be spent. Therefore I am not prepared to accept either of those two amendments.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—84: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause 11:

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

1. (1) On page 14, in line 61, to omit all the words after “(1)” up to and including “thereby,” in line 1 on page 16 and to substitute “A community council may”;
2. (2) on page 16, in lines 31 and 32, to omit “The Minister may, after consultation with the administration board and the community council concerned,” and to substitute “A community council may”.

Order! I am unable to accept the amendments as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I accept your ruling. Please do grant me a minute or two, however, just to explain what our ideas on this matter are, why we are opposed to this clause and what we actually have in mind with our amendments.

As in the case of clause 5, we feel that the Minister and the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have far too many powers. Over and above the powers granted in terms of clause 5, they are also empowered, in terms of clause 11, to make regulations or to make existing regulations applicable to certain matters. That is set out on page 17, line 3, etc. That is the one shortcoming we wanted to prevent, viz. the right of the Minister to make regulations in certain instances and to grant certain rights to community councils.

We feel that these councils should have more powers; they must have the feeling that they can work on their own. If we do not give the community councils those powers, they will never feel that they are really in charge in their own area. What we cannot understand is why there is mistrust in these councils, a sort of mistrust in advance. That will give them no self-respect, and why should they always be subject to the authority of the Minister and the administration boards? We feel that this will only cause psychological obstacles in the community councils. It will complicate their existence to a great extent and we regret that these powers cannot be limited further.

Clause agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill emerges from the Committee Stage substantially unaltered. Because we have expressed our views fully on this Bill during the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage as far as the various clauses are concerned, it is necessary for me only to summarize our views at the Third Reading.

We find this Bill objectionable in principle because it does not introduce the type of local authority to the urban Bantu areas which we would wish to see there. We would wish to see proper local authorities established in these areas that approximate to what is the norm amongst the other communities in this country. We would like to see a local authority with sufficient jurisdiction to be able to control an urban area and sufficient jurisdiction to give it status against the other pressures which are building up in those areas. We would also wish to see a local authority having a sufficiently adequate source of funds in the first instance, and a sufficiently adequate source of funds under its control to be used at the discretion of the local authority itself without interference in the second instance. In none of these respects does the sort of council which it is proposed to set up in terms of this Bill come anywhere near to what we wish to see. Funds are very limited and they constitute to a large extent a hand-out in the discretion of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. The jurisdiction is very limited indeed and consists largely of some of the more unpopular aspects of the administrative powers presently held by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. There are other factors which add to our disapproval of the measure. They can be summed up as being judicial powers, both civil and criminal, taken over from the chiefs or the tribal courts, which we regard as both inappropriate to the community concerned and having undesirable aspects which I dealt with at the Committee Stage. In addition to that there is the establishment of a community guard or police force which, in our view, is not under proper police control as the Bill stands at the present time.

Having said that, I think I have said enough to summarize our objection to the Bill and we shall accordingly vote against it at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana I do not intend to repeat, in any detail, the arguments we advanced at Second Reading against this Bill. We are, of course, going to oppose it at Third Reading because there have been no changes of any importance during the Committee-Stage. Our main objection to this Bill is that the new community councils represent, in point of fact, the third attempt of successive Governments in South Africa to give uban Africans some authority over their own affairs. The first attempt was the introduction of the advisory boards which, by their very name and description, were obviously not boards with any executive functions. The second was the introduction of the UBCs, the Urban Bantu Councils, which have proved to be a failure, and this now is the third attempt, with the introduction of the community councils, to try to give the urban Africans a certain measure of authority. We believe that this does not go nearly far enough. This does not begin to measure up to the authority that is normally given to local bodies and we do not therefore think that this is going to satisfy the aspirations of those educated and sophisticated urban people who do not want to be under the heavy hand either of the hon. the Minister or the administration boards, having been under their heavy hand ever since the Bantu Affairs Administration Act was passed in 1971. I believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is showing insensitivity—which I must say I would not have ascribed to him because I have not found him to be an insensitive person on the occasions when I have had to approach him for assistance—in this measure, firstly by leaving the administration boards so largely in authority when he knows perfectly well how unpopular those particular boards are.

You are making them unpopular.

I do not make them unpopular. I did not burn down the administration buildings. The boards unfortunately have to implement unpopular laws. That hon. member must think about that. They have to implement laws which are not received with any joy by the residents of the townships, and therefore the officials unwittingly bring down the wrath of the townships upon their heads.

You are creating the atmosphere.

That has nothing to do with me. It has a great deal to do, however, with the laws which this Government has passed. Again the hon. member, who has just interjected, falls into the error of believing that Africans have no minds of their own. He is contemptuous of the ability of Africans to think for themselves and believes that every bit of disapproval that the Africans have of the laws that are passed by this Government only emerges because they have been told that the laws are bad—not because they feel the effects of these laws, but because some “superior” White being has told them that these laws are not to their benefit. That hon. member, as I say, does not think that Africans can work these things out for themselves. I advise him to read the editorials that appear in The World. They are not written by me, or by any member of the RPR, but are written by urban Africans who live in the townships and know exactly what the conditions are like. That is consequently another objection we have.

Another objection which also shows a surprising lack of sensitivity, as I have said, on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister is the inclusion of the clause which gives judicial powers to illiterate and uneducated people in the townships—these people may be uneducated and illiterate and will certainly be untrained, because there is no reason to believe that any of these people would have judicial training—and allows them to inflict punishment on fellow residents. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to say, as he did during the Committee Stage— something which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Albany—that there are appeals against these sentences …

Before appealing they can go to another court.

They can try, but does the hon. the Deputy Minister know how these courts work? They work by way of inflicting physical punishment. I have looked at the clause, and all I can say is that one should not try to combat the illegal courts simply by making them legal. That is, however, what that hon. Deputy Minister is trying to do. He is trying to overcome the operation of the illegal makgotlas simply by making them legal by this measure, and that is no way to do it. What he must do is simply not to allow the illegal ones to operate. Has he ever seen any of those courts operating? Has he seen any of the punishments carried out? No, he has not. I am sure he has not and that he would not allow them if he had seen them. To try and imagine that you can simply overcome the obvious injustices of these courts by making them legal is absurd because the people operating them are not trained judicial officers. The people in the townships resent this and I really implore the hon. the Minister not to go ahead with this because there is already tension in those areas. We saw what happened again yesterday and it can happen again the day after tomorrow or even tomorrow. This is the very thing which is provocative in view of the strong objections which have been expressed by the Africans in those areas. I will read yet another leading article from The World of 16 February. It is entitled “The Police must not condone laws of the jungle”. This was written shortly after the senior police officer sat down to watch the handling of citizens by the makgotla. Thereafter Brig. Visser expressed his strong objection to the legalization of this system. This is what the leading article of The World of 16 February says—

Could there be stronger condemnation of the makgotla system than the words that I have just read out? I ask the hon. the Minister to think again before he imposes this system on the urbanized people among the Africans.

The funding has also been mentioned again by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I agree with everything he said. There is inadequate funding even for the services which the community councils are presently going to be expected to carry out. Of course we do not know how many of these functions are in fact going to be transferred to those people. We may have another “UBC” set of circumstances where these councils sit with the law, but where most of the functions are never handed over to them at all. We do not want the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards to be retained. They are expensive and top heavy with bureaucracy. Something like 50% of the expenditure of those bodies is on salaries, wages and allowances. In last year’s budget of approximately R55 million something like R23 million was for services. We believe that Soweto and the other large townships should be part and parcel of metropolitan systems, linked to the urban authorities to which they are adjacent in some sort of regional form so that they can get the services such as garbage removal, sewerage, electricity and water on an agency basis. We believe that will be the most economic way of doing it. We think it is wrong for these areas to have to set up their own expensive infrastructure when they can obtain these services more easily from the metropolitan local authorities. We do not believe that the method of setting these councils up is going to lead to a very efficient system.

To sum up, the Community Councils Bill is a disappointment. It sets up bodies with responsibilities but with little power and less finance. It means that the councils are going to bear the brunt of implementing many of the unpopular laws which the Government has introduced and they will not be in a position to effect any meaningful change in the standard of living or the life style of the people living in the urban areas. I think that the Bill cannot but be a disappointment to all of us who hoped that this Bill would herald a new deal for the Africans in the urban areas of South Africa. We in these benches will vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, we shall oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. At Second Reading we asked for the Bill to be referred to a commission to study the whole subject-matter of the Bill. We did that for two specific reasons. In the first place we want a simplified consolidated Act out of which would lead a forward-moving pattern which could be used as a blueprint for the establishment of local authorities, urban authorities in the Bantu areas.

The Bill has been through the Committee Stage. Concerning a Bill of this nature, a committee of the House is inhibited because it has no right to consolidate the Bill with other Acts. We therefore have to see to it that what is before us is workable. We have done so.

However, having listened to some of the amendments which have been proposed and some of the arguments which have been put forward during the Committee Stage, one would imagine that the hon. the Minister is the devil himself. I believe we have before us something which is not complete, but something which is at least a start.

I want to deal with the passionate argument which has again recently been made by the hon. member for Houghton with regard to the makgotla system. This is not a legalization of brutality.

It is, you know!

I wish the hon. member for Houghton would take her blinkers off and really think about it. It has been dealt with very carefully. The hon. the Deputy Minister also dealt with it. The hon. member for Houghton says that these will be tribal courts that will be brutal. The point is that there are courts operating outside of the law at the moment. Leading people of ability in the society will be appointed to those positions by the hon. the Minister.

How do you know?

Do you think they are going to be brutal? Do you think the hon. the Minister is going to appoint a bunch of fools? Furthermore—the hon. member for Jeppe has not been here earlier on in this debate; all of a sudden he is here now— provision is being made for a built-in appeal.

How can this be legalized brutality? Does the hon. member honestly think that the courts of Bantu Commissioners are also brutal? I do not believe so. I think we should get this sort of publicity out of the minds of the people and out of South African terminology, because this is what is causing tension in this country. We are always talking about legalized brutality when no such thing is intended. Nevertheless I believe it should have been a far better and more consolidated Bill. It should have had many more ramifications. We shall oppose the Third Reading. I make an urgent request to people who use these arguments—like the hon. member for Houghton—not to do so as it is not in our, South Africa’s, or the Black people’s interest to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we have now progressed as far as the Third Reading. The hon. member for Houghton is implying that I am halfway to being a devil and points out that I even have two little horns. Let us, however, leave it at that. Objections to the Third Reading have been raised by three spokesmen on that side of the House, but I am not going to deal with each of the objections again because we did so reasonably comprehensively during the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. All that remains for-me to do—I should like to do it at this juncture—is to appeal to hon. members not to create a climate of opposition to this measure outside this House, even if they do not support the measure. Not that I am accusing them in advance of doing so. I am merely appealing to them. I should like them to allow this matter to develop peacefully. They must give it a chance so that responsible leaders can be elected in the various communities because, let us admit this, in many communities—perhaps also in our White communities at times, but now we are speaking specifically of Black communities—we have a lack of really responsible leaders. This Bill creates an opportunity for them to come forward and place themselves at the service of their community. There are many matters which have to be thrashed out with them. The system, about which the hon. member for Houghton has just kicked up such a fuss, can be thrashed out with those responsible leaders. Discussions can be held so that they can also indicate what form of court they would like. If they do not want it, then they can say so. If it depended on me, I would not force anything on them. Everything will take place after proper consultation. That is why I am making a friendly appeal that we give this measure a chance to be implemented and developed in practice so that leaders and communities can jointly establish something for their people.

I want to repeat: It is not the intention to legalize brutality; it is not the intention to bring about an extension of the so-called “bush courts” by means of this legislation. Let us allow responsible leaders to be chosen so that they can negotiate these matters. Then we can see whether there is any real reason for the complaints the hon. member for Houghton advanced.

I want to thank hon. members for their participation in this discussion. Even though we did disagree with each other, I nevertheless think that the discussions were conducted in a good spirit. I trust that attention will also be paid to the appeal I have just made so that in future, when we meet again, it will be possible to make this admission: “Very well, we were wrong at the time. This is working better than we expected it to. ”

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—86: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. 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, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C,; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—36: 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.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz. H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. Miller and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

An explanatory memorandum on the Bill has already been tabled. I hope that it has served its purpose. In addition, however, I should now like, briefly, to explain the Bill clause by clause.

Clause 1:

Ordinance 7 of 1922, known as the Liquor Ordinance, applies only in Transkei by virtue of a reference in the Transkeian Territories Liquor Proclamation, 1949 (Proclamation 33 of 1949), and because it is not applicable in the Republic, it is being removed from the Statute Book.

Clause 2:

In terms of existing statutory provisions trust land which has been excised from the released or scheduled areas becomes the property of the State. In this way poorly situated Bantu-owned land which is vacated on the authority of the State becomes the property of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

The S.A. Bantu Trust must provide compensatory land for land which is excised from the released or scheduled area and in connection with the vacated Bantu-owned land, and must consequently employ its funds for this purpose.

Notwithstanding the obligation on the Trust to provide compensatory land, the Trust receives no compensation for its land which has been transferred to the State or in respect of the compensatory land or Bantu-owned land.

An interdepartmental committee investigated the question of the financing of the Trust and recommended that the proceeds or value of former trust land should accrue to the S.A. Bantu Fund.

Clause 3:

The penal provision for a contravention of section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, is found in section 44, read in conjunction with section 33bis of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955.

The existing position has simply not achieved the desired result and it has become necessary to prescribe a more realistic sanction so that effective steps can be taken against people who continue to contravene the Act deliberately, despite the help and advice they receive from officials and particularly from the aid centres.

Clause 4:

This amendment is related to the same problem referred to in clause 3 and consequently the same considerations apply, but further to that it should be borne in mind that the person who illegally takes the employee into his service is in fact the decoy who encourages the employee into the contravention, and consequently penalties are being prescribed for second offenders, which will be a greater deterrent.

Clause 5:

Section 19(3) of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, makes provision for dealing with the profits from the sale of Bantu beer and the purposes for which various portions of the profits may be employed. As a result of earlier amendments, however, the entire profit may now be employed for the same purposes, and section 19(3)(c), which apportions the profits, is now redundant and is being repealed.

Clause 6:

Section 43sept, of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, prohibits the rendering of assistance or the giving of advice by any person other than a practising attorney or advocate and is aimed at what are commonly known as pass advisers.

The reason for this prohibition is that such advisers, who are untrained for their task, act on behalf of people who have frequently been advised by legal men that they have no hope of success, and in the course of their illegal practice issue all kinds of unauthorized documents to uninformed people which brings them under the mistaken impression that they have legal consent for a certain course of action. The advisers are unable to render any useful service to their clients and take considerable fees for rendering no service at all. They are parasites living off the population and those of them who are brought to book must be severely dealt with.

Clause 7:

This clause is fully dealt with in the explanatory memorandum and it is only necessary to say that the repeal of section 3(1)bis(c) makes it possible to issue a proof of identity to a foreign Bantu.

Clause 8:

This clause has the effect of transferring the power to make regulations in terms of the relevant section from the State President to the Minister.

Clause 9:

The purchase of traveller’s tickets is a source of inconvenience to Black workers. Usually they have to wait until they receive their salaries at the end of a working week before they can buy their tickets and the resultant rush causes congestion, delays and inconvenience which leads to the people concerned arriving home late, or turning up late for work. This amendment is intended to make an arrangement possible whereby large employers in particular may buy traveller’s tickets for their employees on a large scale and deduct the price of the traveller’s tickets from their wages. In this way we hope to alleviate the pressure on ticket offices at the end of a week in that such large employers will be able to purchase tickets in advance and in this way eliminate the inconvenience to their Black workers.

Clause 10:

Section 3(7) of the Bantu Authorities’ Service Pension Act provides that interest at the rate of 4½% shall be paid on the transfer value of a new member’s interest in a previous fund, and this interest rate is now being increased to 5% to bring it into line with the position of the pension fund for Public Servants.

Clause 11:

In terms of the Bantu Authorities’ Service Pension Act, 1971, a joint pension fund was established for persons in the permanent employ of homeland Governments in the Republic and South West Africa.

Since provision has been made for the homelands to establish their own pension funds, arrangements are being made for the transfer of the interests of their employees in the existing joint funds to a fund which may be established for employees of a particular homeland.

Clause 12:

Further to the detailed explanations already furnished in the memorandum which has been tabled, I should just like to mention that the amendments seek—

1. 1(b) to eliminate an anomaly in respect of the calculation of transfer value by actuaries;
2. 1(c) to arrange for the payment of 5% interest on transfer values between pension funds and fix a higher rate of 6% where the amount is paid in more than one instalment;
3. 1(d) to arrange for interest on the transfer value of a member’s interest in the Associated Institutions Pension Fund upon transfer to a municipal fund to be calculated at the time when he was a member of the first-mentioned fund and not on the period of service, since the two periods need not necessarily be the same.

Clause 13:

The Limitation of Legal Proceedings (Provincial and Local Authorities) Act, No. 94 of 1970, is, through this amendment, being made applicable to Bantu Affairs Administration Boards.

Clause 15:

This clause contains the short title.

I trust that the Bill will meet with general support.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill in which there is no clear principle. It is a series of amendments to a series of Acts. As I say, it is difficult to discern a principle in this measure at all. There are some clauses in this Bill to which we have no objection. However, there are two clauses in particular to which we do have objections. They are of such a nature that we shall oppose this Bill at Second Reading.

The clauses which I refer to are clauses 3 and 4. They relate to amendments to the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945.

In the first instance, clause 3 relates to offences which exist in regard to the presence of a workseeker in an urban area. It is well-known that for a long period of time we have objected to the manner of administration of the pass laws by the Government. In this instance—in clause 3—we are dealing with an increase in the penalty in respect of a workseeker who is in an urban area beyond the period which he is entitled to be there in terms of that Act. I am the first to admit that, whether or not one likes a law, if there is an offence created in that law, there obviously has to be a penalty. But a penalty exists in the Act as it stands at the present time. The existing penalty for a first offender, i.e. a workseeker who has outstayed the period of time within which he is entitled to be seeking work in an urban area—and I emphasize that we are dealing with workseekers here—is R20 or two months’ imprisonment, or a prison sentence alone of two months without the option. In our view, for a first offender of this kind, that is an adequate penalty. In terms of the existing law a second or subsequent conviction warrants the imposition of a fine up to R50 or three months’ imprisonment, or three months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Up to three months.

It is not a compulsory sentence. It provides for up to three months’ imprisonment, without the option of a fine. The point that I am trying to make is that a judicial officer, taking a serious view of the case, can impose three months’ imprisonment without the option. For the offence which we are dealing with and which I have already indicated clearly, these penalties in the existing law in our view are sufficiently severe, particularly, as I have said, for people who are in the area concerned primarily in order to seek work. If they are persistent offenders, they can, as I have indicated, go to gaol for three months without the option. Holding that view I can see no reason for the increase of the penalty as is proposed in this Bill. Consequently I am opposed to clause 3.

Clause 4 is an amendment to that section of the law which relates to an employer giving work to persons in the former category, i.e. persons who have out-stayed the period within which they are permitted to seek work. I think anybody would experience an inherent feeling of basic disapproval—one starts off from a point of view of disapproval—where a law penalizes a man who is prepared to give work to somebody who wishes to work. One starts off with a basic disapproval of that situation. Under the existing law penalties exist for contraventions of this kind. There is a fine of up to R50 in the case of a first offender, or three months’ imprisonment in the case of a first offender, which to us seems adequate for the offence committed by an employer in giving work to a person to whom, in terms of the law, he is not entitled to give work. So far as a second offence is concerned, there is a minimum penalty, not any more a fine of up to R50, but an obligatory penalty of a minimum of R50 or three months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine. Here again, because of the nature of the offence, i.e. a man giving work to somebody who wishes to work, we believe that the existing penalties are perfectly adequate, and we are therefore opposed to the increase which appears in clause 4.

For the rest of the Bill, the matters dealt with are generally speaking not important. There are some measures which carry our approval—for example, the increase in the penalty in clause 6, where one is dealing with fake legal advisers and institutions of that kind, the bail bureaux which make enormous profits in advancing moneys to people who cannot afford to pay it back, etc. I think that sort of thing ought to be controlled.

A query will be raised in regard to clause 2 in the Committee Stage. There is also the question of clause 9, which the hon. the Minister has cleared up now in the speech which he has just delivered. As far as the clauses dealing with pension matters are concerned—there are a number of them—I wish to say nothing further.

One can summarize the attitude of this side by saying that our objection to clauses 2, 3 and 4 warrants, in our view, opposition to the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I am only going to deal with four clauses in the Bill. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana stated it as his party’s standpoint that in fact they only oppose clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. However, they consider these clauses to be so seriously flawed that they are, because of that, going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill, in spite of all the other good provisions which are contained in it. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the entire question of influx control and its effective application. I find this totally incomprehensible, for the party of that hon. member is in favour of influx control. If one is in favour of influx control, one must be able to apply it effectively.

You have penalties enough already.

To be able to apply it effectively, one has to create certain offences, and if one creates certain offences—and the hon. member conceded this—one has to provide effective penal provisions for them. The hon. member indicated what the old penalties were and what the new ones will be. The hon. member would have seen that the maximum period of imprisonment used to be three months. That remains unchanged. If the hon. member had referred to the General Laws Amendment Act which dealt with this matter, he would have seen that this was merely an adjustment of the amount of the fine owing to inflation. It has been adjusted to keep pace with the depreciation of money. That is all. After all, the old penalties, in terms of which a first offender is fined R20 and a second offender R50 have been on the Statute Book for donkey’s years. All that is being done now is that the fines are being increased to the realistic amount of R100. I want to say, with all due respect, that the hon. member did not make out a case for there being a fundamental difference between the new section to which reference is being made in clause 3 and the existing section.

I think I made the point that we should, in a clause of this nature, prescribe a realistic sanction, because the provision as it stands here is only aimed at people—this is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in the Second Reading Speech—who deliberately, and knowing what the position is, nevertheless continue to contravene the Act.

Since the original Act was placed on the Statute Book, we have made a great deal of progress in this sphere. The hon. member referred to “work-seekers” as though they were people who entered a White area quite innocently and who were then picked up in their ignorance while they were genuinely looking for work. Then such a poor wretch has to bring a penalty of this nature upon himself. Surely the hon. member knows that this is not true. Since the old provision was placed on the Statute Book, we have introduced the aid centres.

Surely the hon. member is aware of the tremendous amount of work which is being done by the aid centres in this regard in our cities. In Pretoria I had experience of the tremendous and commendable work being done by the aid centre there. The people who eventually find themselves in court are, as the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly stated, merely those who deliberately, and knowing what the position is, nevertheless continue to commit a contravention, after they had been advised as to the correct procedure in this regard by the aid centres and by officials of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards.

I wish to raise another aspect in regard to clause 3. One should also bear in mind that not all Black people in White towns are single. On the contrary. The hon. member is aware of the tremendously large percentage who are here in a family basis. Consequently we also have a duty to protect those who are here. We must protect the present labour market from people from elsewhere. That point was argued in great detail yesterday and today during the discussion of the previous piece of legislation on community councils. To be able to provide such protection, we must have effective influx control measure. The so-called “work-seekers” to which the hon. member referred have to comply with certain employment procedures, and those employment procedures are not as difficult as that hon. member tried to imply. They are definitely not all that difficult. Nor are those people all that ignorant of those procedures. I can tell the hon. member that as well. As long as those procedures are there in order to guarantee effectiveness, it will be necessary to continue with the provision of this nature. I wish to let that suffice.

That brings me to clause 4. Here a sanction is being applied against the White employer who wilfully employs a Black person illegally, but the hon. member says that this penalty is also excessive for what more does one want than the fact that a person has effectively found work and is employed? That was what I understood him to say. The hon. member then wonders why the Act should regard him as illegal. Surely that is an attitude which one cannot tolerate because it contradicts the entire idea of the protection of the existing labour force. It makes a farce of influx control in its entirety. Here we also have a case—the hon. member will have observed this—where the provisions pertaining to imprisonment for three months remain unchanged. In other words, in respect of first and second offenders—a system which is in fact being retained here—the fine of R50 is becoming a fine of only R100 in both cases, with this difference that in the case of the first offence the fine of R100 is a maximum fine while in the case of a second offence it is a minimum fine. There are many people who simply ignore influx control measures. These are people who think only of their own pockets and their own convenience. They simply regard the Act with contempt. Certainly they do not care either about what becomes of the Black man—whom they employ in this way—in the process. I want to state with great emphasis that if the Whites do not have respect for their own laws, how can we expect it of the Blacks? That is why it is necessary for us to increase these sanctions effectively to compel people to obey them. People have to be compelled into discipline and obedience. What happens in reality? A White person who illegally employs a Black person, makes an offender of that Black person as well. It is sometimes an entirely innocent and ignorant Black person—I want to add this—whom he entices into his employ and then simply accommodates in his backyard without having followed the necessary registration and employment procedures.

In the end the Black person also gets into trouble. I want to mention an example here. Not very long ago, in my constituency, a complaint was received that a person was illegally employing a number of Bantu because he was also illegally operating a business undertaking on his residential property. When a raid was carried out, it was found that there were—my figure may be wrong now, but it is not important—no fewer than six Black people in the back-yard of an ordinary residential property in a residential area who were being illegally employed by him and who were sleeping in his back-yard. This person was taken to court, was found guilty and paid his fine, and I can give you the assurance that the very next week, when a follow-up raid was made on the same premises, approximately four people were again found who were there illegally. If this is the case, it is time we revised these fines, and that is all that is being done here.

It is a bad law.

That hon. member says “it is a bad law”, but the moment one wishes to improve the Act and turn it into good legislation, he is the first to cry out against it.

You want to make the law harsher.

I want to refer to clause 6, which, in my opinion, is one of the most important clauses of this entire Bill. I am astonished that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana passed over it so quickly. It deals with the amendment of section 43sept2(a), i.e. with measures for clamping down on the so-called “advisers”. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred in very stringent terms to this kind of person in his introductory speech, and I want to tell you that these pass advisers are nothing but exploiters, particularly since we now have the aid centres which are doing a great job in this regard.

A Black person is advised by aid centres and officials that the pass advisers can do naught for his comfort, but they come to him, in his ignorance, and tell him that they are able to help him and that they are able to provide him with certain documents. In the end he has to pay a tremendous amount of money for those documents, and to crown it all, such a Black person finds that he eventually ends up in court in any case, and has to pay a fine there as well. It is very difficult to bring this type of person to book. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member and his party support this, because it is a practice which we have to eradicate.

I also have great appreciation for the provisions of clause 9 of this Bill. They will enable large employers to purchase traveller’s tickets for their Black employees and then recover the cost of such tickets from their wages at the end of the month. This will eliminate a great deal of congestion and a great deal of the frustration of our workers’ corps, and I am very grateful that this clause is being placed on the Statute Book. With these few words I am grateful that I am able to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the strictures the hon. member for Koedoespoort had to advance against the arguments of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana obviously cannot be advanced against us on these benches. In principle we are against the pass laws. In principle we are against laws which try to control the movement of people within their own country. We believe that it is an elementary right of a citizen to move freely …

We expect that from you.

I do not care what the hon. member expects; I am merely telling him. The policy of this party is to allow citizens of a country the elementary right to be allowed to move freely about the country to which they belong and to seek to sell their labour in the best market. To us this is an elementary human right, and we abide by that. We agree that the laws that have been imposed in this country on Africans and only on Africans for many years, cannot be abolished overnight. That would clearly not be a possibility. Together with the abolition of the pass laws must go the provision of housing, the opening up of job opportunities and labour bureaux which will guide the labour to those areas where it is required. Those are obvious, elementary facts.

We also say that for people to think that by passing a law they are going to stop hungry people from coming in from the rural areas, is nonsense since people leave the rural areas not because they are attracted by the bright lights of the city.

They are not always hungry, you know.

They leave the rural areas because they want to seek better economic opportunities for themselves and their families. This is the main reason, of course, for urbanization all over the world. It is the main reason for the urbanization of the White, Coloured and Indian populations of South Africa as well. Nobody denies that urbanization brings with it many problems, as urbanization all over the world has brought its problems, but in the main and in the long run it has resulted in a raising of the standards of living of the people concerned. This is economic history, about which I know a little. It is the economic history of all the industrializing countries, that populations move from the rural areas to the urban areas in search of better opportunities, which industrialization has created. It is an unfortunate fact that in South Africa the industrialization of the rural areas where Africans live has not proceeded apace. It has not nearly kept up with the minimum demands of the Tomlinson Commission, which, as all of us will remember, recommended that 50 000 jobs should be created per annum outside of agriculture. We know that has not been accomplished. We know that even the ambitious schemes for the border industry areas have resulted in only a certain number of jobs having been created. As a natural result, people therefore move to the urban areas. Imposing heavier fines on those people to keep them out of the urban areas is not going to work, any more than the imposition of the existing fines has done. It is no accident that the number of people who have been arrested under the pass laws has gone up and up. By passing a law one does not keep hungry men out of the towns, as they have to feed their families. That is why they come to the urban areas. That is my answer to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who thinks that one can prevent these people coming to the towns by simply increasing the fines. I heard the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referring to a fine of R20, but I think the hon. the Deputy Minister said in the Other Place that that minimum has been increased to R50 some time ago as a result of a Criminal Law Amendment Act, with which I am not familiar. However, whatever the minimum has been, it has now gone up to R100. The maximum period of imprisonment which can be imposed, remains the same. We are going to move the same amendment in this House as our colleague in the PRP has moved in the Other Place, namely—

I now want to motivate this amendment. We say that the imposition of these higher fines will be likely to increase racial friction in this country. I want to remind the House, as I have done I do not know how many times over the years, that millions of words have been uttered about the effect of the pass laws in South Africa. I do not believe there is a document which sets out the grievances of the Africans, not a single commission of inquiry which has been appointed over the years since the time that the first real influx control was implemented in 1923 by the Urban Areas Act, has omitted to point out that one of the greatest causes of racial friction in South Africa is the implementation of the pass laws. We know it is traditional in South Africa. As I have said, it dates from 1923. The mobility of Africans was in fact controlled even before then. However, in 1923 we saw the first major piece of urban legislation affecting Africans that was passed. That was based on the Stallard Commission, which looked upon all Africans as migrant workers who were only to be allowed in the cities to minister to the needs of the White people and were to clear out when their services were no longer required. I want to point out that the Interdepartmental Committee on Social, Health and Economic Conditions of Urban Africans of 1942—familiarly known as the Smit Committee, named after the chairman, Dr. Smit, who was then the Secretary of Native Affairs and later a colleague of many of us in this House; stated—

These figures over three years was something like 300 000 in those days—

Every single one of those words uttered by Dr. Smit in 1942, 35 years ago, is equally applicable today. Then, in 1946, the Fagan Commission was appointed to inquire into the laws affecting Natives in the urban areas, as the nomenclature went. That was the last commission appointed by Gen. Smuts’s Government. It reported in 1948 just before the elections in which that Government was defeated. That commission made many recommendations to alter the administration of the pass laws. It, too, commented on the racial friction which was caused by the pass laws. Let me say at once that the Fagan Commission did not recommend the repeal of the pass laws. It did, however, recommend very considerable changes to the manner in which those laws were administered and it stated inter alia that “during our travels through the country, it was brought to our notice in an unmistakable manner that the feeling amongst the Natives against the pass laws is a very violent one”. Therefore, as I have said, one commission after the other has reported on the effect of the pass laws.

The most recent commission to report on that has been the Viljoen Commission of Inquiry into the Penal System of South Africa. That commission had many very interesting things to say about the pass laws. I can only assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not read the report of the Viljoen Commission. I wonder if he has read it, because, if he had, how can he ignore certain statements which the commission made? The commission for instance reported that (paragraph 2.38)—

The report goes on to say (paragraph 2.39)—

Then the commission went on to say—

1. (a) the offence is regarded as a technical, morally non-reprehensible offence which should not attract a severe sentence;
2. (b) if it were harsher (for deterrent purposes perhaps) it would, regard being had to the political climate, cause a great uproar; and
3. (c) provided an employer could be found for the offender and the Labour Bureau approves, he is, anomalously, released on parole to work in the very area in which he is not lawfully residing when out of prison.

I simply cannot understand how the Government can come along with this Bill in the teeth of the recommendations of the Viljoen Commission about not imposing harsher penalties for infringement of the influx control regulations. Why appoint these commissions if, after months and months of intensive inquiry by the commission, its recommendations are simply ignored? Will the hon. member for Koedoespoort tell me how, in the face of these recommendations, he can support this Bill today? I find it absolutely incredible.

His mind is not like a parachute!

Hon. members opposite could not possibly have read the Bill. What this Bill seeks to do, certainly in clause 3 and also in clause 4 in a different way, is in direct contradiction to the Viljoen Commission’s comment in the paragraph I have quoted. I must add that in a later paragraph, paragraph 2.49, the commission actually recommends that, if influx control is deemed to be unavoidable—this commission, like the Fagan Commission, does not take the view we take, viz. that influx control should be abolished because it offends against a natural human right—

It then, of course, goes on to make the obvious recommendation that what has got to be done is to improve the employment conditions in the homelands so that the impetus of urbanization will be slowed down. To slow it down is about the only thing that can be done, because to push people out of sight and to think thereby one has solved the problem of unemployment, and indeed starvation, eventually, is just deceiving oneself to the ultimate. It is absurd. That is not the way to do it.

I want to go on to talk about the results of the existing system. First of all, I again want to quote from the report of the Viljoen Commission. The commission states that the Police, who have to enforce these laws, have had to bear the brunt of attacks upon the system of influx control. We have had Sharpeville and Soweto, and we are going to have these things over and over again, because the pass laws are one of the major sources of friction. It is not I who say this; it is said by learned commissions that have sat in judgment on this matter. Again I say that it is the officials who have to implement these laws who bear the brunt of them. These officials are either the pass law officials in the administration offices, or the Police. My sympathy is with the Police, who have to implement these laws which are so unpopular, and with the officials who also have to bear the brunt of the …

The other day you were against them.

No, I am not against the Police. I am against the Police’s use of guns when I think it is unnecessary, such as in the case of people attempting to escape arrest, and I am against the use of guns when, as happened last year, there was a high loss of life. I will always speak out against what I consider to be reckless use of authority …

When it suits you.

No, not when it suits me, but when it suits what I believe to be the arguments in favour of peace in this country. In this case my sympathy is with the Police because they have to implement unpopular laws. In many ways I will again criticize them because they implement these laws in a manner which could, I think, soften their implementation. I know that instructions, for instance, have gone out over and over again to the Police not to arrest people for the mere non-production of a pass. They are supposed to use their discretion and give people the opportunity to prove that they are lawfully in the area. However, these instructions are often not obeyed, which is the reason why the aid centres can save so many people from prosecution. The hon. member for Koedoespoort will agree with me that the aid centres cannot break the law and if a man is brought before an aid centre for one of the pass offences and he has, in fact, broken the law, the aid centres have no alternative but to refer him to the courts of law for punitive measures. It is only when the aid centres feel that, for instance, the Police have used their authority in a way that could have been avoided, like an arrest for the non-production of a pass, that they can do anything about these people. They are then either released altogether, or if they can prove that they have not been in the area for too long, they just get sent back to their homeland. What happens then? They simply return on the next train. We really bluff ourselves if we think that any of these laws are going to help.

We are not bluffing ourselves; you are.

Why am I bluffing myself? I know they do not work, but the hon. member thinks that if he simply imposes high penalties, he will make them work. Should I tell him what he will do? He will cram our bursting gaols still further. That is what he will do, because the people cannot afford to pay these higher fines. Does the hon. member know that according to the report of the Department of Police over 300 000 people were actually charged last year under section 10? I am not even talking about curfew or tax, which, I might say, under the definition of the Fagan Commission would also fall under the definition of “passes”. Just under section 10, which is all clause 3 applies to, over 300 000 people were charged. The law is not working. More and more of these people are going to be charged. Perhaps I shall be able to persuade him, by referring to the report of the Commissioner of Prisons, that this is not a good law. Does the hon. member for Koedoespoort know to the nearest 50 000 how many people there are in gaol in South Africa? He looks at me with those bleak eyes of his, because obviously he does not know and I wonder whether he cares.

He is looking at you very softly.

Well, then I would hate to receive of his acute glances, if that is a soft one. I would be struck dead on the turn! I have made quite a study of this subject and I know that our daily average prison population has reached 98 000 to 100 000. In Great Britain, which has a population more than double our own, a complaint was made by the Department of Prisons that they thought they were reaching what they call the danger figure when their daily average prison population was 44 000. That is less than half of ours, and yet our population is less than half of theirs. That is an extraordinary situation. Here we are with a daily average prison population of nearly 100 000 and the Government comes along with a measure which is going to place more people into already bursting gaols. What is in fact the crime that is being committed here? By and large, although not always, the crime is that of looking for work. In no normal and modern country which even has any pretensions to democracy, can looking for work be considered a crime. In South Africa, however, according to the provisions of section 10(1), if an African is in an urban area for more than 72 hours without permission, he is assumed to be there for criminal purposes. Nine times out of ten such a man will be looking for work.

I have mentioned the daily average prison population, but I want to give another figure which to my mind is even more important. This figure I got from the latest annual report of the Department of Prisons. Of all sentenced prisoners admitted, 84,1% were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of up to six months, and just over half of these were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of up to one month. It is a fair assumption that the majority of these people who were sentenced up to one month are sentenced under influx control and pass laws? I think it is a fair assumption. From the latest report of the Commissioner of Prisons, which is dated April 1977, something like 116 213 people are sentenced to imprisonment for up to one month. Is that not incredible? Here we are introducing a Bill which is going to increase that number. I think this is an absurd measure. I do not think the Government should continue with it. The Government knows perfectly well that we are living in times of tension and that everything possible should be done to bank down those fires. Nothing should be done that might blow another spark on to those fires or that will exacerbate the situation. This country is going through a grave economic crisis, largely, though not entirely as a result of the lack of confidence in the future security of South Africa because of the unrest of last year and the continuing unrest, as we saw only yesterday. Why do we proceed with laws which may make matters worse? What is the point of this? I cannot understand the Government. How can they be so insensitive at this moment in time when commission after commission has reported that the pass laws and influx control are some of the most grievous sources of racial friction in South Africa? The Government goes ahead, however, with laws which are likely to make things worse. I do not know what further appeal I can possibly utter which could have any effect whatsoever on the thinking of the Government and of the hon. the Minister.

It is no good giving me the argument that if we remove influx control we shall have an enormous influx into the cities, because we are getting it anyway. For every man that is caught by a policeman, two others are in the urban areas illegally. One simply cannot stop it; it is like trying to stop the waters of the ocean; it is simply impossible. What one has to do is to try to provide them with jobs either in the homelands or in the urban areas. They should also be provided with houses. It is no good saying that there will be squatter camps, because of course one gets squatter camps if one does not provide sufficient housing. The hon. the Minister of Community Development is very well aware of what has happened because of the negligence in supplying houses for the Coloured people over all these years. We have had an influx of coloured people into the urban areas as well. It is a natural development in an industrializing country. I ask the Government to take positive steps rather than the negative steps they are taking today, of increasing penalties which will have the effect of sending more people to gaol, something which will in turn have the effect of exacerbating the already tense situation among the races in this country. I ask the Government to think very seriously before proceeding with this measure. I think it is an absolutely absurd measure.

I can only reiterate that we consider this to be a very ill-conceived measure. In fact, I will go so far as to say that it is a reckless measure. It is particularly reckless of the Government to introduce anything which, at this stage of our tenuous existence in Southern Africa, will exacerbate the already bad race relations in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, before I address a few words to the hon. member for Houghton, I first want to turn to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He said this afternoon that he and his party oppose this Bill, and he gave as his reason that he is of the opinion that the existing penalties are sufficient. Of course, this is his personal opinion. But one cannot help wondering. The people who are concerned with administering this legislation—of the existing Act and the existing measures—are the Deputy Minister and his department. I think we must be realistic and recognize that they are the people who are best able to say whether the existing penalties are sufficient or not. I think the hon. member ought to accept the good judgment of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department in this regard.

The hon. member for Houghton fulminated on this measure for 25 minutes this afternoon, in a rather irresponsible way, I thought. I thought that we could perhaps part in peace and friendship. However, it seems to me as if this was a futile hope. It seems to me we shall have to fight until we go home.

And at home too!

The hon. member for Houghton flung bitter and spiteful remarks around here this afternoon. Amongst other things she suggested that the Bill which is before the House at the moment could incite racial conflict, or words to that effect. She reproached the hon. the Deputy Minister for not having read the report of the Viljoen Commission. Furthermore she spoke about “starvation”, which would supposedly be the consequence of this measure. According to her, this measure will mean that “looking for work will be a crime”. She also said: “This is a reckless measure. ”

I believe it is irresponsible of the hon. member to make such remarks in connection with a Bill which is before the House. I listened to her very carefully. Amongst other things, in reply to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, she said the following, and I do not want to misinterpret what the hon. member said. She must correct me if I make a mistake. However, if I understood her correctly, she said that she and her party are in favour of the Government doing away with its influx control measures. I want to know whether the hon. member is really in favour of doing away with influx control measures.

She said: “Unconditionally and immediately.”

I did not—on the contrary. [Interjections.]

The hon. member says that influx control must be done away with, but that certain conditions should still be applied in regard to the matter. When she suggests that influx control measures must be done away with, however, she should have a word or two with the hon. member for Pinelands. After all, the hon. member for Pinelands objects if Black people simply walk through the street in which he lives. When this happens, he writes a letter to the City Council. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Pinelands cannot deny this.

I do deny it. [Interjections.]

The hon. leader of the PRP, the hon. member for Sea Point, even went so far as to sell his house and to move away from an area because too many Black people walked through it. Surely that is true. I wonder what the present standpoint of the official Opposition on this matter is. The hon. member for Koedoespoort also referred to it. Their standpoint is that there should still be influx control measures, as far as we know. The hon. member for Pinetown will probably be able to reply to us in a moment as to whether they are satisfied that there should still be influx control measures. Before I say anything more about them, what does the Bill provide? If we look at the Bill, we see that clauses 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 deal with rectifications or the regrouping of redundant or archaic measures, and therefore it is for the most part of an administrative nature. However, all these clauses are exclusively to the advantage of the Black people or to people who are involved in dealing with the affairs of the Black people. Furthermore, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has already pointed out that clause 9 is going to help the Bantu to obtain travellers’ tickets more easily. This will mean that the frustrating need for people to queue up to buy tickets will largely be eliminated. Clause 2 will also mean that more money will be allocated to the Bantu Trust so that they will be able to purchase land in the interests of the Black people. Then there is clause 6 which is going to clamp down more effectively on the exploiters, the so-called pass advisers. These are people who exploit ignorant Black people, threaten them and lie to them and create impossible expectations among them. In this way they are doing a disservice to the relations between Blacks and Whites in this country. If the impossible promises which they make cannot be carried out, they put the blame on the system and the Government. Then it is not pass consultants who are blamed. The more serious penalties in this regard are fully justified; in fact, I think that in that case they could also consider imposing a minimum sentence. Therefore, 11 of these clauses are aimed at operating primarily to the benefit of the Black people. Nevertheless the official Opposition and the hon. members of the PRP oppose the measure in its entirety. They ignore the advantages or they speak very softly when they refer to them.

The hon. member for Houghton delivered an emotional tirade on the provisions of clauses 3 and 4. If this was justified, I could still say it was good and well, but it is totally unfounded, because clauses 3 and 4 deal inter alia with influx control measures. Those hon. members of the PRP say that they are in favour of doing away with these measures, but not unconditionally; in other words, there must still be some form of control over the movements of these people. If they want this done away with, they must ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon to remove the influx control measures in their constituencies. Then they must say on behalf of their voters that they no longer want them. But there is not one of them who will do this. If they do this, they know that they will not return to this House. We all agree that there must be control over the movement of people in South Africa. This being the case, the measures must be applied as effectively as possible. Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the application thereof.

The hon. member for Houghton also tried to create the impression that these Black people are being dealt with harshly and callously without any regard to their persons. Surely this is not true. It is a misrepresentation of the true facts. The hon. member fór Koedoespoort also referred to the fact that these people must first be brought to an aid centre where the cases are considered. In addition to that the court has a discretion in any event. Therefore the court is not obliged to impose that sentence for the first offence. In any event, the court will take a proper look at the case of the man brought before it. I really cannot see that the court will not take the case and all the facts into proper consideration in a case where there is real merit, and will impose a sentence accordingly. However, if someone appears before the court repeatedly—as the hon. member for Houghton indicated for us; the people come back immediately—surely it is important after all, surely it is a requirement that those measures be effectively applied. Surely a person who commits an offence repeatedly should be punished. After all, we cannot close our eyes to lawlessness and the breaking of laws and do nothing about it.

The hon. member for Houghton also mentioned the unfairness of the measures towards the offender. I want to ask: What about the other law-abiding Black people who are legally present in White South Africa? Those, who are registered here, have the right to work here. They too have rights which must be protected, for example working at a specific salary, having a place to stay and having facilities. These must be protected and this is also part and parcel of this measure. If we do not protect these people from the uncontrolled influx of Black people, they will suffer as far as their salaries are concerned. It is a fact that a Black man who is not here legally and who cannot be registered here, will be prepared to work at a lower salary. It is our duty to protect the Black people who are legally here, by applying the measures as effectively as possible.

The hon. member for Houghton also objected to clause 4.1 want to point out to here that this will pertain primarily to White people. It concerns employers and it is chiefly Whites who will employ these people illegally. Once again it is a case here of the measures being to the advantage of the legally registered, legally present and law-abiding Black people in White South Africa. The law-abiding Black people are working in White South Africa and their interests must be protected from the unscrupulous employers who exploit the labour of the Black people who may not be here legally. This measure will ensure that this will happen to a far lesser extent in future. This measure will only clamp down on those who contravene a measure which we all support, whether in its present form, or in an amended form. No law-abiding employer or employee has anything to fear from these measures.

That is why it amazes one that members of the official Opposition, as well as members of the PRP, have expressed their opposition to the measure. It really verges on shameless political opportunism. It also boils down to the exploitation of a really, difficult situation. They want to use the measures and they must continue to exist in their interests. However, we have to bear the blame for it. They blame us and then they skilfully stir up the suspicion and anger of the Black people against us. In her speech this afternoon the hon. member for Houghton requested us not to proceed with this measure in the times in which we are living. However, they are hiding behind the measure. She is prepared to give up while we on this side say that it is a measure which is the interest of all in South Africa, the Whites and the law-abiding Blacks in South Africa. We are not prepared to close our eyes to their being put at a disadvantage so that they find themselves in a less favourable position owing to the fact that these measures cannot be complied with. I think that this is a reckless conduct on the part of the Opposition and that they should be ashamed of themselves for opposing such a measure as this, which constitutes so many benefits for the Black people. We support the measure enthusiastically.

Mr. Speaker, backbenchers always take an interest in each other’s progress and activities, particularly the younger ones. However, I believe the hon. member for Verwoerdburg spoke with no conviction and he did not debate effectively on what the hon. member for Houghton said. What was the major point made by the hon. member for Houghton? A series of commissions, the most recent of which was appointed by this very Government, has repeated for the last 35 years that the system of pass laws, together with the whole influx control system, as it is used for political purposes by this Government, is detested by Black people.

Order! Before the hon. member continues I want to point out that we are not discussing the principle of the pass laws in this Bill. We are discussing the application of the system only.

That hon. member did not even reply at all to the points that were made by the hon. member for Houghton, and he knows it. I do not believe that it helps debate in this House to have that kind of discussion. If one looks at the clauses which have been covered very well by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, one finds for example in clause 3 that it is the intention to increase the amount of the fine. To my way of thinking, this is not only a serious matter because the fine is being increased and because it is not going to solve the problem that this law is designed to solve, because we have had enough experience of that but we will have as many people coming into the urban areas as ever before. Despite the fines and the large number of people who end up in gaol, there is still an influx of people into the urban areas. We have only hurt race relations and increased tensions between the Police and the common people. I believe that the only other example of legislation that has so exacerbated race relations were the liquor laws up to the time of their amendment by the present Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice.

What is also so disturbing about this increase in the fines is that there is a presumption section which applies, and I am referring to section 10(5), a section which relates to this clause that is being amended. As far a I am concerned, this makes it even more unacceptable that the fines should be increased. The same applies to clause 4. Again there is a presumption in section 10bis(3) which relates to fines imposed on the employer. This makes it even more unacceptable and undesirable that the penalty should be increased in this regard. In clause 6 we also have the product of the aforementioned two clauses.

I believe that the results of this increase in fines will not be to stop the Black people from coming in because, as we have said before, this situation can be compared to ants coming to sugar. One can put an obstacle in their way, but they will find a way round to get to the sugar. What is going to happen? Clause 6 is an admission of what is happening. By having to increase the fines, the Government is admitting that there are a large number of consultants or pass advisers in existence, and they can make a living because of this vast mess of laws which press down upon the average Black man who just wants to find a job of work. I believe that as a result there is going to be increasing corruption because the people who will have to enforce these laws will be bribed by employers and by employees, and anyone who is in touch with the administration of these laws knows that occasionally one will inevitably find that there are people who tell one how exemption, permission, or whatever the case may be, can be bought. I believe that this law is going to become a hollow and awful law.

I furthermore believe that there is no worse time to introduce this abhorrent legislation. We are having a difficult time overseas, and legislation such as this is going to make the job of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs even more difficult than it is already. We shall be opposing this Bill as strongly as we can. This party has always opposed the pass laws, and penalties like these which are imposed in the criminal form in which they are imposed, and we have opposed them ever since this Government introduced them. We shall strongly object to this Bill because of these two clauses and because of clause 6 which, in a sense, flows directly from clauses 3 and 4.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather amazing that the hon. member for Pinetown should take such strong exception to what he called the pass laws. By that I think he means the application of influx control. In the old days, before the United Party had a death wish, it was in fact that party that introduced the laws governing influx control. We have heard different approaches here, one from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in opposition to the Bill, one from the hon. member for Houghton, and perhaps another one in between from the hon. member for Pinetown. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana agrees with the maintenance of influx control because that has always been the policy of his party.

I will tell you what my policy is.

The hon. member for Houghton says it should be abolished. When the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinetown say that these laws should be abolished, then they should tell us what should be put in place of that.

Order! I have already pointed out that we are not discussing influx control. We are not changing the Act in any way. We are just increasing the penalties.

The amendment to the Act we find acceptable because there is contravention. If one reads the White Paper one will find that in the first place, in regard to clause 3, it applies mainly to people who have been properly informed and who persist in contravening the provisions of section 10. Therefore we support that. If people persist in breaking the law, then surely one should increase the fine. Secondly, the increase covers those people who are contractors who provide for possible fines. These I believe are utterly unscrupulous. I do not wish to repeat the arguments which were put forward by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg in regard to the advantages, but I would like to say that I am extremely thankful to find clause 2 in this, because it is going to make the South African Bantu Trust a little bit more financially viable than it has been in the past. I sincerely wish that this had been brought in 20 years ago. If it had, there would have been a lot less misery among White people in South Africa. There will be greater viability financially as far as that is concerned.

Something else on the positive side is that clause 7 now makes it possible to give identity papers to certain foreign Bantu who are living in South Africa. These things should be weighed up in the balance in a Bill like this. These are positive aspects. I believe that these two amendments alone are of vital importance to South Africa. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg mentioned the matter of the tickets; that is also a positive advantage.

There are hon. members here who would like to do away with slums. If we cannot apply the influx control laws more strictly and more positively—and I believe that increased fines and increased penalties do allow for a more positive application of these laws—you are going to get uncontrolled influx and you are going to get slums. However, the same people who say that we must abolish these laws and lessen the penalties are the people who go and scratch out every bit of dirt they can find and put photographs in the Press and say that this is what you are getting. Not one single positive alternative solution has, however, been put forward. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the principal opposition to this legislation was concerned specifically with two of the clauses. The positive aspects were given very little emphasis, except by the hon. member for Albany who has just spoken. We could perhaps cut this discussion short by referring to a few matters which hon. members quoted here. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said he rejects the idea that an employer should find himself in trouble and should expose himself to receiving an increased fine because he employs a workseeker. This was also the refrain in the speeches made by the other hon. members. Surely it is not all that simple. Surely there are control measures, and if a workseeker adopts the normal control measures if there is a vacancy, he can fill that vacancy without getting into trouble. In that way the employer and he can stay out of trouble. But if one were to allow the uncontrolled influx of people to vacancies, whether there are any or not, it will lead to an established population in a specific area, for example the Western Cape, being prejudiced, for we must admit that there are not employment opportunities for everyone in the country. However, the established population of a region has first claim to the employment opportunities in that region. The illegal influx into the area of people who snatch the employment opportunities away from the established population, cannot be allowed. The worst aspect of all is that those people who enter the area illegally, fill the available situations at lower wages. Therefore, besides depriving other people of employment opportunities, they are also doing the entire labour community a disservice, for the entire wage structure is forced downwards.

Some people want cheaper labour.

That is what it amounts to. It is very interesting that the hon. member for Newton Park should make that observation. It should be borne in mind that employers have vacancies and want labourers, there are various ways in which they can obtain the labourers legally. If I look at the figures, I wonder whether the hon. member for Newton Park is not entirely correct in his observation. Over a period of 2½ years—half of 1974, the whole of 1975, and the whole of 1976—steps had to be taken against 2 762 employers here in the Western Cape. To whose advantage is it if one were simply to allow them to employ people illegally at lower wages? Each of those 2 762 employers could have filled their vacancies legally. I want to furnish another figure. During the same period steps were taken against approximately 47 000 people who came to the Western Cape illegally to seek work. If there were 47 000 vacancies for work, they could all have been employed legally in those situations. Why, then, should one do so illegally, and then cause the abuses with which we have to deal here? The hon. member for Albany referred to that briefly. The squatter conditions, the lack of services, and so on, are other and far graver problems with which we have to contend, in addition to this problem.

The hon. member for Pinetown stated that they have been opposed to influx control and measures which we have adopted in this regard all along.

For political ends.

If I were to formulate a fair method of influx control, I wonder whether the hon. member for Pinetown would support it. He should listen to this now—

Would the hon. member for Pinetown agree to that?

With all except the first.

This is a UP pamphlet from which I am now quoting. He does not even know his own policy. [Interjections.] The pamphlet from which I am now quoting, sets out the UP policy in respect of the urban Blacks.

When was that pamphlet published?

In 1976. [Interjections.] In all fairness, Sir, if the hon. member does not even know his own policy and the principles of his party and accuses other people of doing things for political reasons, I do not know whether it is worth while taking much notice of the statements of such an hon. member.

May I just make the further observation that, since the members of the various Opposition parties have again emphasized only the negative, I am even prepared to say: “Very well, this is a negative measure”, but there are, in addition, positive measures which accompany this one. Administrative steps are constantly being taken, with which I deal personally, to try in fact to eliminate points of friction caused by influx control measures. In this way, for example, there is an experiment in progress in Durban—which I hope to extend later to other administration board areas—to bring employer and employee together in a positive way, and not simply in an uncontrolled way.

In that way the employer can spell out his requirements properly, and to the letter, and the employee can arrive at the vacancy through the correctly controlled channels. If we do it in that way, why should we have further problems? There is also the additional positive factor that we are constantly holding talks with homeland leaders on this matter, for it is frequently from the homeland areas that an uncontrolled influx of people takes place to places where they hope to find employment opportunities. The hon. the Minister and I had such a discussion during this very session, and another similar discussion will take place soon. Therefore we cannot be accused of adopting only negative measures in this regard. However if we experience real problems, as we are doing in certain areas, including the Western Cape, we must not be blamed if we place measures such as the one at present before us on the Statute Book. That is why it is necessary that these two measures in particular, together with the other positive measures contained in the Bill, should be placed on the Statute Book. I am sorry that we are meeting with opposition in this regard, and if it is possible to level accusations in regard to political standpoints, I believe that an accusation can in fact be levelled at the various Opposition parties, perhaps with the exclusion of the SAP. With that I wish to conclude this discussion.

I just want to point out that the hon. member for Koedoespoort raised a very important matter, namely that the employers who illegally employ Black people also make lawbreakers of them because, once they have learned to break the law with the help of employers who act illegally, they will eventually break other laws as well. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg pointed out that these are not only penal measures with which we are occupying ourselves, but that they are also to a large extent protective measures on behalf of, firstly, the workers themselves, and secondly, on behalf of the entire community as well.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—90: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje. P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—34: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacbos, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to go fully into the question of influx control, because you will probably rule me out of order, but I do wish to say, in reply to the hon. the Minister and in reply to the hon. member for Albany, that having been here since 1961 and in view of the portfolios that I usually handle, I think I can claim to know a little about this party’s policy in regard to that question. Ever since I have been here, we have taken the view that one has had to have, for two reasons if not for more, control of some order in regard to the question of the flow of people into the urban areas. One was the inability of the authorities to house these people in adequate conditions, and the other was the need to protect the established urban worker from uncontrolled migrant labour. To say, however, that one accepts that as a reality is quite different from saying that we accept the legislation and the administration of influx control by the Government. Indeed, the two commissions which the hon. member for Hougton referred to, both appointed, if I remember correctly, by the UP, recommended changes to the then existing influx control. The influx control of that time was vastly different from the labyrinthine organisation which exists under this Government at present. Our objection to the present system can be stated quite simply, i.e. we object to a system which is expensive for both the work-seeker and the work-giver. It is cumbersome and it is wholly insensitive to the needs of the people concerned. That, in a nut-shell, is our objection to influx control as administered by the Government. I do not wish to say any more about influx control as an institution, because I do not believe it is covered by this clause.

What we are dealing with in this clause and the subsequent clause is the question of an increase in penalty and that is all. I have already indicated, and I shall simply state again very briefly, that we are opposed to the increase in penalty, because we regard the existing penalties as being suitable to the offence and our view is coloured by the fact that nobody takes kindly to penalizing a work-seeker looking for work and an employer giving work to such a work-seeker. Having said that, I believe I have summarized our objection both to this clause and to the subsequent clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to cut it short because—you know what, Mr. Chairman?—I am sick and tired of knocking my head against a stone wall trying to advance arguments against minds which are not open but vacant. [Interjections.]

Order!

Therefore I am not going to carry on further with arguments on this clause. I think every single argument which could be advanced, has already been advanced. Therefore we are just going to vote against this clause. I would just like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister one question. Has he consulted the man whose two departments are going to bear the brunt of this legislation? I mean of course the Minister of Police and of Prisons moulded into one in the person of Mr. J. T. Kruger. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department has consulted the hon. the Minister of Police and of Prisons, because it is my impression that that hon. Minister, by way of a statement, is not keen on further crowding the gaols. He knows full well that the prison system is already overloaded and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has indeed consulted the hon. the Minister of Police and of Prisons, whose men are going to bear the brunt of having to arrest people under this clause, knowing that the penalty is going to be higher and knowing the effect on our already overcrowded prisons.

Mr. Chairman, I have put the position of the SAP, I believe, quite clearly with regard to both this and the next clause. I did that at Second Reading. We will support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the question put to me by the hon. member for Houghton. She wanted to know whether the hon. the Minister of Police had been consulted in connection with this clause. The hon. the Minister was consulted in a Cabinet committee where I explained the Bill. He was present there. Subsequently the Bill was considered by the Cabinet and approved by the Cabinet as well. Had that not been the case, this Bill would never have come before the House at all.

I asked about Mr. Kruger, the hon. the Minister of Police!

The department did that.

True!

Yes.

*That is how we go about legislating. When legislation applies in any way to another department, that department is also consulted. In this case, too, there was consultation. As progress was made with the drafting of the legislation, consultation took place on all levels.

I have understanding for the standpoint of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I also understand his standpoint with regard to influx control. However, we are also dealing here with realities, things which have to be combated. That is the reason why the increased fine is being introduced. I do not know whether it is necessary to discuss this matter any further.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has only answered one part of my question. He said both the department and the hon. the Minister of Police and of Prisons has been consulted. Did the department and the hon. the Minister concerned approve of this legislation?

Of course they did approve. Otherwise this legislation would not have been before the House.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—92: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; 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.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, the principle involved in clause 4 is exactly the same as the principle which we have already debated in clause 3 and the same reasons apply to our objections, which are based on the same foundations. It is accordingly unnecessary for me to address the House at length. Because we have just voted on clause 3 and as the principle is again the same in clause 4, we shall record our objection on clause 4.

Mr. Chairman, I will follow the example of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is really a Committee Stage Bill, there being no principle but a series of disjointed clauses which we have fully discussed both at the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage. It remains merely for me to say that our objection is based on clauses 3 and 4, the two clauses which seek to impose greater penalties in respect of work-seekers and employers in terms of the sections of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act which apply to influx control. We have already, on two occasions, given at some length our objections and those objections remain. We will accordingly vote against this measure at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, there is not point in repeating all the arguments we used at Second Reading. We, too, will oppose this Bill at Third Reading.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—91: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. G; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, W. C.; 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.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. G; Van den Heever, S. A.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck. H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill, which hon. members are being asked to consider today, is a product of a recommendation contained in the Erika Theron Commission report which was accepted by the Government and which the Government would like to put into effect without delay.

The commission recommended that the University of Western Cape be allowed to enroll selected White students at the postgraduate level. In its reply to this recommendation, the Government indicated in the White Paper that it had already been decided that White students could enrol at the university, under certain circumstances, with the approval of the Minister.

Obviously, in view of the admission of White students to the University of the Western Cape, it follows that the Government’s policy will also hold good for the University of Durban-Westville.

The reason for this decision on the part of the Government is that the university is approached every year by a number of White students seeking permission to enroll at the university for certain courses of study. The development of the University of Durban-Westville has now reached a level at which it would be in the interests of both the institution and prospective White students to admit them as students under certain circumstances.

What is being considered here, in particular, is post-graduate study by White lecturers at the university who wish to further their studies. It will be more convenient for them to continue their studies at the university where they work than to enroll at another institution. In this way one can also ensure that the university does not lose the services of young lecturers who wish to do post-graduate study. The admission of White students would also make a definite contribution to the acquired status and prestige of the university.

Another aspect one may not lose sight of either is the fact that the University of Durban-Westville offers courses which are offered at no other university. I have in mind for example, courses such as Arabic, Urdu, Persian, Eastern Studies, Hindi, Telegu, Tamil, Islamic Studies, Sanskrit and Indology. There are some White students who are interested in these courses of study, but their enrolment would have to be for purposes of undergraduate study, and that is why I thought fit not to specifically exclude undergraduate study. It is possible that some oil companies would like an employee of theirs, whom they want to transfer to one of the oil-producing countries in the Middle East, to acquire a knowledge of the language of that country.

To give effect to this decision of the Government, and to achieve the objectives I have just indicated here, it is necessary to repeal section 21 of the University of Durban-Westville Act which prohibits the admission of White students to this university. If section 21 is repealed, it is only logical that section 22 of the Act in question will have to be amended and adapted.

In view of the considerations I have outlined, I trust I shall be able to rely on the support of all hon. members for the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on the official Opposition benches wish to indicate to the hon. the Minister that we welcome this Bill and that we will be supporting it. We are glad to know that we are going to see greater use made of this magnificent institution which, incidentally, is situated in my constituency. It was supplied at a cost of over R17½ million and it is a landmark in Natal. It is provided with the best equipment and facilities which could possibly be given to any educational institution. I say it is a landmark in Natal and I believe it is a landmark to any visitors who come down the national road from the Transvaal, the Free State or the Cape. It is also a landmark for people from overseas, because one of the Government departments, when it welcomes visitors to Durban on official visits to South Africa sponsored by another department, tells such visitor that while they are in Durban they must see three things: Firstly, the University of Durban-Westville; secondly, the sugar terminal; and, thirdly, they must meet a United Party member of Parliament! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has indicated that this is a recommendation which flowed from the Theron Commission. I also understood him to say that the development of the University of Durban-Westville has now reached the stage where it is in the interests of the institution, as well as prospective White students, to admit them as students under certain circumstances. It is interesting to note that this is already a fait accompli, because there are 40 students of other races enrolled at the University of Durban-Westville already. We on these benches welcome this. It is also interesting to note that there are 146 Indian students registered at the University of the Western Cape. In fact, more Indians are registered at the University of the Western Cape than there are Indians from the Cape registered at the University of Durban-Westville.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would call me to order if I were to go into detail in regard to the original Act. It is not my intention to do so, but it is interesting to note that this is the second amending Bill which Parliament has had to consider since the Act was passed in 1969. The first amending Bill involved the abolition of the advisory senate and the advisory council. This Bill is intended to open the university to students of other races. With a certain degree of pride I can say that this has been the policy of the UP. In 1969, when the Bill was before the House, the UP made it very clear that these were fundamental aspects of the UP’s outlook on university education. Furthermore we rejected exclusive, ethnic divisions which that Bill sought to put into effect. After a time-lag of seven years these facts are now becoming part of legislation. It is interesting to see too that in reply to the hon. Senator Moll, when this Bill was discussed in the Other Place, the hon. the Minister said—

We endorse that. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could perhaps just lift the veil and tell us whether it is now the intention to go forward, and whether this is a prelude to a multi-racial medical university for Natal. I shall be very interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s comment on that, because from what the text of the Bill says and what the hon. the Minister says I assume that this opening of the university to other races will apply to all courses.

The hon. the Minister has referred to the use of Arabic and its value to people who go to the Middle East. I believe that in terms of clause 2 the Bill could open a whole vista of learning to some people who have been precluded by circumstance, distance and cost, to enable them to obtain a university education in Natal instead of the African students, for example having to travel to Turfloop to take various courses. I believe that on merit they could be accepted in Natal. The hon. the Minister’s answer to my question indicates that already there is a Bantu enrolled for the diploma course in the teaching of physiotherapy. I believe it could offer an opportunity for Coloureds to study nearer home instead of their having to travel to the Cape to attend the University of the Western Cape.

Because the hon. the Minister is responsible for concurrence in the admission of students, I wonder whether he has given thought to any sort of reciprocity in regard to the colleges for advanced technical education so that those people—and I take pharmacy as an example—who have gained a diploma at the college for advanced technical education could be considered for admission to honours and higher study at the Durban Westville University. I ask that question because I believe it is an important one which will have to be faced up to one day. We support this Bill. I have an amendment which I trust the hon. the Minister will accept in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the hon. member for Berea that I have also read that old debate of 1969. There is a surprising difference between the standpoint they have taken today and the standpoint they took then. The point is just that there still seems to be some misunderstanding with regard to the implementation of this Bill. We want to remove this misunderstanding. The intention is not for this university to lose its total identity now. It is still primarily a university which was established for the convenience of the Indians. Whites will only be admitted in certain exceptional cases. As the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out in his Second Reading speech, it only applies to courses which are not available at other universities. The same applies to certain White universities where facilities are being created for non-Whites who cannot follow certain courses at their own institutions. Perhaps it is necessary for me to underline this specific aspect a little because of the standpoint stated by the hon. member for Berea.

I can give the UP and the Opposition some reassurance: Since they, and particularly the hon. member for Berea, are so proud of this university, I want to say that over the years, this university has indeed developed into something of which we really can be proud. It did not develop into the “bush university” which the Opposition said it would become at that time. Neither can it be said, as was done then, that it was still-born. Times have changed and we are grateful that we have succeeded today in getting the Opposition to recognize that this university really is something to be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the strange position of having to support this Bill on behalf of those of us in these benches. I say “ strange” because if one looks at clause 2 of the Bill, one sees that it largely concerns the freedom which the university enjoys as far as the admission and selection of students is concerned. In this respect it is a restrictive measure because the Bill provides for students to be admitted solely “with the concurrence of the Minister and on the conditions determined by the Minister”, while one would normally expect the university itself to have the right to determine which student can be admitted and on what conditions they are to be admitted. It is nevertheless an improvement on the present Act because it is an empowering measure which gives the hon. the Minister the freedom to use his own discretion, an aspect which did not feature in the original Act. In section 21 of the principal Act a direct prohibition was applicable in this regard.

In conclusion I just want to put a question to the hon. the Minister: When does he think a stage will be reached when the universities in our community, including this one, will enjoy such a degree of freedom as to be able to determine for themselves, by way of their senate and council, the circumstances in which students can be admitted to the universities? I personally believe it will be an auspicious day …

Order! The hon. member is only permitted to put the question, not to elaborate on it.

Yes, I am just putting the question because I think it will be an auspicious day when this type of legislation is, in point of fact, no longer necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the SAP will also support this measure. There is actually nothing which one can add to the reasons which the hon. the Minister advanced. Let me just say that since students of other language or racial groups will now be granted the right to study at this university, one hopes that this step will not only mean that students will be able to make use of these facilities when similar facilities are not available elsewhere, but that at the same time this will help to improve race relations in South Africa at that highest level of education. I believe that this will be a by-product in any event. The amendment being brought about by the Bill is in accordance with what happens at universities such as the University of Stellenbosch and with what will happen at the University of the Western Cape, and therefore we think that making more facilities available for other colour groups is a step in the right direction. That is why we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my sincere thanks to all three Opposition parties for the fine way in which they are treating this constructive Bill. I also want to thank the three speakers concerned for their hints and ideas. I just want to react briefly to them.

The hon. member for Newton Park expressed the hope that this measure would contribute towards better race relations in South Africa. Of course, this is my fervent wish too. One group must be able to help the other at certain levels, and this is the objective we are striving for in this Bill, i.e. a mutual helpfulness on the part of the universities. I want to emphasize very strongly, however, that in order to create good race relations, it is very important for us to respect one another’s identity and character. Therefore I can tell the hon. member for Rondebosch that I would be the last person to contribute towards this fine institution, the University of Westville, losing its character as an Indian institution. It is an institution where the Indians come together in order to promote and give effect to their own culture, background, customs and morals and a place where they can realize themselves in their individual context. Then, in other spheres, they can associate with others as fellow South Africans and citizens of the same country.

†I think I should emphasize that the idea of this Bill is not to bring about a situation where the University of Durban-Westville will change its essential character of being an Indian institution. The Indian people of South Africa have proved that they have something of their own, peculiar to themselves, to offer to South Africa. I believe Parliament will be doing a disservice to a very fine group of South Africans if we were to weaken or lessen their opportunities to be themselves and to realize themselves as a South African community with a distinctive character. The Government will not permit that to happen. I say this in reply to the hon. member for Rondebosch.

*This is also why the hon. the Minister is retaining certain powers to control the situation because, as we have announced repeatedly, the Government is prepared to make changes. The Government has probably made more changes during its years in power than most of the Governments in the history of South Africa. Those changes, however, are made within the context and ambit of Government policy, and that is why there must also be a measure, in this regard, to ensure that the change takes place within the framework of Government policy. That is why the university will not be thrown open completely. Every population group must maintain its own identity and the identity of each community must be preserved for the sake of enriching the South African way of life as a whole.

†The hon. member for Berea also raised some other questions. He wanted to know about the medical school. I can only tell him that if there is one thing about which we are all particularly keen, it is the establishment of separate Indian and Coloured medical schools in South Africa. Our Indian people are particularly keen on the medical profession. They already have one Indian doctor for every 700 of the Indian population. That is not a very valid basis of judgment, but proportionally we have more Indian doctors in South Africa than any community except the White community. They deserve an institution, and the suggestion which the hon. member made is being actively pursued at the moment by the Cabinet and we hope to be able to make announcements in the not very distant future. I am informed that it costs about R12 million to establish a new medical faculty, and therefore the hon. member must not expect miracles, but he can accept my assurance that this matter is not being neglected and that we are actively working towards the establishment of such a medical school. He also asked me whether the University of Durban-Westville will in due course consider conferring postgraduate degrees, such as an honours degree, upon students of the higher technical institutions like the M C. Sultan College at Durban. That is really a matter for the university itself. The admission to status at the university is merely a matter for the senate of the university itself and I do not wish to pass any judgment on that. Up to the present, of course, diplomas granted by higher technical institutions are not a basis for admission to status at any university in South Africa. I doubt whether the University of Durban-Westville will take any decision on its own. It will be a matter for discussion among the universities and a common policy to be devised by all the universities.

With that I think I have answered all the more important questions. I once again wish to express my appreciation to Parliament for their acceptance of this remarkable institution as something of which every South African may be and should be proud and also for their eagerness to see that the White students particularly—this Bill only affects White students—where they need it will still have the privilege of attending what is a fine, great and indeed a noble institution in South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

If one reads the new section 22, as proposed by clause 2 of the Bill, it is quite obvious that the council may, with the concurrence of the Minister and on the conditions determined by the Minister, approve. We believe the council should be assured of a maximum say in matters of this nature, and if the amendment is accepted, it would give the council an opportunity at least to concur and to discuss with the hon. the Minister cases in which the hon. the Minister, in his own wisdom, has decided will not be admitted under his authority. On this basis I feel that it would be an improvement and of benefit to the council to have this additional facility, and therefore we ask the hon. the Minister to give favourable consideration to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am just standing up to say that we will support the hon. member’s amendment. I should also like to react to a point the hon. the Minister made during his Second Reading speech. Amongst other things, he said that it is the responsibility of the Government to preserve the separate characteristics and identities of the various communities. The very thing I asked for in my Second Reading speech was that if these various communities do, in fact, want to maintain their identities, they should have more autonomy to decide for themselves how they want to do so, rather than giving the power to an individual member of one of those communities.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member for Berea has moved this amendment with the sincere intention of improving the Bill. I look upon the amendment in that spirit. I have given his amendment most careful consideration, but the difficulty I have in this regard is that we do not make amendments to Bills and we do not pass laws merely to decorate or to adorn these statutes. With great respect to my hon. friend, this is what the effect of this amendment will be. The Minister of Indian Affairs—this applies to the hon. member for Rondebosch as well—is also responsible for the education of Indian people and therefore he works in the closest contact and in constant consultation with an important institution like the University of Durban-Westville. I do not think that any Minister will survive for long if he does not consult fully and does not respect the point of view of that council. That is what happens in practice and what will continue to happen in practice. I hope the hon. member will accept the assurance that the senate and the council of the University are always welcome to come to me before I take a decision so that they can put their point of view, and after I have taken a decision they can come back. They are usually notified first in order to give them the opportunity to discuss the matter with me. The whole object of the operation is to get agreement as far as possible. That is the spirit in which the law is administered. I do not believe it could be administered in any other spirit. I trust the hon. member will accept this assurance and that he will not press for this amendment, because frankly it is a redundant amendment.

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

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill which hon. members of this House are being asked to consider today, is a consequence of the policy of the Government that every ethnic group in this country has the right, and can claim, to be served by its own people.

As all my predecessors since the institution of the first South African Indian Council on 3 February 1964, and I, too, have stated quite frankly on every possible occasion and repeatedly in this House, it has always been the point of departure of this Government that the Indian community will one day have the right themselves to choose the people who would serve as their representatives in the South African Indian Council and act as their spokesman on their problems with the Government.

When the Bill at present before the House is placed on the Statute Book, that ideal of the Government and the Indian community will be fulfilled in this regard.

†Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that my Department of Indian Affairs is fully aware of the enormous task which will rest on its shoulders to organize, in all its facets, the first election for the South African Indian community, a start has already been made with the registration of Indian voters. I may just mention that, without political parties, and without an experienced department in this field, as from 1 October 1976 up to now 70 476 Indians have taken the trouble to register themselves as voters so as to ensure that they will have a say in the election of the members of the next South African Indian Council.

It is my humble opinion that this Bill is not a contentious one, and I wish to express the hope that it will receive the support of the Opposition. This Bill will give the Indian community a definite say in the composition of future South African Indian Councils. They consequently will have a direct right or say in the running of their own affairs. Nothing is taken away from the Indian community, but a particular opportunity and responsibility are placed in their hands. I therefore confidently expect that the Opposition will support this Bill.

Indeed, I may add that whatever party may come into power of those represented in this House today, they will need legislation like this in order to carry out their policy. Even hon. members of the PRP will need legislation of this nature, because they want to elect Indians to the Other Place in order to ensure the entrenchment of the safeguards which they envisage in their plans.

From the contents of this Bill hon. members will observe that it differs only in a few respects from the provisions of the Electoral Consolidation Act of 1966, in accordance with which our own elections are organized and conducted. I should like to assume that hon. members have a sound knowledge of and are fully acquainted with the workings of the Electoral Consolidation Act, and for that reason I do not want to belabour hon. members with a detailed explanation of the principles contained in this Bill.

However, what I should like to do is to indicate to hon. members where the provisions of this Bill differ from those of the Electoral Consolidation Act. At this juncture I also wish to state very clearly that these differences which do exist have been discussed with the full South African Indian Council and that the Bill before us has received the blessings of the council.

*The first and biggest difference is that the Bill does away entirely with the so-called postal vote. This is not to say, however, that doing away with the postal vote is now placing the Indians in a weaker position than the White. Instead of voting as an absent voter, in future he will do so as a special voter. The voter who cannot cast his vote at a ballot box on election day for some reason, is therefore not deprived of the opportunity to vote. The only difference therefore, as we all know, is the procedure which the voter must follow to be able to vote. The cumbersome procedures and expense for both the Government and the political parties entailed by the issuing, checking and counting of postal votes, is being eliminated. The procedure which the Indian must follow in order to be able to vote as a special voter, is precisely the same as that which the White voter is expected to comply with. Therefore, no distinction is being made in this case.

In passing I might just mention here that it has been determined that in all the elections which have been organized to date to elect members of the CRC, not a single postal vote has been issued.

Section 20 of the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act, 1946, provides that an electoral officer must provide a copy of the list of insertions and omissions from the voting roll to every political party in its area at the end of every month. In this regard, clause 16 of the Bill provides for the distribution of similar lists after the end of March, July and November of every year to the head office of every political party which has registered its address with the chief electoral officer. If one looks at the provisions of clause 6(4), it will be clear why reference is made to the months of March, July and November. These are the months of the year after which supplementary voters’ rolls will be drawn up. It is expected that one or two large political parties will emerge among the Indians, but that there will also be innumerable small parties and organizations. The distribution of these lists to all the parties and groups every month may evolve into an expensive, time-consuming process for the electoral offices where the records will be kept. However, to ensure that political parties will in fact be informed of any amendment to the voters’ roll, copies of any list will be sent to the head office of that party or organization which informs the chief electoral officer of its address. That party office can then distribute the information contained in the lists to its offices throughout the country. The question of making the address of a political party known to the chief electoral officer may sound strange, but it is actually an idea which has already been expressed by a Select Committee of this House in its report on the workings of the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act, 1946.

Hon. members will also notice from the provisions of clause 32(4) that a candidate in an election may not have himself nominated in more than one constituency. As hon. members know, a candidate who wants to be nominated for an election in terms of the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act, 1946, is free to have himself nominated in more than one constituency. If he should be elected in every constituency where he is nominated, he must choose which constituency he wants to represent.

Therefore a vacancy immediately arises in the other constituency which results in another election. I think that hon. members will agree with me if I say that this concession may just as well be withdrawn.

In this same clause the provision contained in section 36(6) of the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act, 1946, that an electoral officer must draw the attention of a candidate who is nominated during a session of the nomination court, to the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates, is being omitted from this Bill. Since this provision is not also applicable to candidates who were nominated in writing before nomination day, it is definitely redundant and the legal rule “ignorance of the law is no excuse” should apply here. Indeed, the Select Committee to which I referred above also suggested this omission.

Clause 40(3) of the Bill provides that a voter may not sign an application to be able to vote as a special voter before the tenth day after nomination day. The corresponding section in the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act lays down a period of seven days. This amendment was made because it is foreseen that constituencies will be very large—the Cape Province may only have three constituencies—and that electoral officers will find it very difficult to provide all the documents for special voters to the various presiding officers within their constituencies within seven days after nomination day. In order to ensure that voters are not put at a disadvantage in this way, election day will be made as close as possible to the 45th day after nomination day.

The other difference, as hon. members will notice from clauses 42 and 63(1), is that the custom that a voter who has no identity document, can have himself identified through the presiding officer by another voter who has the necessary documents, is being done away with. Taking oaths in this regard takes up a great deal of the time of a presiding officer, which must necessarily result in the officer concerned not being able to give his full attention to his manifold other duties. Let us also admit that this concession can also be abused by unscrupulous people and should rather be done away with for the sake of everyone who may be concerned. The Select Committee which I referred to above, also expressed its opposition to this procedure.

As the provision concerned now reads in the Bill, a voter must identify himself by means of his identity card, identity document, passport or driver’s licence. Since the Department of Indian Affairs issues passports to Indians, every voter who wants to vote and does not have any other proof of identity or cannot get hold of such a document, may apply for a passport which he may use for this purpose. Therefore I can say with the greatest assurance that this difference need not keep any Indian who wants to vote, away from the ballot box. I also honestly believe that this omission of the practice of a voter being able to be identified by other voters, is a sound principle which cannot be reasoned away by anyone. I might just mention, too, for the information of hon. members that the Department of Indian Affairs has issued more than 70 000 passports to Indians during the past four years alone.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I was setting out the differences between the Electoral Laws Consolidation Act of 1946 and the Electoral Laws for Indians Bill. All that remains for me to say is that the purpose of the Bill is to create the machinery for the Indians to enable them to choose their own council on practically the same basis as the Whites, in order to manage their own affairs as far as possible. I shall appreciate it very much if the parties on the other side will support this measure so that we can continue to build a better dispensation in South Africa for the Indians with their co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will allow me, at the end of a strenuous session and a rather exhausting week, the small indulgence of reading a letter which I know will warm the cockles of the hon. the Minister’s heart and boost his ego considerably and, which I believe, has some bearing on this Bill. It is a letter which was published in The Daily News yesterday. It is headed “Vote for Steyn”. The letter was written by Mr. Loganathan Soobramoney from Verulam. He states—

I felt that ought to encourage the hon. the Minister in his efforts!

Do you support that sentiment?

No comment. We are not opposing this Bill. We will be supporting it because it is providing the machinery to effect improvements which we believe are necessary for the proper operation of the Indian Council. It is our intention to move certain amendments in the Committee Stage, amendments which we believe will improve the Bill still further, and I trust the hon. the Minister will give them his usual careful consideration and sympathetic support.

There are many people—I say this advisedly and shall not dilate on it—both Indian and Coloured, who are not satisfied with the present system of government which has been provided for them by the Nationalist Government.

I want to deal briefly with the Bill. I regard it as a blend of inconsistency and consistency. If I may quote a few examples, let me refer, firstly, to the question of the voting age. As far as the voting age is concerned, we find that as far as the Indians and Whites are concerned, the voting age is 18 years. As far as the Coloureds are concerned—and a few of them were previously registered on the White voters’ roll—the age is 21. In the case of the Bantu in the Transkei, the age provided for in their Constitution Bill was 21 and if they were taxpayers in the Transkei, they could vote at an age of 18 years. It does seem strange that such an anomalous situation should exist.

I want secondly to refer to the provisions in regard to registration. I understand that the provisions are taken over, in their entirety, from Act No. 46 of 1946 and that they apply to White voters as well. I understand also that the fine of R50 for failure to register has not been implemented to any great extent in so far as Act No. 46 of 1946 is concerned. Again this fine is applicable to Whites and Coloureds, but it is not applicable to the Bantu. I know that there are individual Indians, and some organizations, that resent the fine … [Interjections.] … but then on the other hand there are other Indian organizations and individuals that regard it as desirable. It therefore appears to me that there is a considerable difference of opinion in regard to that particular aspect.

There is another aspect I should like to refer to briefly, and that is the use of the term “citizen”. It is used in the electoral laws affecting the other three races, but not in this Bill. I think I understand the reason why. There is a problem with citizenship, but I urge the hon. the Minister most sincerely to try to resolve this problem … [Interjections.]

I am sorry, but I cannot hear what you are saying.

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members, especially at the back. I cannot hear the hon. member from here.

I was referring to the question of citizenship. Citizenship is not mentioned in this Bill. I was saying that I appreciate the reason why it is not mentioned, but I urge him to try to expedite some sort of resolution to the problem which affects people—women particularly—who are being frustrated by delays in their applications for citizenship although they have been in this country for many years. If that situation can be resolved, there seems no reason to me to suggest that the term “citizen” cannot subsequently be included in this Act as well.

Thirdly I now want to deal briefly with the question of the deposit. In this Bill the deposit stands at R600, a deposit similar to that for Whites in the Electoral Consolidation Act. As far as Coloureds are concerned, however, an amount of R100 is considered adequate for the purposes of a deposit.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Indians are resentful, and I believe with just cause, because if the hon. the Minister would just examine the position, he would see, I believe, that there is a valid reason for this amount to be reduced as far as the Indians are concerned. Let me quote to him the latest figures available for 1976. The Whites who are eligible for normal income tax number 1,14 million, whilst the Indians who are eligible for normal income tax number just in excess of 64 000, and that figure represents a mere 8% of the total Indian population. My attention has been drawn to the following by an Indian himself who is deeply concerned at what he regards as a high figure, i.e. R600. He points out that in the 1970 census there are only 16 000 Indians who are earning R2 000 or more per annum. It therefore seems to be unfair and would tend to discourage some people from standing. I believe that the hon. the Minister gave strength to this argument when, in his Second Reading speech, he referred to the fact that he expected that there would be numerous small political parties of Indians, but I do not believe that it would be right, desirable or practicable for these small parties of Indians all to be drawn from the upper echelon. I hope that he will consider our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member allowed to walk around in the House with a hat on?

Order! The hon. members should know the rules. No hon. member may walk about in this House with his hat on. [Interjections.]

Just to round off this argument I wish to quote to the hon. the Minister the comment of a very highly respected …

Order! Before the hon. member proceeds with his speech, I want to issue a warning that I shall have to take strong action if hon. members continue with their conversations. I find it difficult to follow the hon. member from here and I have to hear each word he says. If hon. members at the back carry on like that, I shall have to take strong action.

I wish to briefly refer to this quotation, a comment received from an Indian who is highly respected in his community. He says the following—

The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that there is no provision for a postal vote in this Bill. We welcome that fact. In passing, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give us a little elucidation about the manner in which Indians in the Free State will vote. What specific provision is made there? I realize that they are not allocated an electoral division in the Free State, but if the hon. the Minister could clarify this position, we would be grateful.

There are not any.

There are a few.

About five.

Can they not vote? Does the hon. member want to disenfranchise them?

There are not five. You are exaggerating.

I wish to suggest that the Indian community can develop and use this legislation to their best advantage to work for a more meaningful forum. We realize that they are operating under the present unitary system, but there is a distinct possibility that a change may be effected more along the federal concept, which we on this side of the House have been advocating for years. I therefore join with the hon. the Minister when I urge the Indian community to register in anticipation of better times and changed circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of this Bill the Indian community is being placed on a new political course of responsibility. Now for the first time they will elect members from the representatives of various parties. In that respect I want to say that the Indian community and the UP have something in common. Both are now on the threshold of forming new parties. There is one aspect which I feel should be mentioned in introducing this Bill, and this is that the organization of a multi-party democracy is a treasure of great value. It is something which must be cherished and used correctly in order to yield the right fruits. I want to express the confidence that the Indian community will appreciate the value of democracy in South Africa and in Africa. There are very few signs of democracy in Africa. The Indian community is a community which exists of two main groups: the Hindus and the Moslems, a majority and a minority group. Since this Bill provides for parties to be voted for in the constituencies in the provinces where Indians reside, it is to be understood that it is desirable that in time the entire Indian Council should consist of elected members. I think it would be wrong if all members were elected immediately. I think it will be desirable to provide at the first and perhaps also at the second election that there will be a stabilizing element by means of a number of Indians who already have experience, being nominated. There are Indians who have expressed the idea to me that if all members are only elected, there is a possibility that due to polarization, radical elements could force out a minority including those who have experience of representative government in the Indian community. I therefore want to request that this aspect be attended to. I want to wish the Indian community all of the best with the course which they are being placed upon, in that through the acceptance of this Bill, they can choose their own representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Klip River has talked about the possible polarization amongst the political parties of the Indian community. In the course of my speech I shall refer to that.

I want to deal with the principle in this Bill as I see it. Under the existing Act it is up to the State President to decide how members will be appointed or elected to the council. Clause 2 of the Bill stipulates that—

This means that discretion is now being taken away from the State President and that it is now obligatory that the procedures contained in this Bill will apply for all future elections. I wonder whether this is a good idea. I want to motivate my case. As it is under the Act, the State President has the ability to decide upon the procedure to appoint or elect members in accordance with what the nature of the council actually is. For instance, at the present moment the council is no more than a consultancy body to which certain delegated functions of administration are handed. If one has a consultancy body, the important thing is to have people on that council who are prepared to consult with the Government. A consultancy body, in other words, becomes yet another arm of this Parliament. One wants people in such a body who are prepared to co-operate with the Government, who are prepared to consult with the Government over the problems of the Indian community and who are prepared to assist the Government in administering certain functions. This is really the function which the Indian Council has to date fulfilled.

However, one is in a totally different game when one starts having a representative council of freely elected people, because now the council is no longer an arm of the Government, but is in fact the platform of the people. The representatives of the council are not answerable to the Government as they are at present as representatives of the Indian Council, but they are in fact answerable to the electorate who put them there.

This brings me to the point which has been raised by the hon. member for Klip River. He says he hopes that the people will not become too radical in their demands and in their attitude. If one says to people they are entitled to vote in their own representative council, one must accept then that they will portray the feelings of their people. They have a responsibility to their people.

What happens in this situation is that the hon. the Minister expects the Indian people to elect people on to this body who will in fact co-operate with the Minister as the previous administration has done with regard to these functions. We had exactly the same situation with the Coloured Representative Council, where the Government was terribly surprised when there was a confrontation between them and the Coloured Representative Council when they changed the CRC, from a consultancy body which was in reality just another arm of the executive, into a representative council of which the majority of members were freely elected. The Government just could not understand this. Now one is going to find exactly the same possibility arising with the Indian community.

The hon. member for Klip River has mentioned it and the hon. member for Newcastle mentioned it under the hon. the Minister’s Vote. The hon. the Minister might recall that last year I mentioned exactly the same thing. This was a year ago, when we knew what the hon. the Minister’s intentions were. At that time I asked him whether he did not feel that, with the dynamics that exist in Black politics, once the Council becomes a fully elected council, it is in fact going to become an issue of division in the Indian community since there is going to be one stream of the Community which will want to co-operate with the Government and will use the council in such a way that the Indian people will benefit on a socio-economic level, and another stream which will not be prepared to co-operate in the use of the Council because to them it will represent their second-class citizenship. That stream may consequently condemn it and require of the representatives they vote in that they should demand full rights for the Indian people themselves.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the functions, duties and powers of the Indian Council have been finalized in the Act of 1968. This Bill has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The point is that in terms of this Bill it is now no longer …

Order! That is in terms of the hon. member’s reading of the Bill with which, incidentally, I do not agree.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of the Bill reads as follows—

Section 1A of the South African Indian Council Act, 1968, which section is headed “Constitution of council by appointment and election of members”, reads as follows—

1. (1) The State President may, after consultation by the Minister with the council, by proclamation in the Gazette declare that from a date specified in such proclamation the council shall consist of so many members, not exceeding 30, as may be so specified, of whom such number as may be so specified shall be appointed by the Minister and the remainder shall be elected in the manner prescribed in such proclamation.

In other words, there was a discretion on the part of the State President which is now being removed. My argument is that the discretion should not be removed.

Order! My ruling on that point is that the section which has been quoted by the hon. member is not altered in any way by this Bill, which only regulates the manner in which members are to be elected to the council. [Interjections.]

Sir, my point is simply that I think the hon. the Minister … [Interjections.]… by insisting on taking the discretion away from the State President is inviting the same problem as existed before … [Interjections.] We therefore oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the machinery with which an opportunity is being given to the Indian population for the first time in the history of South Africa … [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I hope that the hon. lady who is now putting on her hat, will listen to me. As the year go by, the hon. member for Houghton looks more and more like the matriarch of the House. [Interjections.]

Order! It seems to me that it would be a very nice nightcap on a cold winter’s night.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased you say that, because I have a cold and I feel sleepy.

In all seriousness, I want to say that we are dealing with a Bill which creates the machinery which, for the first time in the history of South Africa, places the Indian population in a position where they can appoint at least a partially representative council for themselves. Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that we must not discuss the council at length. I accept this. You will allow me, however, Mr. Speaker, to say that a proper representative council is being formed for the first time, which will not only afford the Indians tremendous opportunities but also considerably more responsibility. I assume that the Indian community and the Indian Council will duly consider their position. They can use the council as a platform either for confrontation or for co-operation with the rest of South Africa. I trust that when the Indian population looks at Africa, it will, just like the Whites, learn the important lesson which is to be learned in South Africa, and that we can rely on their co-operation and not on confrontation. I am very pleased that they now have their own electoral law, because the Indians are a distinct community with a culture and way of life of their own. Through this Bill they are getting their own representative council and I hope that that council will be a platform for co-operation with their own people and the rest of South Africa in future. I hope this electoral law will be only the beginning of a bigger step forward and better co-operation with the Government and the rest of South Africa. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think this can go on. As far as I am concerned it is unheard of to have this degree of unanimity about such an important measure. When I say I appreciate the point of view of the Opposition parties, I mean it very sincerely, because I am on record as having said that in the case of the Indian community we are dealing with a community that has become truly South African and whose devotion and loyalty to South Africa has been placed beyond any doubt, a community which really makes an interesting and colourful contribution to the many facets of life in South Africa.

The purpose of the Bill is to give the Indians an opportunity to exercise their franchise as citizens of South Africa and to obtain a direct share in the control of their own interests.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Berea personally not only for his support, but also for the charming manner in which he offered that support. Dealing with his points very briefly, I want to say that the age determination of 18 years to qualify as a voter is introduced at the request of the Indian Council. I feel they are the best able to determine the age at which they want their youths to vote and therefore we accepted their recommendation. The hon. member also mentioned the question as to whether the deposit should be R600 or less. The hon. member has an amendment in this regard on the Order Paper and he will forgive me if I leave the matter for full discussion when we come to the Committee Stage.

Then he also asked me about the Indians in the Orange Free State. I genuinely was under the impression that there were still three Indians in the Orange Free State and I told hon. members so across the floor of this House. However, I am informed by one of my senior officials who examined the census for 1970 that there are at present no Indians at all in the Orange Free State. [Interjections.] Apparently those who were there have since succeeded in getting themselves classified as Coloureds. There are no Indians as such in the Orange Free State at all, so the problem of the hon. member falls away.

*The hon. member for Klip River raised a very interesting question. I fully agree with him, of course, as I do with the hon. member for Randburg, in so far as his contribution was relevant, that it is necessary for the Indians to retain outstanding leaders on the Indian Council. I definitely believe we shall get such leaders by a democratic process. I just want to tell the hon. member for Randburg that if we should decide later, in drafting the constitution for the Indian Council to nominate a number of members, I owe it to the Indian community, to appoint those members in proportion to the number of members elected by the supporters of the various parties. I shall not disrupt the situation. At this stage that is all I can say about this question.

I think it is remarkable, and an indication of how we are all making progress and changing in South Africa, that we can, on this occasion, unanimously adopt such a democratic measure for the Indian community in the Parliament of South Africa and in the Other Place. For many years there have been great differences amongst us about the Indians. There was a time when the two big parties both believed that the Indians should be repatriated. Those stories, however, are over and done with now. There was a time, in 1948, when the NP revoked the limited franchise of the Indians. Another interesting snippet of history we should remember is that in 1946 Gen. Smuts, with his enormous influence in Natal, asked the Natal Provincial Council to pass an electoral law for the Indians, to allow them to vote for local organizations, and that the Natal Provincial Council refused his request. That is how the situation in South Africa has changed. Today we can unanimously pass an electoral law for the Indians, and that illustrates to people at large, who do not realize what is going on in South Africa, that we do change and do accept sound points of view. We do so, however, in accordance with our own concepts, in accordance with our own insight into our own policy and not as a result of the pressure brought to bear from the outside. My sincere thanks to hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 33:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a remark made by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place when a similar amendment was being debated. The hon. the Minister said—

I want to take issue with the hon. the Minister in that respect. During the Second Reading debate I drew the hon. the Minister’s attention to the question of the proportion of income tax paid by the various racial groups. I pointed out at the time that the number of normal income taxpayers amongst the Indians represented approximately 8% of the Indian population. I want to quote a respected professional man in this regard. In referring to the question of the Indian Council he said—

It would appear that this could well be the case. I have indicated certain figures to the hon. the Minister, and I would also like to draw his attention to the fact that in so far as the Whites are concerned, 26% of the White population pay normal tax, of the Coloureds 5% pay and of the Indians more or less 8% pay normal tax. To make it simpler, I have given round figures. Therefore it is obvious that a very low percentage of Indians is in a position to pay even the normal tax. I therefore do not believe that the contention of the members of the Indian Council is really borne out by actual fact. I am not suggesting any reflection on the ability or on the sincerity of the present members of the Indian Council, but a brief survey of the council as it stands at the moment—that is 30 members—reveals to me that there are 22 members who belong either to the professional and the technical class or to the administrative and management class. For example, there are eight businessmen and six directors of companies. Then there is one butcher presumably representing the trading class.

I believe that if one considers the number of economically active Indians, in terms of the 1970 census, as being approximately 200 000, and one takes into consideration that the professional and technical, as well as the administrative and managerial class represent a mere 12 000-odd of that 200 000, whereas 156 000 Indians are included in the clerical and related class, salesworkers, service workers, production workers, transport workers and labourers, there is a need for that class of Indians, which is numerically by far in the majority, to have the opportunity of being elected or of standing for election to this council. In the light of these facts, and in the light of what he said about the emergence of a number of small parties, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not give this amendment consideration. Will he not give the poorer class of Indian an opportunity instead of pricing them out of it by making the deposit required from them in order to stand for election, an unrealistic one?

Mr. Chairman, I have considered this amendment very carefully. An identical amendment was also moved in the Other Place, where there was an opportunity of discussing it in more detail. I hope the hon. member for Berea will not press this amendment. I will tell him why. It is the wish of the Indian people that we should deter what I would call frivolous candidatures in elections. It is also the wish of the White electorate. As a Parliament, we have unanimously increased our deposit to R600, and the Indians are merely following our example.

I am impressed by the argument that one should not take action which will preclude bona fide candidates from standing for election, and I think that might have been a valid argument if a deposit amounting to R600 in cash was the requirement stated in the Bill but that is not the case. A candidate can satisfy his returning officer with a surety bond from himself or from somebody else, if he is a creditable man.

I appreciate that, but a poor man cannot always do that.

I believe that any man who wants to offer himself for election in a community like the Indian community should be able, amongst his friends and acquaintances, and certainly among his supporters, to gather several people who are willing to sign surety for R600 on the basis that he will get one-fifth of the votes cast for the winning candidate. I am not convinced that this is going to preclude bona fide candidates, with a measure of support from the public, from standing. However, we have had, in our own elections, people getting as few as two votes in an election. I am sure such a man will not get people backing him if he is not likely to get at least one-fifth of the votes cast for the winning candidate. Anyway, that is the sort of candidate you want to exclude. However, as the Bill reads that cash is not required, I am satisfied and the members of the Indian Council are satisfied that any bona fide candidate with the measure of public support which should be a prerequisite for candidature will not find difficulty with this in the future. With regret, I cannot go against the wishes of the Indian Council, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 105:

Mr. Chairman, very often in legislation one comes across the problem of the words “may” and “shall”, being mandatory. Clause 105(5)(a) states—

I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

I do so because I feel it is incumbent upon a person in a position of responsibility, such as the editor of a newspaper, to accept the responsibility of his office and to willingly do so by accepting that he must at all times be seen to sign or affix his name and address to anything that he has put out which bears a reference to an election. I wish to quote for the benefit of this Committee an excerpt from a book written by Fred Hirsch and David Gordon, entitled Newspaper Money, which states—

This is what I seek in the particular amendment which I have moved, namely balanced party coverage. We had a case recently where a complaint was put before the South African Press Council and the editor of one of our leading daily newspapers maintained that it was an editor’s right to decide what utterances made and meetings held by candidates for or holders of public offices are newsworthy. This may be his right, but he must at all times be seen to sign his name to any utterance that is made by his newspaper. I know that this amendment was moved in the Other Place, but I ask the hon. the Minister please to re-think on this matter and to put in the mandatory “shall” in this clause in respect of the editors of newspapers.

Mr. Chairman, it is an interesting suggestion that has been made by the hon. member for Umhlanga, but I do not see how it can be applied in practice. We have consulted with the Department of the Interior, which administers the existing Act for Whites, and they agree that there is a good reason for the word “may” in this clause. First of all, I must point out that the editor of a newspaper is responsible for everything that appears in his newspaper. That has been accepted by our courts as part of the established law and practice of South Africa. Therefore it is not necessary to insert the word “shall” in this clause, because he is responsible in any case. The reason why the word “may” has been inserted is to allow editors, where they feel that the original author is no longer solely responsible, because other people have amended that report, to have the discretion to put it in the by-line. However, how does one compel that discretion? It is a matter which is completely at the discretion of the editor and it would require very difficult court action to establish that this was necessary. Witnesses will be difficult to obtain, and I do not think that it will be practicable. Again, the answer is that the editor is in any case responsible for everything that appears in his newspaper. Finally, I may add that in the new Press Code which the NPU has accepted, there is a clause which reads that all reports will be filed for a certain period in case there is a dispute. In that way the responsibility for such an article and the nature of such an article will be able to be determined. I think that what the hon. member wants to achieve is achieved in other ways.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 162:

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

I know the hon. the Minister will tell the Committee that he does consult with the council, and I accept that he does, but I believe that the authority of the council should be entrenched in legislation wherever possible. It is the object of the amendment to ensure that. I realize that there are difficulties in that regard, because the hon. the Minister has quoted cases of urgency. Without going into any detail, I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to sections 32 to 44 of the Health Act, Act 63 of 1977, where a whole series of regulations is dealt with under different circumstances, and provision is made for consultation with bodies whom it is considered necessary to consult. I want to quote the hon. the Minister an example in this very Bill. Clause 29 deals with the delimitation of electoral divisions and clause 29(2) provides that—

I urge the hon. the Minister to accept that principle in this amendment as well.

Mr. Chairman, the question of urgency to which the hon. member referred is of course very important. It goes further than that, however, because it has no precedent in our electoral laws. The Electoral Act does not state that the Senate or House of Assembly should be consulted before regulations are made. The Electoral Act for Coloureds does not state it either and there are good reasons for that. On the eve of an election it is often urgently necessary to make regulations. I personally feel—and I think my hon. friend will agree— that it is wrong to ask a dying council on the point of being dissolved and subjecting itself to an election, to express an opinion and to have a say in the regulations which will control its own re-election. For this reason my hon. friend must not take it amiss of me that I cannot accept this amendment. My problem is that I have already accepted the best amendments of the Opposition in the Other Place.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we will adopt the same attitude during the Third Reading as we did at the Second Reading and the other stages. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the Indian electoral procedure is modelled on or is identical to the procedure which applies to the White voter?

Yes, with certain differences.

With certain differences. Nevertheless a Select Committee of this House has considered the whole question of the electoral procedure. One of its main recommendations was that we should depart from the old electoral procedure for compiling the voters’ roll by way of the R.P. 1 and that we should go to the book of life instead. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is also the intention to amend the Indian Electoral Act to bring it into line with the requirement that the book of life should form the basis of the electoral system for the Indians as well?

Mr. Speaker, when the book of life has been brought into use to a sufficient extent we will consider it, and our intention is to do it.

In time for the next election?

No, maybe for the election after that.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know, the S.A. Indian Council does not yet function on the same basis as the CRC. For instance, the Indian Council does not yet have any legislative powers. The only executive power which the council has, is that which I delegated to the council under the Education for Indians Act, and the Civil Pensions Act.

The intention was to introduce legislation during this session which will place the Indian Council on precisely the same basis as the CRC as far as its powers are concerned. In fact, a draft Bill has already been drafted.

However, as hon. members also know, there is a committee giving urgent attention to possible adaptations which could be made to the Westminster system to provide for the needs of the times in which we live. It could just happen, therefore, that this committee will come up with suggestions which will place the position of the Indian Council in a completely different light to that in which we see it today.

For this single reason I believe that it will be wise if at this stage we do not continue to plan for something which may at a later stage prove not to fit in with the pattern which might be suggested, and which would then have to be undone again. To go ahead willy-nilly with the planning for an election of a new council at this stage may later prove to be a major and fruitless expense.

In the meantime, the terms of office of the members of the present S.A. Indian Council expire on 5 November this year. I am fully aware of the fact that the Indian Council wishes the Indian community to take its next step on the road of its political development, and I appreciate this desire of the council, but I am also grateful for the fact that I am working with a group of people who can argue quite realistically about the problem as I have just sketched it for hon. members. They accept that a new deal for the Indian Council could have a real influence on both the electorate and prospective candidates who wish to stand for election and therefore, notwithstanding its desires, the council has given its support for the proposed amendment.

I want to assure hon. members that the life of the present council will not be prolonged one day longer than is really necessary, and therefore special provision is being made that the terms of office of the members of the council expire on the day on which the first election takes place under the provisions of the Electoral Law for Indians.

In the light of the circumstances which I have just sketched, I believe that, as in the case of the Indian Council, I shall also obtain the support of the Opposition for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we can put the hon. the Minister’s mind at rest. It is our intention to support the Bill, but I believe that the whole raison d’être for this amendment Bill can be summed up in the comments received from an Indian of some substance who said the following—

The same person goes on to state—

I believe that that sums up the situation. That is why we have had to have the life of the council extended, because unfortunately the council has not enjoyed the full confidence of the members of the Indian community, and those members of the community have been tardy in registering their votes. This has necessitated an extension of the life of the council.

The official Opposition feels that this Government has had 15 years to move in the direction of a fully elected council which could have been a stepping stone towards reassuring many Indians of a meaningful participation in government and law-making, and in rescinding legislation which restricts Indians in their day to day activities. I believe that time is no longer on our side. Speed is of the essence. I therefore believe that the amendment we intend to move in the Committee Stage will indicate the urgency with which we believe this matter must be tackled.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House this evening. I do not think the House is in a mood for it. We will not oppose this Bill, a Bill which allows for the extension of the life of the Indian Council. We would like to take this opportunity, however, and offer a warning to the hon. the Minister. He is engaged in the process of changing the present Indian Council into an elected body. During the debate of the Electoral Bill the hon. member for Randburg pointed out that the Indian Council as such, even if it is elected, will not have the support of the Indian community, nor will it meet the aspirations of the Indian community, who, like the Coloureds, want a real say in the shaping of their destiny. The hon. member for Berea has pointed out that the Indian community have shown their disapproval of the council in that they have refused to register as voters in any number at all. During the debate on the hon. the Minister’s Vote I think he said that something like 11% of the voting potential registered at that time. 11% can give no meaningful say to the Indians. They therefore obviously disapprove of what is going on. So, in lengthening the life of the Indian Council we are merely prolonging the falseness of a system which in no way meets in the present situation all the aspirations of the South African Indian community. We will support it, but we do not believe that the Minister is really pursuing a fruitful path in going forward with a system which is totally inadequate.

Mr. Speaker, in total contrast to the arguments advanced by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I wish to say that we in the SAP support the hon. the Minister. We think he needs time to make the necessary adaptations to the Westminster system and therefore, as the hon. gentleman has said, they do not wish to incur unnecessary expense and that is why he wishes to extend the terms of office of the members. Therefore, we support it. I wish to say that, in contrast to the speech by the hon. member for Orange Grove, we regard the creation of councils for the various communities as the best start in order to have the most ideal political dispensation in South Africa at a later stage. Therefore we do not share the hon. member’s reservations. In fact, if it is carefully explained to the Indian population that this is not a form of discrimination or a form of inferiority, but in fact a plan to grant them a greater say in their own affairs and also to gain a larger share in joint consultation and decision-making in South Africa, then I believe they will understand what is meant by what is being offered them.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support of the measure and I also thank the members of the PRP who support this although they do not support it. I appreciate that attitude very much. This only shows what we can do when we are in a hurry. I can understand their problem. Of course they do not like the measure, neither do they like the previous measure for they do not believe in the franchise which we grant; they want a qualified franchise. They have completely different ideas. The hon. member for Orange Grove is, of course, going too far when he condemns the Indian Council as he did whereas, like me, he still does not know what the result is of the committee dealing with adaptations to the Westminster system. I think he should suspend his judgment for a while. Thank you very much, Sir. I think this is a necessary measure and as soon as the Westminster proposals are known, we shall come to the House with the measures necessary to make the adjustments.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order paper, as follows—

The object of this amendment is to seek to impress upon the hon. the Minister and the Government the urgency with which this matter must be finalized and also to inform the Indian community that the official Opposition is just as anxious as they are to see that the council should be a fully elected council at the earliest opportunity. I believe it would act as an impetus to registration if they realized that this now becomes a matter of urgency. I realize that unforeseen circumstances may develop which could necessitate some delay. However, the hon. the Minister and the Government could at any time come forward with an amending Bill at a subsequent session of Parliament, should those circumstances arise. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to accept this as an earnest gesture indicating that he will do his utmost to ensure that the electoral roll is representative so that the council can be fully elected by 1980.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for Berea that we are all anxious that the Indian Council should be formed and become a more significant body in the political framework of the Republic of South Africa. However, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment because one does not know what the future may hold. I do not want to ask new powers from Parliament each time. I and the Government will be under pressure, firstly, from the Indian Council and, secondly, from this Parliament not to waste time. We remain accountable to this Parliament. I can assure the hon. member that if there is undue or unjustifiable delay hon. members on my side of the House will also certainly not be loath to let it be known that they take exception to it. I think we can leave this matter of undue prolongation of the life of the Indian Council to that council itself and, more important, to the supervision this House exercises over the executive acts of Ministers.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Housing Amendment Bill, 1977, is a fairly short Bill which contains only three provisions worthy of mention. In the first instance, a protective workshop for persons who are handicapped to such an extent that they cannot be admitted to sheltered employment with the Department of Labour is being included in the definition of “scheme”, to enable advances to be made from the National Housing Fund for the establishment of such a protective workshop.

As hon. members are aware, the building of various types of accommodation institutions, apart from dwelling houses and flats, are financed from the National Housing Fund, such as homes for the elderly and for children, after-care homes for alcoholics and institutions for physically and mentally handicapped persons. Before 1975 it was also possible to finance additional facilities such as rehabilitation centres, protective workshops, places of care for children and service centres for elderly people if they formed part of housing schemes.

In 1975 the Housing Act was amended to make provision for financing from the Housing Fund of places of care for children of working parents and service centres for the elderly which were independent of any housing scheme. This was done at the request of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions because the Department of Community Development had a convenient source of finance, namely the National Housing Fund, and also had efficient machinery with extensive knowledge and experience of the cost and standards, in particular, of such institutions.

Representations have again been received recently, this time to the effect that protective workshops for handicapped persons, viz. persons handicapped to such an extent that they cannot be admitted to sheltered employment with the Department of Labour, should also be financed from the National Housing Fund. The intention is to comply with this request, which is in line with the provision of places of care for children of working parents or independent service centres for the elderly, in accordance with the amendment to this effect in this Bill.

In the second place, as announced, we envisage appointing members of the Coloured and Indian communities to statutory bodies, where possible, so that they may share in decision-taking and policy forming particularly where their own communities are involved. The National Housing Commission is such a body.

The Housing Act provides that the commission must consist of at least seven and at most 10 members, one of whom must be an engineer or quantity surveyor or town planner, one a medical practitioner, one an advocate or attorney and three with general knowledge or experience in connection with local government. At least one of the members of the commission must also be a woman. The commission which functions on a part-time basis at present consists of the maximum number of members, namely 10, all of whom are persons who have been attached to this body over a long period of time and have rendered, and still render, good service. In my opinion these members, almost all of whose appointments only expire in a year’s time or more, should be retained on the commission.

To enable me to appoint members of the Coloured and Indian communities to the commission without delay, it is envisaged in the Bill to extend the membership of the commission in order to achieve that aim without delay.

As far as the third important aspect of the Bill is concerned, I just want to point out that the provision contained in clause 3 is the same as that which appears in clause 4 of the Community Development Amendment Bill. I should like to discuss again the background of events which gave rise to this measure that is proposed.

In October 1976, on the pretext that the dwellings they had occupied had been damaged in stormy weather—whereas subsequently it became evident that they themselves had done the damage intentionally, unlawfully and without permission— Coloureds entered and occupied about 50 new houses at Eldorado Park which had been handed over to the department by its building contractor and had already been allocated to other Coloured families, but had not yet been occupied. Apart from this, certain houses which had almost been completed but had not yet been handed over to the department by the contractors were occupied in the same way without the permission of the contractor. Altogether 163 dwellings were hijacked in this way.

Since the department could not turn a blind eye to this trespassing on its property and infringement of the rights of other persons with lawful claims to whom the dwellings had been allocated, the matter was handed over to the police for further action in accordance with the laws of the land. A great many of the lawful claimants to the dwellings made earnest representations to the department and they trusted that the trespassers would be summarily evicted by the police so that the position could be rectified.

However, the police did not have a legal right summarily to evict the trespassers and were compelled to institute criminal proceedings.

The court cases were delayed time and again on technical grounds, with the result that the illegal occupiers were still occupying the dwellings this month. Some of them are still there. It will only be possible to evict them finally if and when the court issues evictment orders, a process which can be made to drag on for a very long time. A civil application to the Supreme Court for evictment orders was also made in October 1976 but a final ruling has not yet been given. There was a ruling, but it was appealed against and the case has not yet been dealt with. This state of affairs is of course extremely undesirable due to damage caused by the trespassers, the unavoidable breaking of undertakings to make the dwellings concerned available to other people and the loss of rent running to thousands of rands per month. The legal loophole which gives rise to the situation that such unlawful occupiers cannot be summarily evicted without obtaining a court order, ought therefore to be rectified as soon as possible. Those who take the law into their own hands in this way are not entitled to any sympathy on the basis of legislation.

Provision is already made in the Housing Act for the evictment without a court order of people who do not pay their rent. Since the department and local managements are now building more than 30 000 houses per annum, this unlawful behaviour cannot be permitted in view of the danger that unlawful occupancy could become common, if immediate and firm action is not taken. Moreover, unlawful occupancy very soon leads to damage to property and the longer the occupancy by unlawful elements continues, the greater is the danger of damage.

Those who unlawfully move into and occupy buildings financed from the National Housing Fund, in other words, apart from my department’s own schemes and local management schemes, may be dealt with effectively and without delay in terms of this amendment which is being proposed in this Bill.

I want to mention that since the Community Development Board, the other major statutory body under the wing of my department, also provides accommodation and faces this same problem, I have proposed a similar amendment to the Community Development Act of 1966, as hon. members will recall.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say immediately that the provisions of clause 1 of the Bill are acceptable. It is only right that the handicapped should be considered in the provision of community services. I also welcome the enlargement of the board so as to provide that this board can be representative of all the race communities in our country.

When I come to clause 3 I will be careful not to provoke the hon. the Minister into a lengthy reply, but I think it is essential that we record our views and our deep objections to this particular clause, and its totally unacceptable provisions. The proposals are that an unlawful occupier can be physically ejected by force, not by officials of the court, but by persons other than the officials of the court, i.e. representatives of the department or anyone else who is responsible for the provision of the house. Secondly, this Bill provides for the creation of a new offence with penalties of up to R2 000 and imprisonment of up to two years for a form of trespass which is likely to be done by the poorest, most underprivileged section of the community seeking accommodation.

There is no need for the hon. the Minister to dilate upon certain aspects which have been dealt with in the Other Place, because we have no quarrel with the principle that, in the first place, a property should be repossessed expeditiously if it is illegally occupied and, secondly that if a person is ordered to vacate a property and fails to do so, that force may be used. Thirdly, whatever the motivation for the trespass, whether it is—as was indicated in the Other Place—the urgent need for housing, whatever the motivation was, it is irrelevant to the provisions of this Bill. Similarly, the inconvenience to the State—the hon. the Minister dealt with this in the Other Place—is equally irrelevant to the provisions of this Bill. What is relevant, however, is the basic recognition of the normal process of law. The present Act gives power to the Secretary to enter upon and to take possession of these premises in the circumstances which are mentioned in the Bill before us. The law as it stands does, however, not authorize the Secretary or a person authorized by him to use force. Here is the great divide between us and the Government. We feel proper regard should be had to the process of law. What the State must do, is to apply for a summary order of ejectment which can be done under the Act as it stands at present and then for the issue of a warrant of ejectment. If the use of force is necessary, that force should be used by officials of the court. If it be a magistrate’s court, it would be the messenger of the court, and if it is a Supreme Court, it would be the deputy sheriff.

In emergencies or in serious cases he would be assisted by the police. The Government, as a landlord-owner, however, wishes to take the law into its own hands and to disregard the normal accepted processes of the court that where an ejectment has to be effected by force, it must be effected by officials of the court and not by officials of some other Government department. I believe in the basic right of every individual to the protection of the court as to how a court order is executed and to bring it into disrepute as this Bill does, is something that we cannot support. The hon. the Minister said that there were certain delays in that they had to apply for ejectment orders and that it took some time. Our view and our acceptance of the courts of law, the practise of the law in this country and of the judiciary leads us to think that there must be a valid reason why there has been this delay. There must be some valid reason why the courts have not given an order before now. If it is purely a procedural matter that the hon. the Minister has not been able to get ejectment orders, I want to remind him that there are many instances in our law where a summary judgment can be obtained on the certificate of a State official.

For example, there is the case in regard to income tax where a judgment is entered on a certificate of a State official, and execution is levied. That is the procedure which the hon. the Minister should accept. In years gone by I have been impressed frequently by the hon. the Minister and by his attitude towards various aspects of government and his credo. Nothing has impressed me more, however, than when he over the years said that the decision of bureaucrats must never replace the majesty of the law and the ultimate guardianship of the courts.

That is not relevant.

It is very relevant, because what is before us now, is that the hon. the Minister says that he will have no regard to the guardianship of the courts which requires that an ejectment shall be effected by a court official … [Interjections.] The hon. member must keep quiet. The hon. the Minister is now asking that force can be used by a State official of the Department of Housing or of a local authority. But that person is not an official of the court. He is not clothed with the sanctity and the majesty of our legal procedure to which the hon. the Minister referred in days gone by. That is what the Government is requesting the House to approve, and this the House cannot do. Even at this late stage of these proceedings it will be necessary for us on this side of the House to vote against this Bill as evidence that we cannot accept this departure from normal legal proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, I think the holier-than-thou attitude which the hon. member for Green Point is adopting at this stage of the evening really sets great demands on one’s self-control. I do not believe that we can continue to argue at this stage with hon. members who act here as champions for people who, in point of fact, are house hijackers. [Interjections.] Listening to the hon. member’s argument one would say that those people are the most pitiable and innocent creatures who in fact need legal protection and that it is really the Government that is the transgressor, and the infringer of the law. Surely we cannot allow people to do just as they like and then listen to the champions who want to support them in their wrong-doing.

If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to confine myself very briefly to clause 1 of this Bill. At this stage the State is already doing a tremendous amount to assist people handicapped in various ways in various spheres and to enable them to lead a meaningful life. I want to refer in particular to the mentally handicapped persons, for whom another wonderful opportunity is being afforded here by the provision of funds for the financing of workshops for them as provided for in clause 1. A large measure of success has already been achieved in developing a considerable degree of skill among handicapped persons at day centres. Nevertheless we find that it is very much by way of exception that the level of fitness for labour is as much as 50%, which is really the “open sesame” for sheltered labour. Workshops for such handicapped persons at an after-care level are necessarily expensive projects, and can hardly be afforded by the church and other bodies. It is this very aspect which gives the greatest cause for concern for parents and other responsible persons, particularly due to the problem of keeping handicapped persons occupied practically and meaningfully.

We who have been directly concerned with this matter for years are therefore deeply grateful towards the Government this evening, and towards the department in particular, for what is now being made possible. I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that what is happening this evening is truly an answer to a prayer.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Tygervallei in regard to the nature of the problem. According to the hon. member for Tygervallei, the problem lies in the fact that people unlawfully occupy property and that there is no way to deal with them other than through the legal channels. That is, of course, the problem. However, what one can do about the problem is also important.

We cannot condone people occupying property unlawfully and occupying a property in this way against the will of the owner, and using it for their own purposes. However, when the situation occurs in a society that people feel compelled to seek shelter for themselves and their families, then we really do have a problem. This then becomes a problem deserving of the serious attention of the society in question, a problem which in fact constitutes a charge against the society. I do not want to enter into an endless debate with the hon. the Minister at this juncture. In any event he has already heard all the other arguments in the Other Place. However, the hon. the Minister displays a tendency simply to refer to squatters and to people of this kind as criminals.

That is not so!

But it is so. The hon. member for Carletonville states that it is not so. However we have heard so many speeches by the hon. the Minister here in this House in which he has said this.

You know that is not so!

When it happens in a society that the laws of a country make criminals of people who seek shelter for themselves and their families, we have an explosive situation, an extremely dangerous situation which deserves the serious attention of all. Here the problem is being spelt out. The measure being adopted by the hon. the Minister in this specific Bill to counter that problem will not work. Why not? It will not work because one cannot combat anarchy with anarchy.

One cannot get a situation in which the arbitrary actions of the ordinary citizens of the country are dealt with by the State in an arbitrary way. As soon as one does so there is conflict, there is contradiction and there is a total lack of respect for right and justice in that society. That is why we are totally opposed to clause 3, not only for moral reasons, but also on practical grounds. This is a situation in which there can be no arbiter. It is quite simply a conflict between two groups acting in an arbitrary way to counter a very serious problem. We believe that this is a futile measure and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, the UP and the PRP do not really object to clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill, and their objection to the Bill is really aimed at clause 3. It is of course a pity that circumstances in South Africa have developed in such a way that we need a Bill such as this. However I want to add at once that if conditions in South Africa had been normal, if we had had a normal, balanced society here, we should not have supported such a Bill, nor would this Bill have been necessary. Perhaps this is a fact which we should not fail to bear in mind. We are dealing here with an abnormal situation and I think it would be a fatal mistake—and this is a matter which has been thrashed out in detail before—if we were to create a situation in which we supported the hijacking of houses in South Africa.

Of course there is a great deal in the argument advanced by the hon. member for Rondebosch to the effect that one cannot fight anarchy with anarchy, because then one destroys respect for the law. That is true. But is the fact that clause 3 is being introduced, not due to the very fact that certain people have denied the rights of others? That is where it began. And where does this thing end? Let us take it that it could continue like this for a time, but where would it eventually end? One could easily get the situation in which I build myself a small house at Bloubergstrand at great expense, with a view to my retirement, and just before I move in and while the cement is drying and I am on holiday for a month, I find when I come back that the house has been occupied by someone else, a house-hijacker. [Interjections.] Hon. members have come up with all kinds of stories and I can tell similar stories, but we are dealing here with the essence of a major problem and it seems to me that we should not take it out of context.

The first thing I expect is that the house-owner and his possessions must be secured. And I expect of the State that it will protect me and that it will also protect my right of occupation of my house or the right I have to move into that house which the State has built me.

That is your basic right.

In my opinion this is one of my basic rights and if anyone tells me that the State dare not do this because some other consideration is involved, I say that in the first instance I expect of the State of which I am a citizen that it will protect me and my basic right. The hon. the Minister’s problem with regard to squatting and house-hijacking is a social problem, but that I want to discuss outside the context of the Bill. I expect in the first instance that my basic right to live in my own house or the right to live there that is given to me will at least be protected. That is why we feel, as we have already said during the discussion of the squatter legislation, that we will not oppose the hon. the Minister in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I knew that we could not continue as we have been by being consistently in agreement this evening. I have a great deal of appreciation for the standpoint of my friend, the hon. member for Green Point, and also my friend the hon. member for Rondebosch. We adopt differing standpoints on these matters and those differing standpoints occur due to the fact that we on this side have the responsibility of maintaining order and protecting the rights of our citizens.

Through the courts.

We have the responsibility of doing so in the best and most effective way. My friends opposite, however, have the luxury of theory and idealism which is not based on reality. However, I do not wish to score political points because I appreciate the way in which the debate has been conducted thus far. Just to illustrate my point, however, I must remind hon. members that if one carries a responsibility, one’s standpoint is necessarily different to when one merely sits there with the right and the privilege and the pleasant irresponsibility of only having to criticize. That is why I now want to quote to my hon. friends a letter, which I received on 23 January last year from the City Council of Johannesburg. At the time the city council was controlled by the UP, because they had an absolute majority in that council. This is also a city council which carries major responsibilities in regard to housing. The letter does not come from the town clerk but from the clerk of the council, in which the members of the UP were in the majority and therefore carried the responsibility. The letter was addressed to the Secretary of Community Development and read as follows—

They refer to the Housing Act—

I have already indicated that in the case of non-payment we can already evict such a person without going to court. They refer to this and go on—

I leave out a section at this point and then proceed—

It is the UP that says this—

That is what we are now doing.

You are amending section 86 and not section 65.

It has the same effect and we are doing that now. In this case the UP was in a position of responsibility and it came to the same conclusion as we did. I am sure that the NP in the city council probably opposed them because there they had the privilege of opposition. When one carries the responsibility one’s standpoint changes due to the demands of reality, and that is what has happened here.

We have here a case of hijacking where people unlawfully occupied other peoples’ houses—not only the houses of the Department of Community Development but also houses allocated to other people, people with a greater need—and destroyed those houses. I have an estimate to the effect that they have already inflicted damage amounting to R100 000 to those houses and this is money we shall never get back. What goes on there is indescribable and these are houses that have been allocated to people who have a greater need. When the Transvaal judge eventually gave his ruling in the civil case, he said that it was a consideration which weighed heavily with him that there were other people with a need of and a right to the houses and for whom place had to be made to enable them to occupy their own houses. In the meantime the scoundrels were occupying those houses and destroying the property of the department.

There is a further point I want to raise. This is a matter which troubles me, and our legal experts will have to put their heads together and do something about this matter. These cases are not instituted to be won, because the people who institute the cases know in advance that they cannot win the cases on merit; they do not even have a case. However, they institute the case in order to abuse the process of law by utilizing all kinds of interim measures to cause the unlawful situation which one desires to terminate to last as long as possible. They know that they have to lose eventually and in this case it was proved.

Just before the judge gave his ruling in respect of a group of them, these people disappeared and suddenly they no longer had any difficulty getting houses. They simply disappeared; they were not prepared to await the ruling of the court because they knew from the outset that they did not have a case. They abuse—I repeat abuse—the process of law to allow an unlawful situation to continue to their own advantage and to the detriment of the community and people with a legal right. I should be irresponsible if I were to allow anything of the kind. I am therefore doing what I have to do. I believe, too, that the people concerned with legal procedures and the courts, must do their duty, too, and ensure that this situation does not persist.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—88: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—34: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; 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.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: T. G. Hughes and W. M. Sutton. Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

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

1. (1) On page 2, in line 40, to omit all the words after “dwelling” up to and including “possessions” in line 2, page 4;
2. (2) on page 4, in line 9, to omit all the words after “dwelling” up to and including “possessions” in line 12.

I am not impressed by the remarks of the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading, nor am I impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Maitland. The hon. member for Maitland seems to assume that when the house of an individual is occupied illegally, that individual can take the law into his own hands and throw the occupier out. That is the power which the hon. Minister has asked for in this Bill. In the Second Reading we expressed the views of this side of the House and we certainly cannot go along with this because the usurping of the discretions or the powers of the court is the prelude to a dictatorial or autocratic Government. For those reasons I move the amendment and I trust that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, this clause allows people to take the law into their own hands. There is no doubt about that. This is not a desirable thing. I concede that it is also not desirable that people without right should be allowed to occupy premises. When on infringes upon other people’s rights the law should give one a remedy. It should not avoid a remedy and it should not stipulate that there is no legal remedy, with the result that people can therefore take the law into their own hands. [Interjections.] How should the law deal with people who infringe upon other people’s rights? In many cases, both in the procedure of the Supreme Court and in that of the lower courts, provision is made for summary judgment procedures, whereby one can get a very quick judgment in cases like this where one needs it, so that in those cases it leads to instant ejectment. Only this evening I was discussing this clause with my learned colleagues on my left. They asked whether one cannot stop a thief when he walks into one’s house and he is about to steal one’s goods. Of course one can. If a thief walks into one’s house and he is about to steal one’s goods one can stop him, but the point is that if he has stolen one’s goods, one cannot go up to him in the street and tell him: “That is my cigarette lighter”, and then clout him over the head and take the cigarette lighter back. One cannot do that. One has to obtain a court order to get it back. [Interjections.] What clause 3 is saying—the hon. members on my left and particularly the hon. member for Brakpan must listen—is that people who take the law into their own hands must be dealt with by other people taking the law into their own hands. That is simply a definition of anarchy, where two opposing forces take the law into their own hands. That is what the irresponsible elements in South Africa and in every country in the world precisely want to have. That is precisely where we in this party come into conflict with the party on the other side of the House, because what they believe is that the status quo must be preserved at any cost.

Law and order.

Precisely. I shall come to the phrase used by the hon. member for Bellville.

Order! The hon. member must please confine himself now to the contents of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, that is exactly what I am doing. [Interjections.] Hon. members on the other side of the House say that law and order or the status quo must be preserved at any cost. We say there are certain costs which are too high to pay. The price which is too high to pay, is the price of law and order. What makes people law-abiding in society? It is a respect for the law that makes them law-abiding. If one destroys this respect, one in fact destroys law and order. I want to say that in South Africa we have a legal system that goes back 3 000 to 5 000 years—we are not entirely sure, but it goes back a very long way. We in South Africa have a very honourable legal tradition, one that we are very proud of. At one stage of my life I also qualified in law in England, and there they do not have anywhere near the proud legal tradition that we have. As I said, our legal tradition goes back 3 000 years. For 3 000 years, through all kinds of vicissitudes, through turmoil …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss those legal principles. He must confine himself to the principles that apply to this clause.

Sir, I very much want to attach what I am saying to this particular principle. I want to say that this particular principle we have in our law, which is that one should not take the law into one’s own hands, is based on the mandament van spolie which dates back 3 000 years. Through the entire Dark Ages and through all kinds of vicissitudes this law has come to us enshrined and protected by very great layers such as De Groot and Voet. As I said, this law dates back 3 000 years, but in 30 years of NP rule, which is 1% of that period of time …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause now.

Sir, this clause in fact infringes on the mandament van spolie which says that one cannot take the law into one’s own hands, but that one must get a legal remedy. [Interjections.]

Order!

Finally, Sir, my last sentence: If one allows this kind of clause to be passed, one is in effect allowing savagery that has not been allowed for 3 000 years in our law.

That is nonsense!

We therefore oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, you will pardon me if I do not reply to the hon. member who has just sat down. Firstly I think that very few of us could understand precisely what he wished to say; secondly, the little that I could understand I have already dealt with during the Second Reading; and, thirdly, he concluded with an allegation that nothing like this has happened for 3 000 years. This is such a farce and so complete an exaggeration that he really cannot expect me to take it seriously.

Where were you 3 000 years ago?

My hon. friend, the hon. member for Green Point, put up an argument I can respect. However, I am sorry, but my answer must be the same as it was in connection with a similar point raised in the Second Reading, namely that one’s attitude to these things depends upon where one sits in this House. When one is in Government, one has other responsibilities. I want to prove what I am saying. In 1944—I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park that he raised this on a previous occasion—Black people illegally occupied houses near Alexandra Township. The Smuts Government, acting under a war regulation, issued Proclamation No. 76 of 1944. I think I should quickly read from that proclamation. It provides as follows—

There was no trial required, but simply a written statement. I think the hon. member for Durban North should listen now. He made the wild statement that such a thing has not happened in 3 000 years, but it happened under the Smuts Government he supported.

You supported it too.

Yes, of course I did. I am being consistent, but you are not.

How can you be consistent sitting on that side of the House?

Just listen. I quote—

What happened then? It was provided that—

There we are. There is no difference.

Of course there are.

This clause was put into the Bill on the advice of the law advisers, who told us that if one does not have the right to use force when necessary, it will be completely ineffective as one can land oneself in interminable court cases as a result of people claiming that one used illegal force in ejecting them. Therefore I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has supported and founded my argument in this matter. What has the hon. the Minister said? He has quoted and stands by a 1944 procedure in terms of which a magistrate could give summary judgment for ejectment. I said in my Second Reading speech that I supported such a procedure. It is for instance done also under the income tax laws. Secondly, the hon. the Minister said that force could be used. But by whom? It can be used by an official of the court and not by an official of another State department. If the hon. the Minister can reject my amendment now, now that he has presented the best argument in support of it, then there is no consistency in the hon. the Minister’s thinking.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to the hon. member that he did not study the regulation. He must study it as I studied it. Then he will find that the magistrate does not act as a judicial officer. He acts as a civil servant. There is no trial or evidence. How can the hon. member say that this is a judgment by the court if there is no occasion for people to deny the allegation? [Interjections.] The magistrate acts as a civil servant, and therefore I am very sorry that I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.;. Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; 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.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D. Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, F. R.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Apart from the two provisions in this amendment Bill which incorporate new principles, the amendments proposed are of a purely technical nature.

As hon. members are aware, the Community Development Board acquires many properties in the execution of its functions. In terms, of the Expropriation Act, 1975 (Act No. 63 of 1975), compensation is payable to a lessee of property that is expropriated for loss he suffers due to the expropriation. Under section 41 of the Community Development Act, the Expropriation Board must compensate the owner of a property acquired by it by expropriation or agreement for any real financial loss or any inconvenience caused by such acquisition. Under this Act lessees are only compensated for the loss of goodwill.

However, it does sometimes happen that a lessee of property purchased by the board also suffers loss and is inconvenienced due to the acquisition of the property by the board. Therefore a provision has been inserted in this Bill in accordance with which it is being made possible to compensate a lessee in full.

Furthermore the Bill contains the same clause, word for word, that we also find in the Housing Bill that has just been discussed in this House. It is a clause in terms of which we are authorized to evict house hijackers without obtaining advance permission therefor from the court. I shall not elaborate on this further.

However, for the information of hon. members I just want to deal briefly with the remaining amendments of the principal Act that are being proposed. The Estate Duty Act, 1955 (Act No. 45 of 1955) provides that when registration of transfer of immovable property passes out of an estate, a certificate has to be submitted to the Registrar of Deeds in which the Secretary for Internal Revenue indicates that the necessary provision has been made for the payment of estate duty. Transfers of properties to the State are exempted from the abovementioned requirement but the Community Development Board has not been exempted therefrom. The Community Development Board acquires land, inter alia, for urban renewal projects, the value of which amounts to millions of rand, for example in District Six, South End in Port Elizabeth, Vrededorp and Page View in Johannesburg and certain places in Durban.

To be able to replan and redevelop areas, all the properties in the areas concerned have first to be acquired. A delay in the transfer to the board of any properties entails potential major financial loss, because a delay in the transfer of a single property can delay a project involving many millions of rand. Many of the properties so acquired belong to estates, some of which are not reported to the Master of the Supreme Court or in regard to which no steps have been taken to appoint an executor. It sometimes takes years to trace the heir and collect the estate duty.

In order to rectify this position without perhaps depriving the State of its estate duty, an amendment is being proposed in accordance with which it will be unnecessary to submit an estate duty certificate in cases where the board acquires properties, as long as the compensation for the property is paid to the Master of the Supreme Court. The estate duty can then eventually be paid over to the Receiver of Revenue.

Section 16 of the Act provides that where the board has acquired all the lots in a township or portion of a township, the ownership of all the public places in that township or portion thereof will vest in the board. On registration of transfer of all the lots and public places in favour of the board, as the Act reads at present, the Registrar of Deeds has to cancel every title deed in question and make the necessary endorsements in his registers.

It is not, of course, the intention that the Registrar should cancel all the title deeds, but only the conditions of every title deed. The present incorrect wording is being rectified in the Bill. This rectification is regarded by the Registrar of Deeds as being essential.

Section 16 goes on to provide that where all the lots in a township or portion of a township have vested in the board, then on application by the board, the Surveyor-General has to cancel the general plan of that township or part of that township so that the board may be enabled to undertake a new layout of the area without delay in order to achieve its objectives.

The word “township” is defined in section 16 as a township as defined in the Deeds Registries Act, No. 47 of 1937. In terms of this Act, a smallholding is not regarded as part of a town. In terms of this Bill we are allowing smallholdings to be included in the definition of a town.

An amendment which is also deemed essential by the Registrar of Deeds, enabling agricultural holdings to be dealt with in terms of the Act in a similar way to an ordinary township, therefore appears in the Bill.

Finally, an oversight resulting in the provisions of the Expropriation Act which came into operation on 1 January 1977 not applying to section 21, is being rectified.

Section 21 provides for the termination of contracts of lease inter alia in areas known as Asiatic bazaar areas, and for the determining of compensation where agreement cannot be reached in this regard. The present section provides that in such a case the compensation must be determined by arbitration in terms of section 45 of the Community Development Act, but the mentioned section was repealed by the Expropriation Act. Due to an oversight the provisions in question in the Expropriation Act relating to the determining of compensation were not made applicable to section 21.

Clause 5 of the Bill rectifies this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we have no difficulty with this measure, except for one clause and one query which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. We believe that the extension of compensation to lessees and the linking up of the Expropriation Act is a very wise move, as well as the expediting of procedures with regard to deceased estates. I am a little concerned about the possibilities of hardship under clause 2 of the Bill, i.e. the expunging of conditions of title when the whole township is taken over.

The hon. the Minister will be aware that where there is a removal of restrictions under the Removal of Restrictions Act and a person is adversely affected by the removal of some restriction, there is compensation payable. This also applies to a town planning scheme when there is a review of town planning conditions. It may well happen that in an approved township which is acquired by the board, provision may have been made for an open area or a park and a person acquires land outside that township, but adjacent to that park. Were that area to be rezoned or reconverted under the conditions of a new township laid out by the board to provide for a shopping centre or something of that nature, the person who has acquired a property adjacent to that could well suffer loss and could suffer depreciation of his property. I shall not ask the hon. the Minister at this stage of the session to deal with that in any detail, but I do think it is a matter which will have to be watched to see that there is no injustice as far as adjoining owners are concerned, where there is a deletion of conditions of title.

I give you that assurance immediately.

With regard to the clause relating to the application of force, may I spell it out very briefly and in simple language. We on this side of the House are quite prepared to support legislation which provides for a summary judgment procedure which is known and accepted by our courts. Where a summary judgment is obtained—and it can only be avoided if the defendant puts up security to compensate for any damages that may be suffered as a result of that order not being complied with—we are prepared to support the normal procedure where that judgment is put into effect by an official of the court and not an official of another State department, an official of the court being the messenger or the sheriff. That is the simple issue which we argued in connection with the former Bill. I do not propose to argue it again in full.

However, as I said earlier, in connection with the other Bill which we have just dealt with, this is the Great Divide. The Government wishes to take these powers to itself. We say that those powers are sacred to the courts and that they should be exercised by the courts. We will oppose the Bill on those grounds.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely rising to state that we find most of the provisions of the Bill acceptable except for the one formulated in clause 4. Because clause 4 contains the same provision which appears in the Housing Bill, as the hon. the Minister mentioned, we oppose this Bill for precisely the same reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to restate our standpoint in connection with clause 4 very clearly. We are dealing here with a totally abnormal situation. The points of law which my hon. friends have so learnedly submitted to us are all points of law applying to a normal situation. The position that we are faced with is that the National Housing Commission builds, say, 50 houses. They allocate them to applicants who have been waiting for two to three years. However, before the applicants can move in, hijackers take possession of the houses. Surely a situation of this kind is totally abnormal and we cannot expect the State to institute 50 court cases against hijackers whom they may not even be able to get hold of. We cannot implement the normal legal procedure here, and although I have the greatest respect for the law and for the courts as well, I feel that in view of the totally abnormal circumstances we must find a different solution and that is why we support the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my hon. friend, the member for Green Point, that a careful watch will in fact be kept in regard to the point relating to clause 2 as he suggested. If it appears that abuses could occur or that people’s interests could be prejudiced, we shall act at once. I am very grateful for the suggestion he made and consequently we shall certainly keep an eye on the situation.

As far as clause 4 is concerned—the clause which gives us the power to evict people forcibly—as my hon. friend says, we discussed it fully when a previous measure was being discussed and I therefore do not wish to repeat the arguments. The Department of Community Development in Johannesburg went to court with the best legal advisers we could get, senior advocates, in order to ask for the relief proposed by the hon. member for Green Point. By way of interim motions, requests and contentions the advocate, who knew that they were unable to succeed on the merits of the case …

They were points of law.

Yes, points of law. They succeeded in causing the situation to drag on for eight months. This is an untenable situation. Until such time as the courts assist us in obtaining rapid relief, we have no choice but to act outside the courts in order to allow justice to be done, not only to the State, but also to those to whom injustice has been done. Recently the British Broadcasting Corporation had a problem with regard to the worldwide transmission of a soccer match because the transmission would also reach South Africa. The trade unions threatened to strike. The BBC applied to the court to stop them, but they lost. Within 24 hours the case had been heard by the Appeal Court and they obtained a ruling enabling them to allow the transmission to take place. However, in similar circumstances we have to struggle for eight months. I do not think a reasonable person could expect that we should rest satisfied with this where the interests of the State and the interests of innocent people are involved.

Fix it up with Jimmy.

I am doing that.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.: Janson, 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe,

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 4:

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

On three occasions I have asked the hon. the Minister whether he will accept the amendment. He does not look receptive now so I will not add to what I have already said. I think that he will not accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on three occasions I have tried to convince the hon. member for Green Point that his standpoint is wrong, but I am making no progress. Like him, I content myself with what I have already said and I leave it to the House.

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

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—90: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; 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, J. P. C; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J.M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—33: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to record our displeasure at the Third Reading.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Botha, G. F.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; 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, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Janson, J.; 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, J. P. C.; Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Niemann, J. J.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; 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.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—32: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

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

Bill read a Third time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Theron Commission recommended that the University of the Western Cape be allowed to enrol selected White students at postgraduate level, upon which the Government, in its White Paper, announced that it had been decided to admit White students, under certain circumstances, with the approval of the Minister. The reason for this decision on the part of the Government is that the development of the University of the Western Cape has now reached a stage where it is in the interests of the university and prospective White students of the university to admit such Whites as students under certain circumstances. A prime consideration in this regard has been, for example, post-graduate study by White lecturers at the university for whom it would be more convenient to use the facilities of the university where they are employed. Because there might be deserving cases amongst undergraduate students, I thought fit not to exclude that specifically. Since the university only offers post-graduate training for its own graduates at present, the admission of postgraduate students of other population groups and from other universities will, in addition, contribute to the further extension of the status of the university, and thereby also to its acceptability in its own community.

To give effect to this decision of the Government, and to achieve the aim I have just sketched, it is necessary to repeal section 21 of the University of the Western Cape Act, which prohibits the enrolment of a White as a student or the attendance of classes by Whites, and in doing so to abolish the restrictions on the admission of White students to the university.

The amendment of section 22 is a logical consequence of the repeal of section 21.

Let me just say, in conclusion, that exactly the same wording and the same principles are to be found in the University of Durban-Westville Amendment Bill, which we dealt with earlier today.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, like the one concerning the University of Durban-Westville, we naturally welcome because it marks a step in the right direction. It is, of course, a very slow and painful process which we have to go through in order to bring about normality as far as universities are concerned. Twenty years ago the ruling obsession was that we should have separation between races at that level. Now the Government is moving in the other direction. However, inevitably, as perhaps is always the case when the Government does the right thing, it still does not do it properly.

Unfortunately clause 2 of the Bill has aspects which we shall oppose during the Committee Stage, because we in the UP believe that the universities should at all times be autonomous and enjoy the academic freedom to decide whom to admit to the university without any undue interference or conditions being laid down by any outside body, as it is envisaged in this clause of the Bill.

*Apart from the amendment which we shall move in the Committee Stage, we are completely in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill and express the hope that it will not be limited to post-graduate students, but will indeed apply to undergraduate students as well. In my opinion the interaction in this regard is also necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the standpoint of the PRP with regard to this legislation is exactly the same as the view we adopted in regard to the legislation on the University of Durban-Westville which was passed this evening, and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat all those arguments. We shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I shall follow the example of the hon. member for Rondebosch by saying briefly that we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, with reference to this clause I should like to move a similar amendment to the one the hon. member for Berea moved on the University of Durban-Westville legislation. We are now dealing with another Minister, however, and he is more open-minded on matters of this nature.

†I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on the Order Paper, as follows—

*The whole object of this amendment is that we should like to see the council consulted in all respects and the Minister under a legal obligation to refer such matters back to the council.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central complimented me by saying that I was more open to conviction and that that was why he has moved the same amendment as that moved on the University of Durban-Westville Bill. It struck me that exactly the same amendment also appeared on the Order Paper of the Other Place, but when we came to the Committee Stage in the Other Place, the hon. member’s colleagues did not move the amendment at all. In my opinion they regarded it as being of lesser importance.

The same arguments as those advanced by the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs with regard to his legislation, apply here. I want to go a step further, however, because I do not believe that the hon. member realizes what implications are involved in his amendment. Impossible delays could be caused when a student wants to enrol and no finality can be reached in connection with what the law prescribes. Such a student loses time and could, in the meantime, have enrolled at another university. What is more, it is a totally strange concept that the Minister is placed under an obligation to furnish reasons and to report to a body established by him.

What the hon. member actually wants is that there should be consultation. That is the existing practice, however, and as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has said, it goes without saying that there will always be contact between the council of the university and the Minister concerned. The principle need therefore not be defined in the way the hon. member wishes to do it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the fact that the amendment has been moved in the Other Place has nothing to do with the importance of this specific amendment. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that although the university has been instituted by this House, and although he is Minister entrusted with Coloured education, there should nevertheless be no question of the Minister having the degree of power he is being granted here. It is not in the interests of the universities in the ideal sense or in the interests of universities in an independent and autonomous sense. The powers granted to the hon. the Minister in terms of this provision are foreign to the nature of a university. It is only in order to improve the situation that I move the amendment.

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

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support the Third Reading of this Bill. [Interjections.] We think it is a very distinct improvement and that it opens the doors, simultaneously showing that we are moving with the times. If I may claim the indulgence of the House for just a moment, this is an occasion on which, if history runs its due course, it will be the last time that the hon. members of the UP participate in the legislative process in this House. I think it is an occasion on which we might remind ourselves—and I will do this in relation to the Bill—how transient we are as individuals and parties, and how rapidly attitudes change, both in Government and in Opposition circles. When the parent Act was passed in 1969—and we are now amending clauses 21 and 22— there was only the hon. member for Houghton, the sole representative of the then Progressive Party, and there was no SAP in the form of the six hon. gentlemen on my left. The hon. members who participated on the part of Opposition and Government in the major debate on that occasion—and that is interesting to note—were, on the side of the UP, P. A. Moore, D. Mitchell, Myburgh Streicher and C. D. Taylor. On the side of the Government there were the present President of the Other Place, Mr. Marais Viljoen, who was the responsible Minister, Mr. Serfontein and Mr. Louis Stofberg.

There were also changes in attitude, changes which are reflected in this legislation. The Government was reproached on that occasion because it was criticizing universities when in fact, the Government itself was allowing Blacks to go to White universities. However, the Government itself changed its attitude and that is reflected in this particular measure, because the Government was aksed on that occasion—

The then Minister of Coloured Affairs said—

Mr. Chairman, this indicates that there have been changes in South Africa, changes for the better, as is also reflected in this Bill. I would like to record that the UP has played a role in this Parliament over 44 years. It has in the past risen to great heights, and on occasions it has frustrated its best supporters. I believe it is appropriate on this occasion to acknowledge, both in peace and in war, both in Government and in Opposition, the role which the UP has played in this House in the political history of South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, a proclamation will be issued in terms of which Parliament will be reconvened on 27 January 1978. I move—

May I put a question to the hon. the Leader of the House?

With pleasure.

If the PRP had realized their intention, would the House still have been in session on Monday?

As usual, the PRP does not have a consistent point of view.

Question agreed to.