Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, we supported this Bill during Second Reading and we support it again at Third Reading. At this stage I simply want to record my appreciation for the hon. the Minister’s response to a comment made by me during the Second Reading regarding the second half of clause 1 of the Bill. I am very glad that this is already receiving consideration. My own interpretation of his response was that he accepted what I said sympathetically and that this was going to be looked at. I simply want to say that we take note of this.

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that we in these benches had no objection to this Bill at Second Reading, that we had no amendments to move during the Committee Stage, and that we therefore also support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendment to the Moratorium Act effected during the last Parliamentary session by means of Act No. 27 of 1977, afforded relief to the national serviceman in that it relieved him of the obligation to pay the full overdue amount plus 6% interest within three months after termination of service. Under the new dispensation, however, he is still obliged to pay arrear payments plus 10% interest from the second month after the termination of service by way of double payments in cases where further payments are only payable after completion of service.

The proposed amendment to section 2(1)(a) aims at a general moratorium in regard to all contractual debts which are incurred before service commences and are payable after service is already completed. However, in terms of the proposed new section 2(2)(b)(ii), contractual debts of which the first instalment or the principal debt becomes payable on a date subsequent to the date upon which service is completed, are excluded from this.

All civil remedies are suspended for the full period of the service in regard to citizens rendering service in terms of an employment under section 92ter of the Defence Act. The provision in section 2(2)(b)(iv) relating to hire purchase contracts is extended to cover all contracts entered into before commencement of service, but after notice has been received of allotment in terms of section 67 of the Defence Act. Section 2(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) are being deleted because they refer to contracts entered into in the course of service, whereas the proposed provisions only apply to contracts entered into before service has commenced.

That, briefly, Sir, is what this Bill entails. It has become the custom that the Moratorium Act is amended virtually every year. I do not think we shall ever see an end to this as long as we call up people to render service, but I do think that we must try to have the greatest possible unanimity in regard to the legislation we place on the Statute Book. Since this is a technical matter which is better thrashed out by lawyers, I am prepared to accept a motion proposing that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, if such a motion should be moved.

That is unnecessary.

There is already a great deal of unanimity concerning this measure. I have the assurance on the part of the Opposition that they are in agreement with the Bill, but nevertheless questions are still being asked. If we do not refer the Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading, we could perhaps delay proceeding with the Bill for a few days after the Second Reading to enable hon. members to take a proper look at the formulation thereof.

Mr. Speaker, as far as hon. members in these benches are concerned, we believe it is not necessary for this Bill to go to a Select Committee at this moment in time. We agree with the principle of it, and its details will be discussed by colleagues of mine in these benches when they address the House for the first time. We think the measure is necessary, and we do not believe that we need delay the House by having it referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, we have the unusual situation here that the Opposition supports the measure whilst a Government member proposes that it go to a Select Committee.

Because you and I are not lawyers.

Well, I had, in fact, intended raising the question of whether this amendment does achieve what we are aiming at. Last year, when this measure was introduced, I raised this very issue, stating on that occasion that I was not a lawyer and would leave the wording to be debated by the lawyers. However, I supported the principle of the Bill and sought the assurance—I need not quote the relevant passage from Hansard, col. 1926—that the wording contained in the Bill then before the House did, in fact, achieve our objective which was to extend the period of the contract. I received that assurance, but unfortunately it was incorrect. Now we are seeking to correct it, and this is done by deleting the words “while he is rendering” and substituting “after he has commenced to render” service. I myself had some doubts as to whether this did, in fact, fully meet the situation. Again I am assured by legal practitioners that this will meet the requirements this time. If the Minister is satisfied that it does so, I shall have no objection to the amended clause. However, if the hon. the Minister feels that it is better to thrash out the exact wording and its interpretation in Select Committee I shall be quite happy to do so, but I hope this will not delay the measure unduly because the sooner we get this operating, the sooner it will remove hardships still suffered by national servicemen.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the hon. member for Yeoville has already indicated, we shall support this measure. I shall briefly indicate why. As is actually the case in South Africa, where the defence of the country largely relies and depends on the contributions and sacrifices of ordinary citizens, as distinct from what would have been the case if we had had a highly paid permanent Defence Force, I believe that the Government has a bounden duty to do everything in its power to limit to the very minimum the disruption which active service entails to the ordinary citizen of the country. The sacrifice of such citizens is obviously great, for it does not include only peril of life, absence from family and friends and the inability to support their families financially. There are innumerable other cases of sacrifice and inconvenience to such citizens, something known only to those who have themselves already made those sacrifices.

It can be said with appreciation that never in the history of South Africa have any serious problems been encountered in recruiting citizens to make a contribution towards the protection of South Africa. In the vast majority of cases people have responded dutifully and with devotion when the appeal was made.

The Moratorium Act of 1963 and its predecessor fulfilled a certain need in that they suspended certain debt obligations of soldiers on active service until after completion of their service. Through the years this legislation has become even more important, and in the present situation, in which credit plays such a major role in our society, it is unthinkable that we should do without such a law.

Virtually without exception, citizens arrange their affairs so that by far the greater part of their income is paid out in monthly instalments. Not only the most essential living expenses, but also major capital expenditures, are made in monthly instalments. The Moratorium Act gives rise to a clash of interests between the soldier on active service and his creditor who, despite a specific contractual undertaking, must now wait longer for debt to be settled.

The Act is therefore a drastic measure, and we should regard it as such. It compels the creditor to make a sacrifice on his part to lighten the burden of a soldier on active service. Against this background, it is obvious that the legislator must see to it that the soldier derives the maximum benefit from the minimum prejudice to the businessman. This holds good especially when business conditions are not very favourable, as is all too often the case when the country is facing a threat and needs its Defence Force most.

Testing the amendments proposed in this Bill against these considerations, I think that no fault can be found with them and that indeed they bring about considerable improvements. The amendments included in this Bill are, as I understand it, briefly the following. By the amendment of section 2(1)(a), the full moratorium is also extended to contractual debt obligations which become due after the term of service of such a soldier has already been completed. This extension is of course limited by the proposed new section 2(2)(b)(ii). This extension is important in that in so far as it is applicable, it obviates the situation where a serviceman has an accumulation of financial obligations immediately after completion of his service. It gives him a respite, after completion of his service, in which to get his affairs in order again and instalments are in point of fact only postponed for a period. It is done in such a manner that he never has to make double payments and that the period within which full settlement must take place, is in fact merely extended.

On the other hand, the same article also limits the operation of the moratorium to obligations incurred before the commencement of service. Several other sections have been adapted to this amendment. This restriction is once again a step in the right direction in that it ensures that servicemen will not incur certain obligations during their service with the express object of evading timely fulfilment of these obligations, and so abuse a measure which is otherwise very necessary and which is in fact in the nature of an emergency measure. As I see it, it may in due course be necessary to restrict the moratorium further to debt obligations incurred before such a serviceman has been advised of his allotment for service, but the provision contained in section 2(2)(b)(iv) ought to cover this situation satisfactorily in the meantime. Section 2(2)(b)(iv) excludes from the operation of the moratorium an amount payable in terms of a contract entered into after a serviceman has been advised of his allotment for military service, but before he commences service. That happens if at the time of entering into such contract, he has failed to inform the other party to the contract in writing that he has thus been advised. Here, once again, the protection of creditors is further extended to all contracts, in contradistinction to the present position which covers only hire purchase agreements.

The final important amendment is that contained in the proposed new section 2(1)(b) which introduces an entirely new provision. It extends the suspension of legal remedies in the case of servicemen rendering service in terms of section 92ter to all legal remedies, i.e. not only legal remedies for contractual obligations, but also for delictual obligations and obligations arising from damages, e.g. as a result of a motor accident. This amendment obviously creates a favourable situation for citizens employed in terms of section 92ter, viz., those who at the time of their employment have already performed service or undergone training. Concerning this provision, I should like to suggest that it could possibly be extended in due course to all citizens called up in terms of chapter X of the Defence Act. I should just like to suggest something in this connection: On the one hand we can hardly say that persons employed in terms of section 92ter, are in a much more difficult position than persons called up in terms of the other sections. On the other hand, the distinction between contractual debts and other debts for the purposes of this provision, may perhaps also be questioned. Another aspect which strikes me and which should perhaps also be looked into, is the position of business people. The extended periods of service for which provision has been made in recent legislation, may have as a result that certain business people find themselves in an impossible situation concerning their liquidity. I consider that this should be looked into and that the State should perhaps consider, in due course, with the assistance of the Reserve Bank and other financial institutions, alleviating the position of business people who have been affected thereby. The Bill, as it stands, is in our view a considerable improvement and we shall therefore support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Green Point on his maiden speech. I hope that things will go very well for him in this House, especially since he has singled out the defence of our country as one of the subjects in which he is interested. His speech indicates that he has insight in this matter. In fact, he raised two points which he felt might be looked at in the future. I want to agree with him that we should take a look at those two points. That is why it is a privilege for me— and it is also my conviction—to support the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West that this matter be referred to a Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is generally accepted that South Africa has for a long time now been under tremendous pressure. This pressure is being exercised on the economic, social as well as the military front. That the pressure must be reduced goes without saying of course. In this House hon. members will debate the question of how this pressure can be alleviated. However, I believe that there is absolute unanimity on one matter, and that is that, in addition to the economic sphere, our country should be and remain strong in the military sphere as well. We can only negotiate and stipulate with confidence if we have might on our side. That is why it is an honour and privilege for me to enter this debate at this stage when legislation dealing with defence matters is being introduced.

In my opinion the object of the amendment of the Moratorium Act is in the first place to effect a total moratorium in respect of all contractual debts incurred before commencing military service, which debts are payable after such service has commenced. The effect of this will be that instalments are suspended during the period of service and commence one month after the period of service has elapsed. Secondly, where payment is to commence only after the period of service, however, no change has been effected. In the third place it is being provided that all civil actions against persons who are rendering service in terms of section 92 of the Defence Act, 1957, shall be suspended for the full period of such service. In the fourth place, all contractual obligations incurred by a national serviceman after he has been called up are only subject to the moratorium provided the national serviceman has informed the other contracting party in writing of the fact that he has been called up. To this extent the private sector is being protected. However, it seems as though the hon. the Minister could perhaps consider rendering assistance to the private sector in certain cases where financial problems arise as a result of the suspension of the obligation to make payment.

I am thinking for example of a case in which a small building contractor sells a house to a young man who is called up for military service. If the instalment on the purchase price of the house were then to be deferred, it might result in the contracting party experiencing cash flow problems which might lead to his being ruined. To prevent such a situation, I want to suggest that the legislation be carefully scrutinized. After all, it is not the intention of the Moratorium Act that other people should suffer financial loss as a result of the application of the Act. It could give rise to a situation in which the entrepreneur will be slow to advance credit to the young man who still has to render his national military service. In the times in which we are living—my colleague next to me here referred to this—this might cause problems.

I believe that this particular legislation is necessary to help to bear and alleviate the burdens of national servicemen. Very frequently the young soldier is newly-married or leaves behind a wife and young children. It is always a good thing for him to know that while he has to brave the dangers and endure the discomforts of military service, he enjoys a certain measure of protection against his creditors during the period in which he renders national military service for his country. We therefore support the proposed amendment.

There was a time when military matters did not enjoy a high priority among the public in South Africa. I think the reasons for that are quite clear, for military service involved few physical dangers and the possibility of military action on our border or even beyond the borders of our country was remote. Developments in Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique have changed the situation, however, and in my opinion the public today takes an intense interest in military matters. Today there are few families that are not directly or indirectly involved in the Defence Force. I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that Paratus be sent to the families of national servicemen so that they may be more aware of what is happening in the Defence Force. I also wish to suggest that an open discussion with regard to military matters within and outside this House be encouraged, unless secrecy is really necessary.

† I believe the more the public of South Africa knows about our defence and defence matters the greater will be their understanding and even greater their preparedness to serve their country in this particular respect.

Finally, if I may, there is one more thought I would like to share with the hon. the Minister of Defence. I believe the demands on our soldiers for technical skills in combat are going to increase. The question I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is: Should we not perhaps consider enlarging our highly skilled, professional Army in this way becoming slightly less reliant on a conscript people’s Army?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Wynberg on his maiden speech. I wish to express the hope that he will derive exceptionally great pleasure from his parliamentary career and I wish him everything of the best.

The points which the hon. member, as well as other hon. members, raised, prove to me that it would be wise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after all. We all wish this Bill to be successful. I also agree with the hon. member for Durban Point. I gave him the assurance that I have the assurance that the Bill will succeed and I still have that assurance. However, I do not think it is possible to give assurances when one has more than one lawyer. Consequently I am of the opinion that it would be better to bring the lawyers together around a conference table in order to see whether they cannot reach agreement among themselves.

I shall gladly deal with the other points raised by the hon. member for Wynberg, when the Defence Vote comes up for discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The short measure under discussion comprises three different provisions that I would like to explain separately.

(a) Transfer of certain CSIR personnel and certain movable assets to Armscor: The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research—generally known as “the CSIR”— commenced with the establishment of expertise in missile technology in the Republic of South Africa as long ago as the early sixties. Since then this task, which was undertaken by the National Institute for Defence Research, has expanded to such an extent that the development and short series production of missiles at present constitute as much as 75% of the total activity of the CSIR institute. Industrial production and its corresponding development do not belong within the framework of the statutory provisions applicable to the CSIR, and it is therefore time that this responsibility be transferred to another body.

After consultation between the board and the directors of the CSIR, the Armaments Corporation of South Africa Ltd. and the Treasury an agreement was reached that these activities would be taken over by Armscor. Consequently, after the agreement was reached, my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning, and myself signed it. It was agreed that the activities of the NIDR should be divided into two categories, namely, firstly, missile and missile-orientated research, development and production and other defence orientated research, of which the second category mentioned above, namely the other defence orientated research, will remain a task of the CSIR—that is the usual principle accepted in all countries—and, secondly, that the first category, namely missile and missile-orientated research, as well as all the personnel members and movable assets concerned, will be transferred to a full subsidiary company of Armscor, viz. Brimstone Projects (Pty) Limited, through the agency of Armscor.

In the first instance the Bill thus aims at arranging the transfer of certain NIDR personnel members and certain movable assets to Armscor.

(b) Transfer of certain movable Government property to Armscor: In this connection I wish to point out that the Atlas Aircraft Corporation of South Africa (Pty.) Limited has for several years rendered repair and maintenance services to the S.A. Defence Force. In order to enable Atlas to perform these tasks, the Defence Force made maintenance and repair equipment available to Atlas on a loan basis. In due course this arrangement brought about a number of problem areas, inter alia, the question of who should assume responsibility for the equipment, as well as the question of how the accounting should be done. In order to eliminate these problems the S.A. Defence Force and the Treasury agreed to the equipment being transferred free of charge to the corporation. The legislation therefore, secondly, aims at formalizing this arrangement which already exists.

(c) Increase of maximum numbers of directors of Armscor: The Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968, at present provides that there shall be nine directors. Two of them are heads of State departments in their official capacity, viz. the Secretary for Finance and the Secretary of the Department of Industries. In 1977 the activities and powers of Armscor were drastically extended by the Armaments Development and Production Amendment Act, 1977, which provided, inter alia, that the erstwhile Armaments Board would disappear as an organization and that its activities and powers would be transferred to Armscor. As a result of the increased activities of Armscor it has been found that the present directors are required to bear an excessive burden. Most of them are gentlemen of the private sector who are spending quite a lot of time and making sacrifices by giving their attention to the affairs of Armscor. Provision is consequently made in the Bill for the increase of the maximum number of directors from nine to 12 in order to alleviate the working load of the present directors.

That is the reason for this amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches shall support the Second Reading of this measure and we hope that the hon. the Minister will vote with us on this occasion.

I think so.

I think there are a number of points one would like to make with regard to this particular Bill. Firstly, there is the question of the production of missiles and related research. This is a delicate matter and obviously one which one does not want to debate in a legislature. But the one matter which is significant is why it is only this particular aspect which is to be transferred. There may be very good business reasons for it; there may be very good research reasons for it, but it seems to me that if there is a case to be made out for the transfer of the one set of research, then, particularly as this is so closely related to other defence matters, it might well be shown in the future that all the research relating to military matters should again be under one roof and under one control. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will find it appropriate to comment on that particular matter.

I think the whole question of missile production and the research in respect of missiles becomes an increasingly important one in relation to the situation in which South Africa finds itself today. I think it is important that we satisfy ourselves, firstly, that we have all the research and information which we need in respect of this matter and in respect of other defence-orientated matters and, secondly, that we are able to produce what we need in order to defend our borders and to act as a deterrent against any attack which may be launched upon us. I think it is not inappropriate in this particular debate to make it quite clear that in so far as any arms embargo on South Africa is concerned, there is no division in this House, because as far as this House is concerned we disapprove of the action of the Security Council; we disapprove of any actions in respect of boycotts which prevent this country from doing two specific things: the maintenance of law and order within our own borders and the protection of the borders of this country against aggression, whether that aggression be by formal conventional military means or whether it be by means of terrorism. In regard to this issue the question of research becomes most important, because quite obviously where we have a small nation such as South Africa, whose resources of necessity are limited, the challenge which now faces South Africa in regard to research, in regard to the availability of talent in this matter, is a far greater one than has perhaps faced many nations of the world. For instance, one finds research in Nato where the brains of a number of nations combine in order to produce particular tanks, particular military vehicles, particular missiles or whatever particular military equipment is concerned. But as far as we are concerned we now face, in so far as the ability of our people is concerned, a tremendous challenge in regard to research. I want to say now that the talent which is available to us will enable us to meet that challenge and to be able to do the research which is required, because there is very little doubt that in so far as the CSIR is concerned, in its broad picture it can rank with any research institution in the world and one hopes, even though the information in so far as military matters are concerned cannot be made public, that that is the same standard that is achieved in regard to this.

Therefore as far as we are concerned anything which will improve the research ability of our people is something which we shall support. May I just mention in passing, too, that I hope the hon. the Minister might recommend to the Armaments Corporation that the name Brimstone Projects is not really a particularly attractive name and that they might well consider changing the name of the company. I do not think it appeals to him either. I am sure it will not appeal to anybody. That is the kind of speech we sometimes get from the hon. the Minister, but this company does not fit into that kind of category.

The other matter I would like to touch on is the question of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation. We have no objection to this but I think the hon. the Minister might not find it inappropriate to use this occasion in reply to this debate to perhaps tell the public something of the ability of South Africa to deal with its own aircraft situation, in particular bearing in mind the problems we are facing from boycotts.

Then, may I just touch on the question of the members of the board. In so far as the board is concerned—the board of Armscor—I think this would have our blessing. However, quite obviously, we will appeal to the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that when the appointments are made they are based—as I am sure they will be—on the ability and on the willingness of the people concerned to maintain security and, of course, to represent a cross-section of the community. It is important therefore that the best men possible should serve on the board of this corporation. This is a non-political issue.

Finally, on the question of the transferring of the staff, may I just draw the attention to the fact that there are always problems in connection with pensions. There are problems in regard to pensions in respect of this particular matter and we anticipate that the hon. the Minister will, in fact, see to it that those matters are fully remedied and that there is no prejudice against any staff. Where this problem is again raising its head, it is not inappropriate to try to indicate to the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions that the time has come very close—if it is not here already—for legislation to be introduced enabling the transferability of pension rights, not only in these circumstances but in the community at large. There is little doubt that there is prejudice to the working man of South Africa through the inability to transfer pension rights when employers are changed. This particular instance again draws attention to the problem which arises, namely that special legislation will be necessary in order to cover these employees. That is legislation that we will support. However, if it is appropriate in these circumstances it should also be appropriate in general, and I think that as a whole the working man should be protected as far as the transfer of pension rights is concerned.

I have dealt with the matters contained in the Bill. The Bill has our blessing and consequently we will vote for it at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, to us on this side of the House—and probably to the hon. the Minister as well—it was pleasing to hear that the official Opposition, through the hon. member for Yeoville, rendered full support to this measure. Nevertheless it is strange that although they support the legislation they nevertheless drag in troublesome little matters which have nothing to do with the legislation under discussion. I have in mind in particular the last matter to which the hon. member once again referred. I want to comment very briefly with regard to the research to which the hon. member referred. In my opinion, the reason for the projectile department of the NIDR being split from the research activities of the CSIR is basically concerned with the fact that this aspect is now production oriented; in other words, it is so oriented, and has progressed so far, that it now has to supply armaments and other equipment to the Defence Force. As far as production is concerned we know that this is the task of the Armscor organization. Their powers, and the way in which they must react, are set out in sections 3 and 4 of the Armaments Development and Production Act.

The hon. member asked why the rest of defence research was not also transferred to Armscor. This is perhaps a question of great merit, but the hon. member must bear in mind that when one refers to researchers one refers to people who are unable to produce. The moment they have a new idea, they immediately want to start production of it.

In other words, these are people who have to be able to develop a technology so that that technology can comply with specific requirements of the Defence Force. Furthermore, there is more to it than merely the fact that the requirements of the Defence Force has to be satisfied. When research is carried out in connection with Defence Force activities, these people have also to make use of other facilities of the CSIR which have nothing to do with the Defence Force. There are therefore good reasons why research that does not specifically concern missiles should still fall under the CSIR at this stage.

I also just want to give the hon. member opposite the assurance that as far as technology is concerned, it is easier from a research point of view to obtain access to technology from sources elsewhere in the world when they are standing on their own two feet and are not attached to an armaments organization. With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. I merely want to place on record the fact that I do not agree with the suggestion that all research should be transferred from the CSIR to Defence. The hon. member for Wonderboom has said that it is an interesting suggestion, but mentioned various reasons why this should not take place. The real difficulty which I see is that research is in itself a matter involving highly qualified specialists from various fields of technology. In researching one particular project one might have to call in people from half a dozen different specialist fields. You cannot expect the corporation to have all these experts on tap. It is to my mind far better to use the resources of an organization specifically created for the purposes of research than to create, in what is primarily a production organization, new machinery for detailed and specialized research. I do, however, accept that with regard to the missile field the stage has been reached where it is more a production organization than a pure research organization, and that it is logical that this should now be passed on to the corporation. I am not so sure about the name. I think it is quite an inspired name if one thinks of the hon. the Minister and some members of the official Opposition! We could have quite a lot of fuel there for the Brimstone Corporation to experiment with and to research in the years ahead.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the personnel who are involved in this transfer have in fact been consulted individually or through their organization, and whether they are happy with the move. The Bill deals with salaries and leave, and the hon. member for Yeoville dealt with pensions, but there are other aspects involved, such as seniority, promotion opportunities, conditions of service, perks, allowances, etc. In other words, there are other things than simply salaries and leave which affect a man’s conditions of service. I would be grateful for an assurance from the hon. the Minister that those being transferred are happy to be transferred and that their overall conditions of service will not in any way be less advantageous than they are at present. Subject to that assurance, we support the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville made a statement relating to the arms boycott and asked whether this was not the time for me to furnish comprehensive information in this regard to the House and to the country. I do not think that this is the time to do so. I shall, however, have an opportunity to say more on this subject at a later stage, when the Vote is discussed, but I just want to say in passing that I endorse the idea that we should not allow ourselves to be hamstrung by an arms boycott as far as the organizing of our country’s defence is concerned.

The hon. member also referred to the question of research. As I understand it, there is a difference between basic research or laboratory oriented research and applied research or production oriented research—i.e. basic research or applied research. What we are doing here is to differentiate between the two. It is true, as the hon. member for Durban Point has said, that the CSIR has at its disposal scientists which it can form into teams to carry out certain basic research. It is not always possible—or shall I say, it will hardly be possible—for an institution like Armscor, which deals with the acquisition, production and supply of armaments and other equipment, to do so. I am therefore of the opinion that we must accept that the agreement between the president of the CSIR on behalf of his council, and the chairman of Armscor on behalf of his board, which was submitted to the two Ministers concerned, is the correct solution and that it is a solution which is accepted not only in South Africa but also in other countries saddled with more or less the same problems as ours.

The hon. member for Durban Point also gave his support. He made special reference to the issue of the staff, as did the hon. member for Yeoville. This was one of the first questions I asked at the negotiations. I asked to what extent the staff were prepared to accept this change and whether a proper agreement had been reached with them. I received a positive answer to that. The staff has been consulted and is fully informed. As far as I know there is no dissatisfaction.

And the conditions of service?

As far as conditions of service are concerned, it will be taken into account that no one is losing anything. The same applies to pensions, too. This, too, was a point mentioned. The matter will be looked at.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred mockingly to the name “Brimstone”. I did not choose that name. In any event, I would prefer to be compared with “Brimstone” than with water or milk. If it bothers him that such a forceful name was chosen, it seems to me that he is in good company, because a change in the name is being considered for very good reasons. It will shortly be known by another name. Then the hon. member will again have the opportunity to indicate whether he is satisfied with the name or not.

What is it to be called then?

I understand that the name is partly Greek.

In that case, do not tell Jimmy.

In order to wet hon. members’ curiosity, I can say that it will most probably be known as “Kentron”. My information is that “Ken-” is Greek for “target” and that “tron” refers to electronics. If the hon. member is satisfied with that, then I have no objection.

It is in any event better than “Brimstone”.

There are not further points to which I need reply. I still just want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Wonderboom for having supported the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure seeks to amend the Post Office Savings Bank provisions of the Post Office Act in order to enable the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to make greater use of the Post Office Savings Bank for the payment of benefits to workers who have suffered disablement.

In 1974 the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner discussed with the Post Office various problems encountered in the payment of these benefits to Bantu, and asked whether it would be possible for the Post Office, with its postal savings bank offices numbering more than 1 700, to develop a scheme in terms of which the payments could be made by way of the Postal Savings Bank. The arrangements for the payment of the benefits which applied at that time were to transfer the allocations in lump sums to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, which then deposited it in trust accounts and subsequently, with the aid of the various Bantu Affairs Commissioners and magistrates, arranged that monthly payments be made to the beneficiaries from the lump sums. Problems were encountered, in that in due course, many Bantu could no longer be traced and furthermore, the workers had sometimes to travel long distances to collect their monthly payments from Bantu Affairs Commissioners or magistrates. A Post Office Savings Bank scheme for the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, and certain major employers who were directly responsible for the payment of damages in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, was consequently set in operation at the time, within the framework of the existing legal provisions applying to the Post Office Savings Bank. The total sum of the damages is invested in an ordinary account in the Post Office Savings Bank on behalf of the beneficiary. The person’s savings bank book is then endorsed to the effect that only one fixed amount may be withdrawn by him monthly, and that he himself may not make any deposits into that account. The system works smoothly and is causing no difficulties.

The ordinary accounts into which the total damages are paid, at present yield interest at 5% per annum. Where the benefits involved are not large, such an investment at this rate of interest can be justified, but in terms of amendments effected to the Workmen’s Compensation Act last year, far greater benefits than in the past will be payable to Bantu who sustain lasting disablement. Consequently the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner requires that these higher amounts are invested in Post Office Savings Certificates instead of ordinary accounts. At present the certificates yield interest at 8% per annum.

The issue and storing in safe custody of the Post Office Savings Certificates and the discounting thereof in order to transfer regularly to ordinary accounts, amounts from which the beneficiaries may make the fixed monthly withdrawals will cause so many administrative problems and entail so much additional handling costs that it has been deemed justified to arrange that the issue and discounting of certificates be eliminated, whereas the beneficiaries will still enjoy the same benefits as when the moneys are invested in certificates. It is therefore proposed in clause 5 that special trust accounts be created in the Post Office Savings Bank in order to achieve this aim.

† Mr. Speaker, under the proposed arrangements the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner will open a special trust account in the name of a beneficiary into which he will pay most of the lump-sum benefit, at the same time opening an ordinary account in the beneficiary’s name from which the monthly withdrawals can be made. Interest on money in the special trust account will be paid at the rate applying to Savings Bank Certificates, and money will be transferred from the special trust account to the ordinary account, say once a year, to cover the monthly payments.

As under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the commissioner retains the final say over money he has invested on behalf of a beneficiary, provision is being made in clause 4 where under the commissioner may stipulate that money invested by him in a beneficiary’s name and not yet paid out to the beneficiary, should be repaid to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner upon request. It may be necessary, for instance, to make fresh arrangements in cases where it comes to light after a time that payments meant for the dependants of a deceased workman are not being made to the correct claimant.

The amendments effected by the other clauses, except clause 2, are of a consequential nature. Clause 2 effects an amendment, not related to the proposals concerning the special trust accounts, which is necessary to authorize arrangements being applied to inactive accounts. It does not in any way affect the rights of the depositors concerned.

*Mr. Speaker, in essence this measure is an administrative one to which objections cannot, in my opinion, be raised. I trust all hon. members will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a great privilege to rise here today after having taken my seat with the other members of this House. I should like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister for the words of welcome which he addressed to the newcomers. I shall do my very best to uphold and protect the dignity and traditions of this House. To us as newcomers it has been a great change to settle in Cape Town. To me, however, a touch of sentiment was also involved, for I have not only come back to the mother city but also to the city of my birth. Apart from that, I feel at home in this House because I see so many friends sitting here who have served with me in other capacities over the past 18 years.

The task I have today is a pleasant and a simple one. My task is not only to make my maiden speech, but also, on behalf of this side of the House, to support the Bill which is before the House. This is possible because the content of the Bill is not in conflict with any principle of this party.

† This Bill amends the Post Office Act of 1958 which, together with the Radio Act of 1952, controls the nation-wide Post Office; postal telecommunications, savings and remitment services and radio and television activities. According to the hon. the Minister there are roughly 1 800 post offices and 1 700 savings banks in South Africa with a staff complement of approximately 45 000 Whites and 25 000 Blacks. The estimated revenue up to 31 March 1978 is R718,9 million while the expenditure for the same period is R691,7 million. This indicates an estimated surplus of R26,9 million.

This is a substantial undertaking and is obviously a trading department of the Government that can produce income and profits for the country. It is administered by a dedicated and loyal staff and is blessed with an outstanding administrator in the person of Mr. Rive. This, of course, is a far cry from the days when postal services were first inaugurated, particularly in isolated Southern Africa where we are told that the first letter posted in South Africa was deposited in a shoe hung on a milkwood tree at Mossel Bay as far back as 1501 by a Portuguese ship’s captain Pedro d’Ataide. He did this with the expectation that someone in a passing ship would find it, take it with him and deliver it. The letter described a disaster that had befallen a Portuguese fleet on a voyage to India. This tree is still standing today and can be considered the first post office in South Africa. It was declared a historical monument on 30 September 1938 and a bronze plaque with the following legend was affixed: “The post office tree stands near the fountain where the Portuguese navigators regularly drew water at Auada de Sao Bras, now Mossel Bay, from 1488 onwards. In May 1501 Pedro d’Ataide, captain of a homeward bound ship of Pero Cabral’s fleet, left a message here which was found on 7 July 1501 by the outward bound ship of Da Nova. According to tradition the message was placed in an old shoe and tied to a tree.” A century later extraordinary methods of posting letters originated, particularly in Table Bay.

The Dutch and English navigators usually left their letters under stones which were covered with cloth and lead and hidden along various streams. They had to withstand the rigours of the south-easter and the rigours of those inquisitive persons who lifted these stones and took them away. It was here, in the 17th century, in a stream that led from Table Bay into the sea, a stream which runs underneath Adderley Street, that the post was hidden. That is where the old Cape Town railway station was situated. With the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, however, the custom of leaving letters under stones was ended and a postal service was introduced whereby the ships were able to do the delivery.

The history and development of the post office, the postal services and communication since those early days, make fascinating reading and is deeply ingrained in our history. The history of our postal services are contained in books by L. J. Conradie, Eric Rosenthal and others.

Relevant to the Bill before us, is the question of deposits and savings. I think this relates to the main principle of the Bill. One might well ask: How come a postal service concerned mainly with the delivery of mail, should develop into a savings bank? I think we could agree that it is a matter of national concern that a measure of thrift should always be encouraged. The family man should have responsibilities so that a little bit can always be put away for a rainy day. Under the governorship of Sir Charles Somerset between 1814 and 1826 substantial progress was made with the development of postal services. He did his best to provide a public service as quickly as possible, and it was in 1822 that a savings bank was established. The most important objective at that time was to save money for Her Majesty’s servants. Thereafter a number of private savings banks were established, for example the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank in Cape Town, the Kaffrarian Savings Bank in King William’s Town, the Good Templars Savings Bank in Kimberley and the Grahamstown Savings Bank. It is a well established fact in history that spiritual leaders played a great role in this respect concerning the development of savings banks in most countries. The most important aim of a savings bank was to look after the small man and to encourage him to save for his old days. One of course should appreciate that in those early days it was not easy for someone earning a shilling or two shillings a day to actually save. Nevertheless caution was exercised in this regard. Another thing; There were not many places where their money was safe and protected except in the socks, in the mattress or under the floor or even lodge their savings with the local “predikant”. The houses of poor people were often broken into and further losses were suffered by those people who could not be trusted and the police services at the time were not efficient to give them the protection they needed. In the same way, towards the end of the 18th century, this began on a small scale in England. Leading persons in the British Parliament had already planned, before the installation and establishment of banks, for the necessity for each person to save in savings banks. Under the leadership of people like Lord John Russel, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli, a campaign was launched to provide that each person should have a balance of at least £50 in the savings bank for at least a period of three months in order to qualify for a vote. Fortunately or unfortunately this was not carried.

However, let me get nearer to home. It was in the Cape Colony under Lord Charles Somerset that progress was made in this direction, encouraging people to save and obtain interest on their money to provide for their old age and for their families. For this reason the president and the directors of the Lombard Discount Bank were empowered to pay interest on savings. A branch of the bank was opened and the president and directors supported the Chief Judge, the kommandant of the Garrison and the Colonel as well as the military chaplain.

It was the last-mentioned gentleman who was saddled with the task of collecting these funds and making their deposits. At that stage the minimum amount that could be deposited was 12½ rix-dollars or 18s. 9d., but the interest was paid on 25 dollars, or £1 17s. 6d., at 1% per quarter, which could be drawn each quarter. We find the origin and the development of the savings bank in post offices in the book Spaanders wat Vlieg by L. J. Conradie. It was in 1875 that a Government bank was first opened under the control of the Treasury. At that stage there was a post office savings service in the United Kingdom, as well as in countries like the United States, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan and the British Colonies of Canada and Australia. According to the report of the Cape Postmaster-General, Mr. G. W. Athinson, a similar service was introduced in 1881.

*I want to quote briefly from Conradie’s book Spaanders wat Vlieg. He says—

He goes on to say—

† The maximum investment per person was £100 per annum and the interest 3,75%. The first year deposits in the savings bank was £124 688 18s. 7d., which was favourable compared with other countries. The average deposit in the Cape for the first three years on the Post Office Savings Book in 1884 was £6 19s. 5d., in 1885 £6 11s. 9d., and in 1886 £7 4s. 9d., whilst at the same time the United Kingdom showed an average of £2 per head. Unfortunately the first year showed a loss of £428 13s. 10d., but the following year a profit of £307 was shown after the running cost was reduced from 11d. to 5⅔d. per transaction.

Mr. Speaker, we can now reflect upon a century of progress in this field. In the latest report at my disposal, the report for 1975-’76, we find that the total investment in the Post Office savings service as at 31 March 1976 amounted to R440,3 million. The fact that this represents only 2,8% of all savings invested by the public in building societies, commercial banks, the Post Office and other saving institutions, have shown that the Post Office is performing the function without competing unduly with private enterprise. The interest paid by the Post Office on investments rose to R29,5 million. The credit balances of depositors in current accounts in the Post Office book show the savings bank has increased by R9,5 million, from R162,3 million to R171,8 million, as at 31 March 1976. The savings bank operations involved 2,3 million deposits, totalling R209,2 million and 1,8 million withdrawals, amounting to R199,7 million. It is significant that 193 840 new accounts have been opened during that year. This reflects an increase in the figure of 187 600 new accounts of the year before and confirms the absolute confidence the public rightly has in the Post Office. This works out to an average of 185 000 new accounts per year. The average credit balance per depositor is R92,70. This latter figure particularly reflects that it is the small man who saves with the Post Office. It would thus appear that the objective is therefore being attained. It is clear that the Post Office does not compete with the banks, who have other facilities, such as overdraft and bills, etc.

I think it is also clear that the Post Office does not compete with building societies, who advance money on houses and perform their functions in that regard. It is purely an institution for the saving of money. I am sure that it should not be confined, however, to the small man as there exists an opportunity for people to save money as well by reason, particularly, of the saving on income tax. A person with a fairly substantial income who wishes to enjoy the interest on his income, can make investments while he can get the benefit of tax-free remissions on the interest. I have reason to believe that there must be a substantial number of depositors who fall into this category. In fact, according to the report to which I have just referred, the number of savings banks certificates issued has increased from 76,7 million to 160,1 million. I think that one must agree that this is a substantial investment increase as far as National Savings Certificates are concerned—totalling 108,4 million as compared with 83,4 million the year before.

I think one must accept that although we are living in times of recession and although we need to have a hedge against inflation, there is a category of people who have substantial incomes who, for reasons I do not think I can deal with in this debate, do not see their way clear to make investments of a more permanent nature. They feel they must invest on a more liquid basis. Therefore I think these people should be encouraged to make more permanent investments. Although we have unemployment and a recession, there are nevertheless always the haves and the have-nots. Regarding those who have one merely has to look at the recent share issue of Ergo which came onto the Stock Exchange and which was 18 times oversubscribed. This brought in a very substantial amount of capital when capital was supposed to be scarce, which proves that there is still a lot of cash lying around. I believe we should make a little more publicity towards attracting this type of investor. Perhaps the hon. the Minister might, in his wisdom, consider how this can be done, particularly in the way of tax remissions on other types of savings accounts.

Another aspect which should not be lost sight of is the fact that Post Office Savings Bank is the safest bank in the country, one which, in the light of the history of some institutions, enjoys the full confidence of the public of South Africa.

The Post Office Savings Bank certificates are available in units of R100 and interest is calculated at the rate of 8% on daily balance. There is an income of R550 per person on a minimum deposit of R20 000 on Savings Bank Certificates with a minimum investment period of six months.

National Savings Certificates are raising money for the Post Office. The investment period for the sixth series is three years and carries an effective simple interest rate of 8,33%. A single certificate issued at a purchase price of R1 is worth R1,25 on maturity. The maximum amount that can be invested in the sixth series is R15 000. This maximum also applies to an approved society, body or institution. We should take cognizance of the fact that there is a diminution in the value of the rand over the year. There is a certain erosion of the value of money due to the increased cost of living. Possibly we should maintain a commensurate rate of interest for the public without unduly competing with the building societies and the banks.

I want now to refer more specifically to para. 1 of the Bill. Here we have an amendment to the definition of the word “deposit”. This is a consequential amendment. When this House made an amendment to section 58A of Act 113 of 1976, no provision was made for trust account. The House apparently overlooked the fact that in the definition of “deposit” an amendment should have been made in order to cope with it. Sub-paragraph (b) of clause 1 is merely consequential to that.

Clause 2 deals with section 56. In terms of the existing section it is obliged to calculate the interest on a savings bank account each savings bank year. The situation now, however, is that if the account has remained dormant for more than several years, he has the right to defer the calculation until application is made for the repayment of the balance or part thereof or until somebody on his behalf makes application for the calculation of interest. Then, on the question of compensation, as to whether the accounts are computerized, perhaps the hon. the Minister can mention whether computerization would in fact cause more or fewer administrative problems in making the calculation which now remains over a period of seven years.

The period of seven years is but an arbitrary choice and if it is going to cut down the administration, this side of the House would have no objection to a period of three years being substituted therefore. However, we do not feel strongly about it and do not intend moving any amendment along those lines.

Regarding section 57, which is dealt with in clause 3, this also is merely consequential. The words “fifty-eight and” are new words which are included to provide for the amendment. This provides for the investment of a trust account and provides further for the laying down of conditions as to who may withdraw the payment and conditions can be laid down on the persons and the trustees. This is to be encouraged, and trusts may be encouraged, and those people nominating trusts can certainly have the right to nominate who shall operate them.

Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of clause 4 is entirely new and states—

The question which now arises is: What are these different categories which are contained in section 54 and are referred to as depositors for national savings, for minors and married women? Section 55 deals with certain societies and section 58 deals with the trust. These appear to be in the category to which the hon. the Minister referred in his Second Reading speech.

Lastly, I referred to clause 5 of the Bill, which contains an amendment to section 58. This is an innovation with regard to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner being able to make his deposits. When one considers that the last report of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner shows an income of R52,8 million, we know that we are dealing with substantial amounts of finance which could be placed. However, the hon. the Minister has explained today the question of the accounts which are being paid to the beneficiaries and I take it that in cases where the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is making payment, that he is in agreement and, with the consent of the beneficiary, is going to make a deposit on the trust account in terms of section 58A of the Post Office Act. Obviously, there are occasions where the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner should pay out in full the amount due to the beneficiary. I know that it has been the practice in the past, particularly if one banks at commissioners’ courts and others, that where the Bantu are concerned and a substantial amount is to be paid to them, the practice has been to possibly afford a measure of protection to them by placing the money in some account and only allowing them to draw amounts from time to time. However, I believe that with the sophistication and advancement of the Black people, particularly in the urban areas, this should be exercised with a due amount of caution and, where possible, the amount paid by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner should be paid out in full, unless there is, and will be of course, specific agreement by the beneficiary for the amount to be invested in the trust account on the date.

With these few words I conclude. I thank the House for its indulgence. We in these benches accept the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Hillbrow on his maiden speech this afternoon. The fact that he spent so much time on the history of the Post Office etc. and on showing that he takes an interest in posts and telecommunications as such, indicates to us that he will in future be capable of making a positive contribution in this House with regard to this matter. In that regard we want to wish him everything of the best. The hon. member and I have something in common. He represents the constituency of Hillbrow, a constituency which consists entirely of flats, and I represent the constituency of Sunny side, which is also comprised almost entirely of flats.

I therefore hope that we shall in future be able to discuss postal affairs in this House in a calm, sober and pleasant fashion. I should also like to elaborate on what the hon. member said, but with a little more emphasis. In the Post Office we have able, loyal and faithful officials who do outstanding work. They are people who have given South Africa incomparable service over the years. I am pleased to be able to say too, that they have performed their service with someone like the hon. the Minister in charge.

As far as the legislation under discussion is concerned, I do not really want to elaborate on it further. Indeed, the hon. the Minister has pointed out that what is at issue is yet another service being rendered by the Post Office, especially to the Black people of South Africa. I refer now specifically to clause 58 of the Bill, in which provision is made for the benefits payable by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to be paid in such a way that it will be far easier in future for employees to draw their money. Particularly when we bear in mind that there are more than 1 700 post offices in the country we realize that although it was difficult for people to draw their money in the past, it will be considerably easier in future. Here, too, I want to point out once again that special arrangements are now being made to pay 8% interest instead of 5%. This is the maximum which the Post Office pays to those specific employees. This only attests to the fine quality of the service rendered by the Post Office. On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I thank the hon. the Minister for the amendments he is effecting here. We fully support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support this measure. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for the clarity of the introduction in his Second Reading speech. Like our predecessor, the UP, we have always believed that the Post Office must be run as a business concern and on sound business lines. We have before us here this afternoon a measure which does just that. It introduces sound business practice into the Post Office. I say this because I believe it is a very good idea to get the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to deposit funds in the Post Office Savings Bank. After all, it is the Post Office which is deriving benefit from this because it has the utilization of these moneys. It is, however, my sincere hope that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will assist in tracing the Bantu who are beneficiaries under the Act, that is to say, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in order that they may receive the moneys due to them through the 1 700 odd branches of the Post Office Savings Bank spread over the length and breadth of the country.

We feel it is a good measure in that the beneficiaries will enjoy a rate of interest which they have not received until now. We endorse it because the rate of interest will—as it is adapted from time to time—hopefully fluctuate ever upwards. With these few words we in these benches would like to associate ourselves with other hon. members in expressing our hearty support for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it affords me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Hillbrow on his maiden speech. It was obvious that he had put a great measure of study into the subject of his speech. That is something for which we are grateful. I think it will also make interesting reading.

However, I must say to hon. members who do not know the hon. member for Hillbrow as well as I know him, that this will probably be his last speech made in such a reserved manner. We have come a long way together and the hon. member and I know each other very well. I have always known him as an aggressive fighter for a cause in which he believes. But that does not imply that he is also an offensive fighter.

I am sure that he will do his utmost to do what his party expects him to do in this hon. House. I wish him a long period of service.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Umhlanga, who is apparently the main speaker for the NRP. I appreciate the positive approach he has shown in the past and which he has also shown this afternoon as regards the Post Office and its endeavours to provide a good service at reasonable tariffs.

*Mr. Speaker, the various parties who spoke about the Bill and gave their support to it took a wise standpoint, because we are actually concerned here, as the hon. member for Sunnyside said, with the rendering of an additional service for which a need exists. As far as the Post Office is concerned, it is grateful that it is able to provide that service.

The hon. member for Hillbrow raised a number of matters in his speech which strictly speaking do not have anything to do with this amendment Bill. Therefore I shall not go into them now. However, I shall just refer to one of them only. Amongst other things he spoke about the payment of benefits to a disabled person in a lump sum or, alternatively, in monthly amounts. Of course, these are matters which fall within the sphere of the Minister of Labour, and therefore labour legislation will have to be amended if an amendment is in fact necessary. The Post Office is merely giving effect to the request which came from the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to say anymore about this Bill. Once again, I should like to express my sincere thanks for the support which came from all the various parties in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure provides for 10 changes to the Radio Act and affects a variety of its provisions. As every clause of the Bill is explained in the explanatory memorandum which I have tabled, I shall limit my remarks to the main changes being made.

Firstly, it is proposed in clause 4 that details of the various kinds of licences and certificates which have to be issued to control the use of the ether for various radio communication purposes, not be prescribed in the Act itself, but in the regulations. The existing arrangement by which the licences and certificates are specified in an appendix to the Act, is unnecessarily rigid. The kinds of licences and certificates which are needed for the exercise of control over radio activities, are to a great extent determined by technical considerations and by an international agreement and to my mind contain provisions which should be capable of being adapted to changing circumstances and which should therefore be provided for in the regulations.

A second change proposed by the measure, is the lifting of the restrictions which the Act at present imposes, on fees prescribed for licences and certificates. As far as could be determined, the aim of the restriction was originally to encourage positively the use of radio contact by smaller boats and aeroplanes, and the general development of radio communications here by means of lower licence fees. These considerations are no longer relevant.

It is now proposed, in clause 5, to enable the fees deemed necessary to be prescribed by regulation. That will enable the Post Office to recover the costs of the control functions relating to the licences and certificates, from the persons making use of the controlled facilities. I want to emphasize that this has to do with radio communication licences and not with normal radio listeners and TV licences, which are issued in accordance with the Broadcasting Act.

Thirdly, clauses 3, 8 and 9 of the Bill provide for the sealing of certain unlicenced radio apparatus, the possession of which is covered by a permit, and for the seizing by the Postmaster General of unlicenced apparatus when circumstances justify it. It is illegal to be in possession of radio apparatus without a licence or a permit. In some cases, where a person applies for a permit to have apparatus in his possession which he does not want to licence, the permit can be issued without doing anything about the apparatus. In a number of cases it is, however, desirable to seal the apparatus to prevent the unauthorized use. In other cases it is necessary to seize the apparatus because there is a real danger that it may be misused. The powers to seal radio apparatus or to seize it, are indispensable, normal powers which are necessary for efficient control, and I do not think anybody can object to them. Provision is made for an appeal by someone who feels aggrieved by the seizing.

† Another proposal I want to comment on is the provision in clause 12 for the regulations to be made by the Minister instead of the State President, and for the deletion of the existing provision in subsection (4) of section 18 of the Act under which regulations that have been promulgated may be rejected by resolution of Parliament.

The proposal to empower the Minister to make the regulations brings the Radio Act into line with various other Acts in which similar provision was made in recent years, in particular the Post Office Act, which was amended in 1976 to delete the requirement that the regulations should be approved by the State President. As regards the provision for the rejection, by Parliament, of particular regulations which have been promulgated, I submit that this is an obsolete arrangement which serves no practical purpose. To my knowledge no regulation has, in fact, been rejected by Parliament during all the years that this provision has existed. The Minister, of course, remains answerable to Parliament for regulations he makes in the same way that he has always been answerable to Parliament for all his official actions.

The remaining miscellaneous changes proposed by the Bill have been adequately covered in the explanatory memorandum; most of them can, to my mind, best be dealt with in the Committee Stage. I consider that all the changes proposed are reasonable and necessary, and that they merit the support of both sides of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon me to rise, once again, and to speak on behalf of this side of the House on the Bill now before us. Allow me to thank the hon. the Minister for his very kind words which I appreciate very much in view of my association with him over many years. No doubt, when it comes to his Vote, we shall have an adequate opportunity to express our thanks to him personally for what he has done.

I regret that I cannot, on behalf of this side of the House, say that we accept the Bill unreservedly. We have reservations that I should like to deal with presently.

In clause 1(c) the definition of “radio” has been innovated and now covers a very wide field. The definition reads as follows—

This is a bit of a change from FM which, I think, operates at between 88 MHz and 108 MHz. This is very wide, so much so that it is possibly almost the speed of light. It covers the whole of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Consider, for example, that radar itself is only t KHz and that we operate at the moment on 22 GHz. From this one can see that 3 000 GHz is really astronomic, covering as it does the entire electro-magnetic spectrum. It covers, as I say, the entire electro-magnetic spectrum; so there is really no apparatus such as is used for transmitting and broadcasting that does not fall under this control. However, it possibly complies with the international telecommunications standards. For that reason I have no quarrel with it. I simply wish to say that it is a very high degree of control which, I believe, will cover all concerned.

The principle involved deals mainly with the control of those who are going to be affected to a large extent, viz. the radio hams, as they are commonly called. The provisions of clause 5 in particular, which deals with requirements of proficiency they must meet, the licences to be issued to them, the transmitting they will be able to do and the fees which the administrator will be able to control by regulation from time to time, lead me to put forward at this stage the case for the radio hams in the sense that I shall appeal for two matters to be considered in respect of the principle of the Bill. The first is that we should recognize the contribution radio hams make in South Africa today and, secondly, in recognizing that, I ask him to protect the radio hams for the services they render and, particularly, to make it easier for them to remain radio hams by not increasing fees to what is called “realistic limits” in today’s market and by encouraging them at all times. They require protection and, indeed, a measure of protection is given in that an attempt is made to keep out illegal operators and also pirates who jam the stations and use foul language over the air. I think this is to a certain extent a problem in this country. It is, however, a greater problem in the USA, particularly, in Chicago, where a recent raid delivered up illegal equipment to the value of something like $60 000. These people do interfere with legal operators.

There are approximately 3 000 radio hams in this country and they are very proud of their association. All of them are amateurs. A few of them are professionals, but mostly they operate on an amateur basis. Fixed licences are in operation. There are, for instance, the people who operate taxis and also doctors, but the system they use simply involves an on-off switch and has no volume control. They are not likely to interfere with them as such.

The amateurs, to turn to them, are the experimenters, the back-bone and the developers of radio and radio communication. In fact, the first earth-to-space communication and back was undertaken by amateurs. They in fact beat Telstar by something like two weeks. They achieved this by means of the Orbital Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio, or “Oscar” as it is commonly known. Many propagation tests have been carried out by amateurs and much knowledge has been gained by them and this knowledge has served well those who are responsible for telecommunications. I think it was Herr Goering who in the last wal in Germany blamed the defeat of that country on the fact that the amateur radio hams were all barred from operating in the 1930s so that, when war actually broke out, there was no adequate communication there whereas in England, for example, with all the radio hams operating there, communications were quickly established and they even went so far as to jam those radio services which were foreign to Britain.

In the case of national disasters and civil defence, there is a tremendous role for radio hams to play. Hon. members who represent Pretoria constituencies will, I am sure, know more than I do about what happened during the recent floods there which caused something like 8 000 telephones to go out of operation.

As a result, there was no communication. The only communication that could be established—it led to the saving of lives and the launching of rescue operations during those floods—was the communication established by radio hams in Pretoria who made the necessary contact with the authorities. At that stage the Civil Defence movement in Pretoria was about to purchase new equipment to the value of about R70 000. As the floods occurred two weeks prior to that, they were caught a little short. Consequently, the radio hams jumped in and did their job. During the Hermanus fire, which occurred some time ago, the Army unfortunately had no communications. For approximately two hours the only contact between Cape Town and Hermanus was through radio hams. They were prepared to go to any lengths—even if it meant going up the mountain and sitting in their cars—and to work for 24 hours at a stretch to establish the necessary link. During the floods, which occurred in 1974 in Cape Town, Bloubergstrand was cut off. At that time similar efforts were made by the hams and contact was established in this manner. During the floods at Upington no communication was possible for some 24 hours either, except through the radio hams. The equipment they used can be powered by batteries and can accordingly be installed in a car. They promote goodwill and have contact with practically every country in the world. In communicating with other people in the world they spread goodwill and maintain necessary contacts.

Clause 3 of the Bill deals with a new innovation. This allows for the provisions in the Act regarding the erection and maintenance of equipment to be deleted and for the issuing of permits. I understand that certain people in Cape Town were found to be in possession of illegal apparatus a while ago. However, the authorities were unable to take action until a court order had been obtained. By that time the apparatus had disappeared and in the end no successful prosecution occurred. From the radio ham’s point of view this tightening up is therefore welcomed, and so is the permission that can be obtained in terms of this clause. However, provision is made for the right of appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Clause 4 covers the question of the payment of fees. A licence is issued for a station and dealers’ registration certificates are issued to general dealers. Provision is also made for the issuing of proficiency certificates. I do not know whether the Bill follows the correct sequence because the sequence is that all radio hams must first obtain a certificate of proficiency. Having once obtained that qualification, he then applies for his certificate and a licence—which is now an authority—is issued to him. It would appear from the wording of the proposed section 7 that any person who possesses equipment will require a licence and that anyone who uses such equipment will require an authority. The owner of the equipment accordingly gets the licence and the person who operates the equipment gets the authority to do so. The issuing of proficiency certificates is laid down by regulation. As far as the regulations are concerned, I note that provision is made for protection in the subsection dealing with proficiency certificates being issued, and people are entitled to operate equipment at the moment. However, it is not clear whether the regulations will entitle them to carry on doing so. Although the wording of the section provides that people do have the right to carry on doing so, such a right, in terms of the change in the regulations, is nevertheless vested in the hon. the Minister as opposed to the State President. The clause also provides that the regulations do not have to be tabled in the House of Assembly any longer, and the House will accordingly have no opportunity to gainsay or to criticize such regulations. I therefore wonder whether the hon. the Minister would give the assurance that existing proficiency certificates will not be interfered with even in regulations which may be drawn up at a later stage.

Reference has also been made to the fees in the explanatory memorandum. Because of the work being done by radio amateurs, I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to keep the fees as low as possible and to encourage radio amateurs rather than to discourage them.

I also want to refer to the question of licence fees paid to the SABC. This is referred to on page 7 of the Bill, provision for this being made in clause 4. We have no objection to the fact that the SABC will be the only broadcasting element—if I may call it that—because it provides for entertainment. However, we do have one reservation, which I just want to mention in passing, and that is that we have difficulty with the type of propaganda—let us call it that—being broadcast by the SABC. However, since the hon. member for Sandton, I think, will be moving a private motion in this regard, we shall have ample opportunity to debate this question. Therefore let me say that I think we shall merely reserve our rights in that regard for the moment in case the hon. the Minister should think we have neglected to deal with the sole right of the SABC to broadcast in South Africa. I am therefore simply giving notice of what will come about.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, which provides for a proposed new section 9, we welcome the changes as from 31 December and recognize the fact that temporary licences can be granted for lesser periods and that temporary licences can in fact be granted. We have no objection to clause 7, which deals with the question of the production of licences. Clause 8 deals with the permit which is required in order to possess any radio apparatus, and a new right is given to seal that apparatus. No fees are applicable when the sealing takes place, but nevertheless the additional right to seal is necessary and will be accepted for the reason of court proceedings and for the reason that a person must obviously stop transmitting if he is operating illegally. Incumbent in the principle of the Bill is also the fact that there may be illegal or unlawful operators who may be broadcasting—if I may call it that—propaganda which may be anti-South African. If that is in fact being done, steps can then be taken immediately in order to close them down and the necessary permit which has been granted can be withdrawn. The word “necessary” is in fact contained in clause 9 of the Bill, but in terms of the rules of the House I am unable to attack the principle of the Postmaster-General’s ability to decide when it is necessary and when it is not necessary. I am nevertheless obliged to draw the House’s attention to the fact that although an appeal can be made by way of review and by way of an address to the Minister, how will a court or the Minister view the matter if the reasons for it are no longer necessary and are withdrawn? What I am trying to say is that if I had been allowed to, I would have moved an amendment to state that where the Postmaster-General finds it necessary to withdraw the permit or the licence, he should state the reasons why he found it necessary. If he can state the reasons, then the Minister or the court of review will be able to deal with the matter more competently. If the reasons are not known, it purely becomes a matter of discretion. Clause 9(c) which introduces a new section 14(5), refers to a person who is aggrieved, and therefore it should be taken care of on that basis.

Clause 10 of the Bill deals with the question of inspecting the premises. This is a new provision in so far as general dealers are concerned. I think it might be a good thing for general dealers to know a little bit more about the equipment and the installations they are selling so that they can advise people, particularly people dealing with such apparatus for the first time, of the details thereof. If there is a suspicion that something illegal is taking place, no warrant will then be necessary and an inspector or a member of the police will simply be able to step in and to do the necessary in terms of the Act. Although these are somewhat drastic measures, we shall not oppose them as such, because we can see the need for this to take place. On the Order Paper I have noticed that the hon. member for Berea intends moving an amendment to this clause to the effect that the person undertaking the inspection must produce an authority. I see no objection to this; I think it is a good principle as such.

Section 17 of the principal Act is being repealed by clause 11 and therefore the question of boats and land mobiles falls away. It only falls away, however, to the extent that there will still be control over all licences in terms of the general application of the sections. With the deletion of section 17 and the two definitions, there is a general applicability to licences issued in all respects.

The provisions in clause 12 relate to the regulations and this is where we have some difficulty. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is a practice of his and his department to consult with those people who will be affected by the regulations, such as the S.A. Radio League, who know much about the regulations, the proficiency, and the tests, and who jealously guard their interests in this respect. I do sincerely trust that this in fact is the case. The deletion of subsections (3) and (4) means that the regulations are no longer to be tabled in this House. This does concern us and does give us difficulty. This is a provision which, in fact, I think we shall oppose. Although I am new in the House I think it is a fundamental principle that since the House is a legislative body, the people who legislate should allow the House to have the final say. Although it may well be argued that there are precedents where regulations do not always come before the House, I think once one has the right to take away the final say from Parliament it does diminish the rights of the House itself. We would prefer to see the position remaining where the regulations are tabled before this House, even although it has been said here that that requirement is no longer justified.

The penalties laid down by section 19 of the principal Act are in clause 13 amended from £50 to R500 and from £300 to R1 500, which are rather substantial changes. The period of imprisonment is not being changed. We will not quarrel over these increases, because we realize that there will be occasions when broadcasting will be of such a nature that there will have to be steps taken. Nevertheless, I think the hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that if illegal broadcasting takes place, bearing in mind the range that these transmitters have, we will have little ability to prevent the broadcasting of, say, propaganda made against South Africa from other independent states across our borders. That is something we will have to live with and which we will have to control.

Lastly, I want to mention one other matter. Clause 13(a) also gives us difficulty. The new paragraph (h) of section 19(1) reads as follows—

In other words, this means that if I pick up a message by radio and transmit it to X, X then cannot repeat that message to anybody. It may happen that as a radio ham I might pick up a message which may be very important to the authorities. I may pick up a message, e.g. that somebody is going to plant a bomb in a certain place and that the bomb is going to explode at a certain time. In terms of this proposed provision I am not allowed to divulge that information to anyone and if I do divulge it to anyone, that person in turn is not allowed to divulge the information to anyone else. In qualifying as a radio amateur one has to take an oath of secrecy and one does not divulge information unless one is requested to by an authority. I should think that the hon. the Minister should consider an amendment introducing after the words “reproduces that radio communication or communicates it to any other person …” the words “other than to a competent authority”. In other words, if there is information which is valuable and should be passed on to the authorities it should be done immediately. I think the hon. the Minister should consider such an amendment. We certainly will have difficulty in supporting the clause if that is not done. I hope I have stated the attitude of this side of the House clearly.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the hon. member for Hillbrow obtained a large amount of technical information from a particular source and that he has already begun to present the Bill in a kind of vague light, especially as far as clause 1 is concerned, for example by comparing only the FM frequency band with the band up to 3 000 GHz which is mentioned in the definition. Then he went on to give a terribly long account of the rights and protection of radio hams. Radio hams occupy a very small range of this frequency. This Bill does not deal exclusively with radio hams, but chiefly with communication on the air. I wonder if the hon. member realizes what the position already is as far as international frequency allocations on the air is concerned. The 07h30 morning traffic on De Waal Drive is an orderly pattern in comparison with the jumble of persons, organizations and bodies that want to make use of the air in order to communicate with one another. Therefore, it is extremely important that the control of the allocation of channels on the air for communication purposes should be applied very strictly and that this control should not be the responsibility of one body in a single country only, but should be exercised on an international basis. There is a body for the application of this international control, viz. the International Telecommunications Union, which issues regulations and lays down certain provisions with which everyone must comply if they want to make use of radio communication. Since regulations play such an extremely important role in controlling the entire system of radio communications, we are dealing with two aspects only, viz. a technical aspect and an international administrative aspect. At the moment, the Post Office is complying with certain regulations in terms of international standards. These regulations are not included anywhere in our existing legislation.

I think we all sympathize with the fine work being done by radio hams. However, this amendment Bill does not deal solely with radio hams. It does not contain a single clause which prevents radio hams from doing their daily task, as they see it. We know that radio hams have already provided good services during emergencies. The clause to which the hon. member referred does not concern information given to authorities which can take action in an authoritative and responsible way, but it concerns the publication and dissemination to the public of information which may be dangerous during a crisis. The hon. member referred to the question of bombs. If information of this type should be made known to the public in the Press or even through the SABC, it may cause panic in South Africa or in other countries. This has already been occurring for a year or two under certain circumstances.

As far as the regulations are concerned, we have already become aware on numerous occasions that the Opposition is afraid that the hon. the Minister will obtain powers which he will abuse. As an example, they referred here once again today to the so-called propaganda which would supposedly be broadcast on the SABC network. This has nothing at all to do with this amendment Bill, but they must, however, always get that dig in to show how afraid they are that the Minister will obtain powers over which they have no control.

We on this side of the House are amazed that there are hon. members who cannot support an amendment Bill like this one. In actual fact, it is a simple amendment Bill which rectifies certain administrative measures and places the conditions for issuing licences and certificates in the hands of the Postmaster General. In spite of the criticism which has been expressed, we on this side should like to give this amendment Bill our very strong support and endorsement, because we know that radio communication is a medium which can be extremely dangerous in the hands of unauthorized persons under any circumstances. It is therefore not politics that is at issue here; it is the proper arrangement of the communication system. I think it is important for the Minister and the Postmaster-General to have the powers which are being requested in this legislation, so as to be able to manage radio communications in an orderly way, as they have already proved that they have done in the past and will be able to do in future. Therefore, we gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the legislation and are only too conscious that it is necessary to have control over a medium such as the radio, a medium which can be used for subversive as well as constructive purposes. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned international agreements. In the course of what I have to say I want to pose the question to the hon. the Minister whether we can in fact afford to allow international agreements to stand in the way of something which affects the security of the entire farming population of this country. This is a matter with which many hon. members in this House are familiar, amongst others the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, the hon. member for Klip River and others. The hon. the Minister of Defence himself is vitally interested in the control which is being exercised at this moment and which will be extended in terms of this Bill by the Post Office over people who are by extension radio hams in the sense that the hon. member for Hillbrow used the word.

I wish to talk specifically on clauses 3, 4, 5 and 9 in dealing with the problems which I wish to put to the hon. the Minister. This deals with the question of security in the platteland areas. My comments arise from the commando organization which has recently come into being in my constituency and throughout the whole of Natal. I wish to point out, as I have so often done in this House, that the farmers in the Mooi River constituency are forward-thinking, are progressive in the best sense of the word, thus not politically, and having set up a commando organization, immediately gave their attention to the problem of internal security within the areas in which they live. The problem which immediately arose was that when a commando camp was to be held virtually the entire male population of the area would be taken off the farms and be concentrated on one point, thereby leaving all the farms unguarded and in the care of the female members of the family. They went ahead, on advice received from a commercial company, to set up a radio communication organization which has turned out to be outstandingly successful. However, there are problems connected with it. The hon. the Minister knows only too well. One of the first problems which arose was the question of licensing. Owing to information which was given to them, information which was not correct, it was found, after the system was in operation, that the correct licensing procedure had not been followed. The hon. member for Klip River knows all about this. The whole of his constituency falls under this organization. It was found that the licensing procedure which had been followed was wrong. I am very grateful, however, to the Post Office for meeting the farming community and allowing them to put their case. This was arranged very swiftly, very easily and, to the best of my information, that matter has been sorted out.

However, the problem is connected with the fact that the Post Office, in terms of the Post Office Act, and its general approach to radio communication, has adopted an attitude that it is not possible within a district for a farmer to communicate with his neighbour. That was the first problem which we faced, problem number one which I should like to isolate and put before the hon. the Minister. The second problem was an administrative problem and is part of the operations of the Post Office and falls under an administrative committee which allocates channels which may be used, in this particular case on the 29 MHz band to which this organization is now about to move. The farming community, being practical people, found that within the Mooi River Farmers’ Association area, for example—perhaps we are fortunate in Natal in that most of our association areas are divided by ranges of mountains or hills— those ranges effectively prevented communication inter-district. By dividing, within the district, the area into four different groups of people, it was possible to allocate a certain number of channels to each group of people so that they were not in communication with each other all the time, but were able to call on a common channel, channel 12, and be constantly in contact with the Farmers’ Association at Mooi River. This meant that the people concerned always had a way out of any problems that might arise.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister now that this is a totally new concept in communications here in South Africa, a totally new concept which has a vital bearing on security. As the hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out, telephone communication in this country is far too vulnerable, e.g. from the point of view of the weather, of sabotage, etc., to be an effective instrument in the hands of the people that I am talking about— those in the countryside who are completely exposed to any kind of activity, e.g. that of terrorists, should it occur. I am here today to plead with the hon. the Minister that he should envisage this as a new means whereby people in our situation can constantly be kept in touch. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is an entirely voluntary thing. When the men go away to attend camps there is always a wife or some other member of the family on duty—24 hours a day—with the channels always open so that there can be instant communication between the members of the families of people who have gone away to camp and the members of the families who are in the camps.

The problem deals with the allocation of channels. I can understand that it is a problem and I am not going to try to make any suggestions across the floor of the House in connection with how this might be solved. We are told that there are channels available. One is a channel for fire-fighters. The hon. member for Klip River will agree with me again that anybody who knows anything about veld fires in Natal will be able to tell that this is something which has already saved immense amounts of money and vast properties in Natal, something which has only been possible through keeping that particular channel available. There is an open calling channel for civil defence as well, but what we are asking for is that a further channel should be made available for this particular purpose. I must point out that the department of the hon. the Minister of Defence has been completely involved in this scheme. When it was explained to them how this plan was already working and how we envisaged its working in the future we received the enthusiastic co-operation of the department of the hon. the Minister of Defence. It is a cheap system. The sets cost something like R200, which is within the reach of all the farmers in the Mooi River area. BHF sets would cost between R1 200 and R1 500 each. That would put them beyond the reach of just about all the farmers in the Mooi River area. If one then thinks of extending this scheme, as we are hoping—and, in fact, applications in that respect have already been made—to the whole of Natal, that sort of system, which is a cheap system, is one which is very much in the interest of the people of my area.

I must state that we have already had applications from Kokstad, from Zululand, from northern Natal, from the Natal Midlands and the whole of Southern Natal from people who are interested in this system which is already in operation. I do want to make this plea to the hon. the Minister that the Post Office should—and I use this term reluctantly—perhaps open its mind to what is a new concept. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that further meetings will be held in my area. A meeting has been called for Monday next. The farmers’ associations are going to be involved in these meetings, and so will the Department of Defence, as well as the Natal Agricultural Union. The meetings are held with a view to approaching the hon. the Minister in order to find out whether it is possible to iron out any problems which might exist. The question of international agreements has been raised. I cannot believe that international agreements can be or will be allowed to stand in the way of something which is as vital to the security of our people as this. I am informed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that there are five million radios of this sort—the citizen band—operating in vehicles in the USA. Now, surely to goodness, we in South Africa, with the terrain we have which seems to favour the operation of this kind of radio set can evolve a system which can meet the particular needs I am talking about.

I have to make this plea to the hon. the Minister in supporting this measure. The Postmaster-General has considerable powers. That I must point out. Sets can be sealed. Special stations can be licensed. Special levies can be imposed on people using the radio system which will be authorized in terms of this Bill. Our people are quite prepared to pay, if necessary, a special monthly levy which will enable them to use the system which has been set up.

I want to repeat that the telephone system in this country is under prevailing circumstances no longer adequate. In fact, I do not simply want to mention this; I want to warn the hon. the Minister that that telephone system is too peculiarly exposed to hazards, from whatever quarter, to be able to meet the needs of the situation which I and my farmers believe we are going to meet.

In terms of clause 3 of the Bill the Postmaster-General is taking certain powers. I quote from the proposed new section 6(5) of the Act—

Sir, the farmers in my area are very quiet and orderly people, but if you try to “seize and detain” the radio apparatus which they have, I can assure the hon. the Minister that there will be a considerable rumpus. I must say that matters have been ironed out to a very considerable extent, and that there is now a question of principle where only the hon. the Minister can decide. I want to say to him that other representations will be coming to him from a very high level indeed. I want to say finally that I hope that we will be able to reach agreement on this particular subject.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the standpoints which were stated by the various speakers. The hon. member for Wonderboom, with his superior knowledge which he owes to the fact that he was a post office engineer, replied very adequately to the questions put by the hon. member for Hillbrow. This applies in particular to the questions of the hon. member on what he considered to be the low GHz limit which is being imposed here. Therefore I do not wish to say anything further in that regard. To tell the truth, I cannot add anything further because I dealt with the matter so comprehensively that it does not, in my opinion, require further comment. But I do want to say that there can be no question of our not according recognition in South Africa to the very meritorious work which is being done by radio hams. I want to agree with what the hon. member for Hillbrow said about the usefulness of these people who make very valuable means of communications available on a voluntary basis during disasters, floods, etc. This is a fact, and we admit it. My colleague, the Minister of Defence, also to a certain extent gives official recognition to them when it comes to civil protection services. I should like to repeat the words of the hon. member for Wonderboom, viz. that we are not with this legislation trying to place any impediment on the activities of radio hams. In fact, I think that those of them who genuinely value the work they do and the service they render will be pleased that we are now going to apply proper control over these matters, and particularly those aspects of this work which could give rise to abuses. A person operating under the new legislation will therefore be able to do so in the knowledge that he is acting within the law and that he is not under any suspicion, which could very easily happen in given circumstances.

The next question put by the hon. member for Hillbrow was whether these regulations will enable them to continue their activities. I have already said that we are not placing any impediment on their activities. So the answer is a definite “yes”. They will be able to continue as in the past, although they will now to a greater extent have the assurance that what they are doing is completely legal and is not under any suspicion.

I expected that criticism might be levelled at the deletion of the provision that the regulations may be rejected by resolution of Parliament. However, I referred to this in my Second Reading speech and said that it was actually an obsolete practice. In fact it has never yet happened that Parliament has rejected such regulations promulgated by a Minister. I want to remind the hon. member that these regulations have to be published in the Gazette that the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is the person who may be attacked and criticized in this House on the regulations he has promulgated. The matter may be discussed in the no-confidence debate, the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill and the debate on the Post Office Appropriation Bill. Members in the Opposition and on this side therefore have ample opportunity to focus attention on any problems which they experience with regard to these regulations.

In addition it is also a fact that the Post Office is not trying to prevent people from making use of our services. We shall therefore go out of our way to assist them, provided it is possible and provided it is done within the provisions of our legislation.

The hon. member also asked how the appeal to the Minister would take place in cases where the radio apparatus which is being utilized, or is possessed without authorization, is seized. It is of course quite clear that in such a case the person whose apparatus has been seized will be afforded an opportunity of stating his case directly to the Minister and of presenting his motivations as to why he thinks he is entitled to own or use the apparatus. In other words, there will not be a one-sided standpoint only. The standpoint of the owner or the user of the apparatus can also be submitted to the Minister and the Minister, as the responsible official, will obviously have to take cognizance of this standpoint, and will be able to give his ruling in the light of the circumstances. I do not think it will be a case of a previously adopted standpoint.

The hon. member also referred to the fact that there was an amendment on the Order Paper. He indicated that an inspector should first produce his authority to the person possessing the apparatus before seizing the apparatus. I think we can allow this point to stand over until the Committee Stage when we deal with the amendment in question, for there are many sound, practical reasons why we cannot comply with this. However, I shall discuss those reasons during the Committee Stage.

I come now to the prohibition on the dissemination, under given circumstances, of news received on aeronautical and other unauthorized channels. I just want to indicate that the provisions in this regard are being inserted in the statutory amendment at the request of the Department of Transport. There are radio hams who frequently hear such information. I am thinking, for example, of information concerning a rescue attempt, the hijacking of an aircraft, an emergency landing which has to be carried out or an aircraft circling an airport in order to use up its fuel. One can imagine what consternation it would cause if a person who has acquired such information were perhaps to communicate it to an irresponsible person who made it more widely known. It could cause major disruption at airports. It could cause great dismay among people who had friends or relatives who were passengers on the aircraft concerned. In the case of disasters great problems could be created for civil protection and the police engaged in rescue attempts if the dissemination of such information caused people to flock to the scene of the accident. That is why we complied with the request of the Department of Transport, and that is why we say that this information may not be distributed or published. It is all being done in an effort to render service. It is not an attempt to make matters more difficult for people.

The hon. member for Mooi River raised a very important point. In the times in which we are living, security does indeed play a major role. It has always played a major role, but perhaps we are more alive to it in the times in which we are living. Certain problems, with which he is intimately acquainted, have arisen. I want to agree with him that it is not the kind of problem which we can solve here, during a discussion across the floor of this House. I just want to emphasize that the utilizable frequency spectrum is limited. It is limited in that high frequencies are internationally controlled, but also in that we ourselves control low frequencies in South Africa. I want to tell him that a certain series of frequencies are reserved for civil protection, for example. That is no secret. The Post Office simply cannot allow private persons to cause disturbances on those frequencies, for it would defeat the object envisaged in reserving those frequencies. As regards the specific problem raised by the hon. member, it is a matter which we will simply have to tackle and try to solve among ourselves. As I have said, what is being envisaged here is not to make matters more difficult for people who operate within the law; the object of this amendment Bill is simply to place the entire service on a sound and permanent basis and to ensure that matters proceed in a correct and orderly manner.

Of course, since telecommunications have recently undergone such tremendous development and the electronics industry has made such rapid advances, we have as a by-product today the fact, for which I do not wish to criticize anyone unnecessarily, that dealers have acquired certain apparatus and equipment for sale. I do not know whether they always present the case correctly to the purchasers of that equipment. When they sell such equipment, they simply tell the purchaser: “You can put this apparatus to many uses.” However, they do not tell the purchaser what he may or may not legally do with that equipment. This is one of the problems with which the ordinary citizen has to contend. He purchases such equipment, but when he uses it, he finds that he has acted illegally and then the Post Office, whose function it is, has to step in and prevent him from using it. It would be a good thing if all the hon. members of this House were to ensure—and were to warn against this—that people do not simply believe at face value any story they may hear from dealers in radio apparatus. They should first establish very carefully what use they will in fact be able to make—apart from the ordinary everyday use with which we are all acquainted—of the equipment being offered to them.

Mr. Speaker, I think that I have replied in general to the matters which were raised. The various points which emerged could perhaps be discussed to greater effect during the Committee Stage, and for that reason I shall not go into them any further at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill does not have any one specific identifiable principle which could be focused on at the Second Reading. However, I want to say at once that the general spirit underlying the Bill seeks to provide greater flexibility in respect of the implementation of certain matters, while more powers are being transferred to the legislative assemblies—matters which were formerly handled by the State President by way of proclamation.

† This Bill seeks to amend a number of laws dealing with a variety of subjects falling within the sphere of activities of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

In the first instance it streamlines the procedure for obtaining attachment of a debt or emoluments due by a person who is not a Black. In several clauses the Bill substitutes citizenship for place of birth as a basis upon which the presence of Blacks in certain areas and the issue of reference books and identity documents are regulated. It further regulates the control of undesirable elements in urban areas. It is further provided in the Bill that certain Blacks may be exempted from provisions of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidated Act, 1945. The Bill makes for more flexibility in appointing a Commissioner-General, removes obsolete provisions, brings about more clarity and removes a contradiction in the law in clause 13 for example. In clauses 14 to 19 certain powers of the State President are transferred to legislative assemblies and the procedure for a further transfer of power is simplified.

The last clause regulates the legal and administrative position of areas excised from Legislative Assembly areas.

I have laid a White Paper upon the Table which will give hon. members further information. Hon. members will surely have noticed that this Bill lends itself to a discussion in Committee Stage rather than at Second Reading but it would nevertheless not have been in the interests of time economy to have introduced a number of separate Bills.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has disposed of this Bill in record time. One would have thought, judging by his introductory remarks, that there is nothing to it; that it is a simple measure which is going to bring a little more flexibility into the system of Bantu administration. I can only assume that the hon. the Minister has not yet had the time to study the measure which he is introducing in the House today.

I want to say at the outset that I consider this Bill to be a very unfortunate vehicle for the hon. the Minister’s dábut in this House and in his new portfolio. He raised all our hopes last week when he spoke in the censure debate. He was praised by both the English and the Afrikaans-medium Press. Members on this side of the House welcomed the tone of his speech. All of us were pleased to hear him set down priorities which he said would receive his early attention. Those priorities included housing, education, wages, transport, recreational facilities, employment opportunities, etc.; he ended up with political participation. We welcomed the fact that the hon. the Minister expressed his intention of bringing about improvements in these fields which he thought would lessen the tension in South Africa. However, he made it very clear that he had no intention of stepping outside the framework of NP policy—I understand that very well indeed. Nevertheless, it baffles me that the hon. the Minister has come to the House this afternoon with, as his first effort, this Bill, because I want to tell him that this is a typical “M. C. Botha Bill.” I am very sorry indeed that the hon. the Minister did this despite all his good intentions. I mean this quite genuinely. I wish that I could have had the opportunity privately to try to persuade the hon. the Minister to withdraw this Bill before it even came to the House because I do not think that this is going to advance his reputation in any way. Nor do I think it will set the fears of the African people at rest where we have a new Minister taking over this portfolio.

One would have hoped that the hon. the Minister would have come to the House this afternoon and, as his first effort, would have repealed something. Even within the framework of government policy he could have repealed or amended, if you like, one of the thousands of measures which bear hard on the African people. I have a volume of Butter-worths here—and I can barely lift the thing— which is simply labelled “Bantu”. The label states nothing else, it is simply labelled “Bantu”. In this volume are hundreds upon hundreds of statutes all of which control the lives of the Africans from the cradle to the grave. Many of them bear down very hard indeed on those people. I would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have gone through this volume, taken some advice and suggested that as his first measure in Parliament as the new Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, he should repeal one of these statutes. [Interjections.] On the contrary, he has come along with a Bill which, in fact, adds materially to the burden of urban Africans and indeed of Africans in other areas as well. I believe that this Bill is going to increase resentment and hostility, and that is the very last thing we want in South Africa at the present time.

The hon. the Minister has said—and this is the only thing with which I really agree as regards the remarks he has just made—that this Bill amends several statutes: It certainly does. It amends about eight or nine statutes. It is an omnibus Bill and I agree that the details can best be discussed at Committee Stage. I have to tell the hon. the Minister immediately, however, that several of the clauses of this amending Bill are so offensive that we have no option but to oppose this Bill in the strongest possible way. Therefore I am going to move at the appropriate time that this Bill be read this day six months. I have to tell the hon. the Minister why I am doing this, because he seems to be very surprised. If I had relied, as he appears to have done, on the explanatory memorandum which has been put before him by his department, I too would probably have been quite inclined to allow the Bill to go through without any further objections. The explanatory memorandum, however, tells one nothing. It is extremely bland and it gives very little information of the really dire effects that some of these clauses are going to have on the Africans and therefore, although we shall deal with it in more detail during the Committee Stage, I think it is necessary to make some explanatory remarks as to why we are going to move that the Bill be read this day six months.

I am going to deal with only clauses 2 and 3 which are two of the offensive clauses. There are other clauses we do not like, but my colleagues will deal with them at a later stage of the debate. The explanatory memorandum is superficial in the extreme. Indeed, I think it is actually misleading, because it gives an entirely innocuous interpretation to two of the most important clauses, i.e. clause 2 and clause 3. What does the explanatory memorandum say about clause 2 which is the clause that amends section 12 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act which is the section which, as the hon. Minister will know, deals with foreign Africans and their rights to be in the prescribed areas in the Republic? All the explanatory memorandum says is—

I think, however, it goes much further than that. As I read the Bill—if my interpretation is wrong I shall certainly be glad to hear so— it gives protection to some Africans from certain restrictions, but first of all, it changes the whole basis of what is a foreign African and what is not. According to the principal Act, birth was the determining factor. If a person was born in the Republic, that was it. Now the words “not born in the Republic or in the territory of South West Africa” are deleted and substituted by “who is not a South African citizen, or who is not a former South African citizen who is a citizen of a state the territory or part of the territory of which formerly formed part of the Republic”. In other words, birth disappears as the criterion and in its place comes citizenship. This has the most important implication for children of parents who were citizens of the Republic by virtue of being citizens of an area formerly part of the Republic. To be specific, I am referring to the only two areas involved, i.e. Transkei and Bophuthatswana. Such people are exempted from the clauses dealing with foreign Africans, but their children are not if they were born after the date on which the homeland became independent. Therefore, future generations of children are not included in this exemption and that means that all children of parents who are citizens of the Transkei and of Bophuthatswana, who even if born in the Republic of South African citizenship the minute the homeland became independent. We all know that all citizens acquired a dual citizenship, by virtue of the Homelands Citizenship Act, even those born in the Republic. On independence, the citizens of Transkei and Bophuthatswana lost their South African citizenship, even though born in South Africa, and became citizens only of Bophuthatswana and Transkei. Those people, as distinct from foreign Africans, retain their rights of exemption from restrictions under section 12 of the principal Act, but their children do not. The minute the children are born, if they were born after the date of independence, they are no longer citizens of South Africa. They have lost that citizenship; in fact, they never had it.

They are citizens of Bophuthatswana. Read that section.

I have read that section. They were not former citizens of South Africa, and if the hon. the Minister would agree to delete the word “former”, maybe we could get somewhere. If they were former citizens of South Africa they are protected, but one cannot be a former citizen if one was never a citizen. An unborn child of two Transkeian-linked parents—I am going to call them that because I use as an example people who were born in the Republic—was not a former citizen—in fact he did not exist—and therefore does not retain any protection now being given to citizens who are not foreign Africans. That is one complaint we have. This is a badly worded Bill. It may well be that that was not the intention, but if it was not the intention, I hope the law advisers will get to work and do something about this.

I interpret the clause to mean that a person cannot be a former citizen if he was not born at the time of independence. I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that if my interpretation is correct, this is a betrayal of the undertaking given both to the Transkeian Government and the Bophuthatswana Government at the time the Independence Bills were being debated in the House. Section 6(3) of the Satus of Transkei Act and section 6(4) of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act both laid down that a person shall not forfeit any of the existing rights he has. I just want to point that out.

Clause 3 of the Bill amends section 29 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, which is the section relating to the declaration of people as idle or undesirable. In the explanatory memorandum clause 3 is referred to as follows—

That sounds quite innocuous, until one begins to look at the implications. In order to determine the implications one has, of course, to look at the penalties involved in being declared idle. However, one also has to look at clause 3. What does it do? It removes the words “normally unemployed” and substitutes as the definition of “unemployed”—

If for 122 days in the aggregate a person has not been employed during the previous 12 months he can now, under this definition, be declared idle. That is a terrible thing to be doing. I know hon. members are going to scream at this, but I am going to say it anyway, that there are many people who are unlawfully employed who are not idle. These people are unlawfully employed in terms of our laws, in that people are not allowed into the urban areas without specific permission and so on. They are people who enter the urban areas without permits. They come in not to be idle or to be criminals, but to earn a living, to try to support their families. In terms of our law they are unlawfully employed. I concede that at once. What happens under existing legislation is that these people are hauled before a Bantu Commissioner and are given the option of paying a fine or going to gaol for a short period, or they are endorsed out of the urban area. However, they are not declared to be idle. There is a very big difference between being fined or sent to gaol for a short period under the pass laws, which is what it is, or being endorsed out of the area, and being declared idle, because being declared idle can entail very severe penalties indeed. There are thousands of people like this who are unlawfully employed in terms of our law, but they are not idle. They are employed. The very fact that they are employed shows that they are not idle. They are desirous of being gainfully employed. Those people are now subjected to severe penalties because they are going to be declared idle as a result of not being lawfully employed.

Even worse is the fact that the amending legislation lays down this provision concerning 122 days employment in the aggregate over the preceding 12 months. I wonder how many hon. members in this House know what the consequences are of being declared idle. I wonder if very many people have bothered to look up the legislation on this. I therefore hope hon. members will not think I am being impertinent if I quote a few sections to impress upon them what the penalties are.

I am not going to quote all of the section, but there are three or four points I should like to draw attention to. I want to quote from the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, No. 25 of 1945, section 29(7). Once a person has been declared idle, he may—and I quote—

He may also order that—

1. (b) … such Bantu be sent to and be detained in a retreat, rehabilitation centre or certified retreat established or deemed to have been established under any law; or
2. (c) order that such Bantu be sent to and be detained for a period not exceeding two years in a farm colony, refuge, rescue home or similar institution established or approved under the Prisons Act of 1959 …; or
3. (d) order that such Bantu be sent to any rural village, settlement, rehabilitation scheme, institution or other place indicated by the Secretary …

I might say that these provisions only apply to Bantu over the age of 15 and under the age of 65. I want to point out that if a Bantu has been declared idle, he shall forthwith forfeit any right he may have acquired by virtue of section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Urban Areas Act. He loses his rights under section 10(1) which, as everybody in this House knows, are very valuable rights. Africans cherish them very much indeed.

There is a proviso in this Bill to which I want to refer, namely that an African who is engaged in any bona fide business, trade, profession or other remunerative activity for which he is in terms of any law licenced or registered with the authority of a labour bureau, is excluded from being declared idle. The Bill also does not apply to any African who is a pupil or student at an educational institution or who, having completed a course of study, is awaiting admission to another institution. I am worried about this. This Bill does not apply to Africans under the age of 15. However, there are thousands of young Africans who are at the moment over the age of 15 who are not in any educational institution. It may now be said they should be at school—and I agree they should go back to school—but the fact remains that they are not back at school. I think only about eight or nine of the 27 high schools in Soweto have opened. There are consequently thousands of kids still wandering around who are now liable to fall under the “idle” provisions of section 29. That is a very serious matter. It means they can be sent to any institution or any homeland. I do not think that legislation like this is going to reduce the hostility and tension at present existing in Soweto. The hon. the Minister tells us he wants to make Soweto a beautiful place. We should all like to see a beautiful Soweto, but this is not the way to do it. One can only persuade these children to go back to school; one cannot coerce them by measures of this sort, and I sincerely hope that this is not the intention behind this Bill. But it certainly could be read that way. If the hon. the Minister wants to coerce those children to go back to school, he must do so by promising changes in the whole system of education, by removing the very obvious differences in the quality of education between the education of White children and the education of African children. That is the only way it can be done. Do not underrate the spirit of resistance that is operating in the townships. Coercion is not going to work and Bills of this nature, I believe, are going to be counter-productive.

Finally, I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he can come along with a Bill like this which makes unemployment a crime and which reduces people to being declared idle when they are desperately seeking work? He knows that there are hundreds of thousands of Africans at the moment who are unemployed through no fault of their own. The Department of Statistics states that more than 620 000 Africans are unemployed at the moment. That is the Department of Statistics; other estimates are way higher than that, they are at the 1½ million to 2 million mark. But I am using the official figure. There are 622 000 unemployed of whom 200 000 are in the Witwatersrand complex alone, and that is where most of the tension and most of the resentment and hostility are. What does the hon. the Minister think he is doing introducing this measure at a time of widespread, growing unemployment in South Africa? Could anything be more foolish? What is the object of this measure? Why bring it in at all? We would object to this type of measure at any time, but at a time like this it is absolutely foolish to introduce such a measure. It can only increase the resentment and hostility in the African townships at the present time.

That is the third time you have said that.

I could say it four times and the hon. member would not understand it. I could even say it a dozen times. It is not that he does not understand it: he does not want to understand it. That is the trouble, he does not want to understand it. If I could only persuade hon. members to drop this, it would be worth saying it a million times because I know this is going to bring further trouble in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister should go and see the lines of Africans queueing up day in and day out outside the labour bureau, seeking work and being turned away day after day because there are no jobs for these people.

And praying that they do not get it.

Sir, I get letters too. The hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Minister of Justice, everybody is reading out letters in this House, letters which they get all the time from people praising them for their work. I do not get letters praising me; I get letters imploring me to help people. Day after day they arrive on my desk. I get letters from Africans who say that they are turning to me as a last resort. They say: “We cannot find a job.” One man wrote to me only last week. He had been employed for 23 years by a firm which closed down. He said: “I cannot get another job anywhere.” He had been in regular employment all those years. He is already in his fifties and cannot possibly get another job. What does a man like that do? Is he going to be declared idle? What is then the purpose of this legislation?

We object to this Bill. We do not believe there is any justification for it. The hon. the Minister has certainly given no motivation whatever and I honestly believe that he has not really had the time—I put it at that—to investigate thoroughly the implications of this Bill. I therefore ask him to give the whole matter a second thought. There is still lots of time and I can assure him that we shall do no gloating over it if he does change his mind. We shall be deeply grateful to the hon. the Minister for it. Therefore, on behalf of those on these benches, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have again had the doubtful privilege this afternoon of listening to the hon. member for Houghton. We were not surprised. In fact, we expected the hon. member for Houghton, as only she knows how, to read into a Bill the worst intentions and the worst motives possible. That has been our experience with the hon. member and it was our experience again this afternoon. She addressed her opening remarks to the hon. the Minister. They were words of disappointment.

Yes, that is right.

I accept that it was disappointment because up to now the hon. the Minister has given no sign that he intends applying PFP policy in South Africa. We on this side want to give her the assurance—and we are right in giving her that assurance— that she is hoping in vain that the day will come when the National Party Government will apply PFP policy.

The greater part of the hon. member’s speech had little to do with the Bill under discussion. She dragged in matters which are quite irrelevant and which are in no way affected by the Act. I shall come back to that presently. In regard to the real, positive aspects of this Bill, the hon. member, as we expected, had not a single word to say. As the hon. the Minister so rightly remarked, this Bill has no underlying principle which can be discussed; it is actually a Bill ideally suited for discussion during the Committee Stage. A number of clauses of the Bill nevertheless provide for the positive promotion of self-determination for the Bantu in regard to their own affairs. There are also clauses—and the hon. member for Houghton knows this— which provide for positive self-determination for independent Bantu areas. This covers matters which previously fell under the State President. I refer in particular to the authority which the representative council will have in connection with the allocation of revenue funds. I also refer to powers given them in terms of this Bill on the strength of which they themselves will decide on the appointment of new chiefs, the subdivision of tribes, etc. One particular power given to the Bantu in this regard and which, I assume, for a party like the PFP—being the internationalists they are—will have absolutely no meaning, is the power granted in terms of this Bill to Bantu governments to decide themselves which literary work they will accept as their own national anthem. I take it that this sort of thing holds not the slightest interest for the PFP. They are after all the people who want to be regarded as members of one great international community. But to us on this side of the House it is of special interest to lead each Black nation, each Black man in South Africa, in every sphere of life, to complete self-determination in regard to himself and matters affecting him.

But what the hon. member for Houghton really objected to are the steps envisaged in this legislation—and this is actually a practical amendment to the principal Act—which are designed to dispose of the won’t-works in our Black townships. As the Act stands at present, it is provided that steps can be taken against such a person if he is normally unemployed. Anybody with the slightest practical experience, or with the most limited knowledge of the framing of laws, will realize that we are dealing here with vague terminology, a term which is subject and will be subject to various interpretations, and that it is very difficult, if not impossible, in terms of the present provision, to take effective action in regard to people who are in fact ne’er-do-wells and won’t-works. That is the intention of the amendment embodied in clause 3. No more can be read into this than that the Government—the Minister and his department—intend taking action against won’t-works. They do not want to take steps against people who are in the Black townships legally or against people who are in fact unemployed …

What about people who want to work but cannot get work?

… but only against people who are in fact won’t-works.

The hon. member had a lot to say and made a great fuss about the poor children who do not go to school. Sir, they do not go to school because they do not want to go to school. She asserts that if the legislation is passed, the Minister will use it to remove those children from Black townships. I think that is the most far-fetched argument which I have ever heard in this House. The hon. member accuses members on this side, and in particular the hon. the Minister, of not having read either the Bill or the principal Act. But I wonder if the hon. member herself has taken the trouble to read the principal Act properly. Neither in the Bill nor in the principal Act is authority given to any official to take arbitrary action against any person. If an official has reason to believe that any person is a won’t-work, he brings him before a Bantu Affairs commissioner who will give a decision after hearing evidence.

There is a right of appeal against the decision of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. I do not have the thick book in front of me which the hon. member has before her, but I do know that the law also makes ample provision for the kind of orders a Bantu Affairs Commissioner can issue in various cases. One of the orders he can issue is that a child shall be given to its parents. But to assert in the House that we are going to take children who do not go to school away from their parents and send them somewhere else, is too far-fetched to be true.

Only a Prog would say that!

Do you not know what happened in …

I think that is so far-fetched that no person who is not being malicious can believe or say anything like that.

You do not know what is going on!

The Government is determined that protection be given to the law-abiding citizens in White South Africa and also in our Black townships. One can only give protection to a law-abiding citizen if in fact one protects him against people who act illegally.

The hon. member stressed the point that the legislation is apparently aimed at people who are illegally employed in urban areas and who live in Black townships. In the same breath she referred to the long lines of Black people queuing for work. Did it ever occur to the hon. member that it is also in the interests of the law-abiding Black people in the Black areas, who are perhaps struggling to find work, to be protected against other Black people who reside illegally in the Black townships and are employed illegally by employers? But to try to explain this to the PFP is, I think, a waste of time.

I did not expect the vehement opposition contained in the hon. member’s amendment that the Bill be read this day six months. I really did not think she would put anything like this before the House. But I want to say one more thing to the hon. member and I want to conclude on this note because there is really not much more to say in this connection.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

This Bill, and particularly the clauses she has discussed, are a sincere attempt to solve the problem of idleness in Black townships. There is no more than that in that particular clause. In my view there is not much in the other clauses which is contentious. The hon. member referred to the provisions which substitute “citizenship of the Republic” for “born in South Africa”. That is a normal development. Those hon. members have not kept pace with developments in South Africa during recent years. The amendment now being effected in terms of which reference to persons born in the Republic is being changed to persons who are citizens of the Republic, is a simple, consequential amendment as a result of the status changes which have been brought about recently at various levels in respect of various Bantu nations in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has criticized the hon. member for Houghton for trying to attribute the worst possible meaning and motive to the Bill before the House at present. I think the hon. member and others must realize that we in these benches have had previous experience of Government attitudes in spheres of this kind, and as a result of that experience we are well entitled to view, with the utmost caution, any measures such as the measure before the House this afternoon. I think the hon. the Minister has done himself an injustice in the manner in which he introduced the Bill this afternoon. It is common cause that when the hon. the Minister spoke in the debate last week, we on this side of the House and other observers were impressed by his sincerity, and certainly one holds the view that in the difficult times in which South Africa finds itself at the present time, particularly in regard to matters being handled by the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Minister should be wished well and given every assistance possible. I do, however, think the hon. the Minister did lay himself open to criticism for the rather cursory way in which he introduced the legislation before the House at present.

It is, after all, a Bill which deals with a wide variety of amendments to a wide variety of existing Acts which cover series of aspects of the lives of millions of people in South Africa. Consequently one would have hoped that in introducing a Bill of this kind, the hon. the Minister might—in addition to the White Paper which, as the hon. member for Houghton has told us, is very sketchy—have been able to motivate the legislation more forcibly and comprehensively than he did. The hon. member for Houghton has dealt particularly and extensively with certain aspects, especially those concerning the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. The Bill before the House deals, however, as I have said, with a number of other Acts, and in particular with the Bantu (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act and the Bantu Labour Act. I think the hon. member has dealt extensively with clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, those clauses dealing with the definition of foreign Bantu in relation, particularly, to the new Bantu homelands. She has also dealt with the increased powers the Bill gives the Government in regard to people who are described as idle and undesirable Bantu. The hon. member who has just sat down asked the hon. member for Houghton a number of questions on this issue. One just wonders if one is really dealing only and specifically with idle and undesirable Bantu in this legislation. One just wonders why it is necessary for the Government to assume greater powers than it has at the present time if that is the case. The Government has effective legislation on the Statute Book at the present time, quite sufficient to enable it to deal with ordinary undesirable and idle people within our community. Why, then, is it necessary for the Government at this stage to ask for certain increased powers in this regard? I think we on this side of the House are perfectly entitled to express our misgivings at these ominous calls for increased powers in this particular sphere.

However, I want to deal with certain other aspects of the Bill, aspects which I believe are perhaps nearly as contentious as the issues dealt with by the hon. member for Houghton and which, I believe, can only lead to the creation of further confusion and hardship and which for that reason must be opposed. I want to deal particularly with the principle contained in the amendments to the Bantu (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act which are contained in clauses 6, 7 and 8 in the Bill before us. Here, too, one is conscious of the fact that, when one is dealing with any aspect relating to the operation of pass laws in South Africa, one is dealing with a matter that is of critical importance in the lives of hundreds of thousands of South Africans; one is dealing with a matter in respect of which the greatest care must be taken in passing legislation.

Section 3 of the Act, which clause 6 of the Bill seeks to amend, at present provides for the issue of reference books to Bantu who are born in the Republic of South Africa or in the territory of South West Africa. It also provides for identity documents for Bantu who are born elsewhere. The same principle as applied in the provisions to which the hon. member for Houghton referred, is to be seen in clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill, viz. the principle which seeks to substitute the concept of citizenship for that of birth in determining the issue of these documents to various people in South Africa. In effect, it means that all Bantu who are still citizens of South Africa shall still have a reference book as at the present time, but it also provides that Bantu who are now citizens of the Transkei or of Bophuthatswana—it is clearly these territories to which we are referring—and who were formerly citizens of South Africa, now have to carry identity documents in lieu of the reference books they carried previously. This aspect is interesting. Perhaps, Sir, it may seem logical to differentiate between what the Government may see as two different classes of people in terms of the theory of the Government’s policy of independent homelands in relation to the two classes of people concerned.

We know that the existing reference book in use in South Africa is also being used as a record of the employment of the individuals concerned and also of their tax payments. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how the proposed identity documents of former South African citizens, who are now going to be citizens of Bophuthatswana or the Transkei, will differ from the reference book in this respect. Will they also contain a record of employment and of tax payments? What will be the difference between the two types of documents?

After all, Sir, we may be dealing here with people who now, by law, have become citizens of another country. However, for the most part we are dealing with tens of thousands of people who were born in South Africa as South African citizens and who now of necessity are going to be coming and going to and from the Republic of South Africa both because the independent homelands are unable to provide them with the employment opportunities they need and because we in South Africa need their labour. These people are going to be carrying a variety of passes. I think it is hardly likely that citizens of Transkei and Bophuthatswana working in the Republic will not be compelled in some way to have a record of their employment or their tax payments. One wonders therefore what the difference is between the two types of documents, or is this simply some sort of cosmetic operation designed to underline the policy of separate homelands as opposed to the rights of people within the country in which they are born?

The principle of substituting the concept of citizenship for the concept of birth continues throughout the amendments introduced in this legislation. It seems to create even further categories of people in South Africa. Again, one is entitled to ask questions and to view legislation such as this in the most critical light, because, once again, this kind of situation can cause further confusion in a situation that is already confused.

There will be “other foreigners”—as there are “other coloureds”.

Clause 6(b) makes the same substitution. This clause seeks to amend section 3 of the Act. If one reads clause 6(b) of the Bill with section 3(1) bis of the Act, the amended subsection will read as follows—

1. (1) bis Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1), the identity document referred to in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of the said subsection shall not be required of nor shall such document be issued to a Bantu—
   1. (a) who is in possession of a passport, permit, document or identity or other travel document referred to in the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913 (Act No. 22 of 1913);
   2. (b) who is not a South African citizen and who enters or has after the 30th day of June 1963, entered the Republic.

It seems that the effect of these amendments will be to create three categories of Bantu in South Africa. The first will be the Blacks who are South African citizens. They are people who were born within the Republic of South Africa and who have reference books. The second category would seem to be Blacks who are citizens of Bophuthatswana and the Transkei who entered the Republic before June 1963. It would appear as if they will have some form of identity document. The third category would seem to be citizens of Bophuthatswana and the Transkei who entered South Africa after June 1963. This would be the third category, and they apparently will have neither the same identity document nor the same reference book but will be required to have some other sort of reference which would be either a passport, a permit, a document of identity or other travel documents referred to in the Admission of Persons to the Republic Act. This again would seem to cause confusion. What in effect is the difference between the three types of documents which individuals are going to be asked to carry?

These are important matters and deserve the closest possible scrutiny before legislation is passed in this House. The concept of substituting citizenship for birth goes right through to the question of giving Bantu commissioners the right to request citizens of Bophuthatswana and the Transkei to return reference books which they may be carrying with them and the issue of some other document to them. Again one is faced with the problem of people coming and going, as they will be, whether it is from independent States into South Africa or not. The fact of the matter remains, however, that in view of the interplay of labour between the two territories, people will be coming and going carrying a variety of documents, and I believe that there is a very real danger that there will be very considerable confusion and difficulties as a result of the amendments proposed by the hon. the Minister. I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies to this debate he will be able to allay some of these fears, because there is a great need for an explanation as to the powers which the hon. the Minister seeks.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend replying to the hon. member for Musgrave because I want to deal with another aspect of the legislation in question. Before dealing with it, however, Mr. Speaker, I trust you will allow me to refer in passing to a few matters concerning my constituency.

I come from that part of the country which was commonly referred to as “settler country” during the previous election. There are very definitely in that part of our beautiful country many features which can be discussed on an occasion such as this. For example, there is the important aspect, as far as our part of the world is concerned, of the establishment and development of a veterinary faculty at Rhodes University. My predecessor, Mr. Bill Deacon, also raised this matter when he made his maiden speech. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to the good service he has rendered to that community. I must say, however, that the enlarging of Rhodes University is not the only aspect I could raise. I could possibly also refer to the rapid expansion in the provision of housing in that constituency, particularly the provision of Bantu housing in Grahamstown. I could also possibly refer to the extension of the harbour facilities at Port Alfred or to the acquisition of property at Peddie. However, the opportunity has now arisen in the shape of the legislation before the House for me possibly to say something about a definite matter. I trust I shall have an opportunity at a later stage to say something about the other aspects to which I have just referred.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the attachment of any debt in a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court. The clause, therefore, deals with a situation where one Bantu tries to collect money from another Bantu and where he has to follow the procedure laid down by the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court. Section 10(6) of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, provides basically for the attachment of a debt by means of a garnishee order when a Bantu wants to collect a debt owing to him. This aspect is covered in greater detail by court rules 74 and 75 of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court. Hitherto the position and the procedure to be followed have been of such a nature that a Bantu person has not been able to follow this procedure of attaching the debt or salary due to his judgment debtor if that debt or salary was owed by a White employer or a White debtor. Clause 1 of the Bill now rectifies that position and provides that such salary or debt can be attached by due process in a Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court, irrespective of the source of such debt or salary.

I think this measure will be of great benefit to all Bantu and that they will welcome it because it will afford the more economically active Bantu a greater opportunity of collecting outstanding debts.

I am of the opinion that the principle as outlined in this legislation could be carried even further. To justify this statement I want to explain one or two aspects. The procedure followed in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court is more or less the same as that followed in a magistrate’s court. In the case of a magistrate’s court two basically similar procedures apply when it comes to debt-collecting. Firstly, there is the procedure laid down in section 72 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act This section provides for the attachment of any debt or emolument due to a debtor which his creditor in turn wishes to acquire. The second procedure is laid down in section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, namely that there should first be an investigation. This is in contrast to section 72 which refers to an attachment. In terms of section 65 there should first of all be an investigation into the position of the debtor and thereafter an attachment order in terms of section 72 may be obtained, or—and I regard this as important—the debtor may be ordered to pay direct in instalments. The procedure followed in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court is set out in the proposed subsection (6) and is much the same as the procedure laid down in section 72 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. Unfortunately, there is nothing similar to section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act in the rules of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court. There are basic differences between section 72 and section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and I want to refer to one or two aspects in order to substantiate my pleas that the procedure laid down by section 65 of that Act should also be followed in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court.

In the first place, in terms of section 72, the creditor must have prior knowledge of the position of the debtor. The creditor must know where the debtor works or he must know what moneys are owing to the debtor. Having acquired this information he can take the matter further in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court by applying for any debt or salary owing to the debtor to be attached. This, however, requires the creditor to know where the debtor works, what he earns and for whom he works in order to be able to make the attachment. The whole problem, however, is that often the creditor does know what the position of the debtor is and is consequently unable to take further action.

In terms of the rules of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court to which I have referred, it is, inter alia, a condition that the garnishee, i.e. the employer, should also be notified of such an application. If the creditor does not know where the debtor works, it is not possible for him to notify the garnishee or employer of such an application. Section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, on the other hand, provides for an investigation into the financial position of the debtor. It provides for an investigation without the creditor having in advance to have the precise details of the debtor’s employer. The creditor can obtain all the information he wishes to have at this investigation and that will enable him to collect the amount owing to him.

There is another difference between the procedures laid down by sections 72 and 65 and that is that the instalments to be paid, have to be paid to the messenger of the court. He in turn pays the money over to either the creditor or his attorney. In terms of section 10(6) the same procedure is followed in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court. It is obvious that this procedure involves considerably increased costs and inconvenience, particularly where the amount in question is large and is being repaid by means of small monthly instalments. The messenger of the court has to receive the instalment every month and he eventually pays it over to the creditor. In contrast to this procedure section 65 provides for the garnishee, i.e. the employer, to make payment direct to the creditor or his attorney.

However, there is another more important difference between these two procedures. As I have indicated, section 72 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, which is similar to the existing procedure laid down in section 10(6) as far as the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court is concerned as amplified by rules 74 and 75, presupposes that there must be something owing to the debtor by another person. Either debt is owing to him or his employer must owe him a salary. No provision is made for circumstances where the debtor is self-employed, has a fairly good income, and therefore receives nothing from an employer. It is often easier for a creditor to collect a debt from a debtor who is self-employed but whose assets are not of such a nature that they can be attached. As far as I know and as far as I could ascertain, there is no procedure in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court similar to that laid down in section 65 which enables the Bantu businessman and creditor to collect from a Bantu debtor who, unlike the debtor who earns a salary, has his own business. The provisions contained in section 72 are very seldom invoked as far as the magistrate’s court practice of debt collecting is concerned, whereas the provisions of section 65 are very often applied. As an attempt is being made in the proposed new subsection (6), as contained in clause 1 of the Bill, to make it easier for the Bantu creditor to collect a debt owing to him by a fellow Bantu, and as the proposed amendment recognizes the principle that debts and salaries can be attached irrespective of their source through action in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court, I trust that in the foreseeable future it will be possible to take the matter further so that the principle which is now being ratified can be extended in order to provide for a procedure to be followed in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court similar in form to that laid down by section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. I have no doubt that such a procedure is urgently required.

In an attempt to close this loophole in the rules of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court, it has happened in practice that attorneys have obtained an extract from the judgment given in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court and have then had a notice issued in a magistrate’s court in terms of section 65 in terms of which an investigation is then conducted in the magistrate’s court. This naturally involves increased costs because magistrate’s court procedure is so much more expensive than that of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court. What is more important, however, is the fact that this procedure is not 100% legal. Consequently it has in fact happened that although a blind eye has for some time been turned to this procedure, certain magistrates now refuse to follow it.

I maintain, therefore, with respect, that it is essential that a procedure which is in line with the principle already acknowledged and which conforms with the procedure laid down in section 65 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, be introduced in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s Court as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Albany on his maiden speech. Those of us on this side of the House who were friends of Mr. Bill Deacon, wish to express our thanks towards the hon. member for paying tribute to him. It appeared to me as though the hon. member was not in the least nervous when he started his speech. The hon. member said he came from the “Settler country”. I think one is entitled to hope that after the next general election a member of this party will again have a seat in that area. I think the hon. member should get stuck in now and do some hard work in Parliament, for perhaps he will no longer be here after the next election. [Interjections.]

† Mr. Speaker, we in these benches support the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton. I do feel that it might have been more advisable to have brought a reasoned amendment before the House, but one of the problems we have had with this legislation is that it has come within such a hurry before the House that we have had a certain amount of difficulty in contacting the department and getting hold of the background to the legislation. We know a great deal about the background of Bantu legislation in South Africa anyway; it has followed a common pattern over many years. The hon. the Minister is a new Minister and he has now introduced this legislation, which we can understand he has inherited from a previous Minister. We are of course prepared to make allowances for this. However, “we have a problem”, to use a famous phrase. We have a problem with clause 2 where the hon. the Minister is taking the power to change the status of people not born in the Republic or in the territory of South West Africa. He is substituting another concept, namely people who are not former citizens of South Africa— in other words, citizens of the Transkei. As the hon. member for Houghton has pointed out, the problem arises here that people who are born as children of citizens of Transkei are going to be deprived of certain rights. Those are the rights dealt with under section 10. That is as we understand the position, and no doubt the hon. the Minister will confirm that that is so when he replies to the debate.

The problem arises whether it is possible for children who are born to citizens of another country, to continue to enjoy rights in South Africa after their parents have ceased to be citizens of South Africa. The right they used to obtain by being born in South Africa, has been taken away by the legislation instituting the independence of Transkei. I want the hon. the Minister to clarify this point for me. I think the hon. member for the PFP who will speak later on, may have some words to say on the subject, but I am not sure how long the Government envisages that the rights under section 10 will be vested in children born after the coming into operation of the independence of Transkei, because to my mind there is a very definite legal watershed concerning the independence of Transkei which limits the rights of children born to Transkeian citizens resident in the Republic after the independence of Transkei. I am not quite sure about this, and it worries me that the hon. the Minister may be using this amendment as a bit of a dodge to get around the provisions of section 10, which has built-in rights for people. From the viewpoint of the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side I can understand that they are faced with a problem whereby the people protected under section 10 are obviously going to increase in number. I should be very interested to learn from the hon. the Minister when he replies to the debate whether this is now a device whereby those numbers can be cut down.

Clause 3 concerns the question of people who are idle. I think we must be very honest about the fact that in times of economic hardship and difficulty in which we are now living, the pressure upon the Black population in the urban areas is going to be immense. There are people there who are desperate and who are driven to crime of all sorts. I do not think we must have any airy-fairy ideas about the pressure to which the Black population itself is going to be subjected. If there is a measure which has been designed to remove idle people from those areas for the protection of the law-abiding population, I think the hon. the Minister may have a case. However, I think the problem here is that there are now so many people being brought into the purview of this amendment that injustice can very easily be done. That is what concerns me, and I wonder whether this measure might not in some way meet the problem if after the words “not lawfully employed” we insert “or registered as work-seekers”. In other words, this measure should attempt to create some kind of definition of people who live there and are not simply idle, but are out of employment and cannot obtain employment because of the situation in which they find themselves. The situation is made even worse because in terms of para, (b) a sound reason has to exist for the suspension of a warrant or order. Subject to the discretion of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner it has apparently been the practice in the past that a first appearance before a court in itself constituted a sound reason. A person brought before the Bantu Affairs Commissioner’s court thus obtained a further chance either to rehabilitate himself, to obtain employment or to do the right thing in terms of the legislation which was seeking to remove him from that area. That discretion regarding suspension is now being taken away, as I understand it. Perhaps I am wrong. I am a farmer and I do not pretend to be legally trained, but as I understand this proviso the discretion which was vested in the Bantu Affairs Commissioner to suspend the execution of a warrant by reason of it being a person’s first offence, is being taken away.

That is right.

That is the point I am trying to make. I regard that as a somewhat harsh measure in the present times in which we live. I therefore think we are perfectly justified in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton since the hon. the Minister confirms that that is so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River has certain problems regarding the implementation of section 10 of the Act and clauses 2 and 3 of the amending Bill. I do think the Opposition still makes the basic mistake of creating the impression outside that the privileges—and I prefer the word “privileges” to “rights”—embodied in section 10 are more important to the Black man than his citizenship of a homeland or an independent Bophuthatswana or Transkei. It is this sort of propaganda which results in the Black man attaching more importance to his rights in terms of section 10 than he attaches to the exercise of his rights as a citizen of his country. The second problem is that both the hon. member for Mooi River and the PFP try to create the impression that clause 2, to which reference has been made, is actually completely new legislation. The hon. member for Houghton in particular says that it is more oppressive and severe legislation. But that is not the case at all. I want to refer to previous legislation introduced by all three of those parties when they were governing. In the circumstances it is very difficult to decide which party to refer to when one talks of old UP legislation. I do not think I am mistaken when I say that the legislation to which I am referring now was introduced in the Smuts era.

There are so many UP people on that side of the House that you could also be one.

I want to refer for instance to section 17 of Act No. 21 of 1923. This is legislation which was introduced in the good old Smuts-UP days. Section 17 provides that if a prescribed officer suspects—and I quote—

The provisions of this Act, which originated with the UP, were further extended by Act No. 46 of 1937 also to include women who under certain circumstances were forbidden entry into prescribed areas. Further extensions were also effected in this regard. I quote from section 22 of Act No. 46 of 1937—

In this event a warrant could be issued in terms of which he could be ordered to leave the area. That is UP legislation. Now the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Musgrave give the impression here that a completely new principle is being introduced by this legislation. But that is not the case. The only amendment actually being effected here is to define the term “normally unemployed”. All the other provisions are contained in the 1964 legislation. In other words, a Bantu who can be employed and is normally unemployed in terms of the old Act, and is not legally employed, can be dealt with in a certain way, if he is between 15 and 65 years of age. The only difference is that “normally unemployed” is now defined and includes a provision that it constitutes 122 days in a year.

The only reason for this and the most obvious reason—and hon. members can refer to law reports in this connection—is that there was a good deal of confusion in regard to the definition of the term “normally unemployed”. I refer for example to the case of the State v. Palm Lakha, 1965 (SALR) in which the learned judge tried to define the term “normally employed”. He defined it as follows—

There were quite a few cases after this, and the last cases reported in this connection is the matter in re Buthelezi (1976 (1), p. 856). The accused’s work record for the preceding three years was examined and it was found that in the course of two of the three years he had worked 15 months and had been unemployed for 11. The court found that in these circumstances he was not “normally unemployed”. This led to considerable confusion and the existing situation is now being changed so that a concrete criterion is established in terms of which a Bantu can be regarded as being unemployed. That is all that has taken place. But the hon. members of the PFP are now telling the world that even greater restrictions are being placed on the Black man in White areas without referring to certain other aspects where discriminatory measures are being eliminated; for instance, where the Minister has the right, as he deems fit, to exempt a Bantu or category of Bantu from any of the provisions of the Act. That is not mentioned. We know that legislation has already been passed by this House in terms of which certain Black people in possession of passports must be admitted to all hotels in South Africa. Here again this provision gives the Minister authority to exempt certain Bantu or categories of Bantu from the provisions of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. This is a non-discriminatory step which is being taken here. But that is not mentioned. Neither is reference made to clause 10. I think it was two years ago that certain provisions of the Labour Regulations Act were repealed, provisions in terms of which the Black man was guilty of a criminal offence if he deserted, used insulting language to his employer, and so forth. In other words this was previously a punishable offence. But the fact that an employer withholds money and does not pay the employee, is still regarded as an offence. Those provisions are now being repealed. But that is not mentioned. Any matter which benefits the employer in this regard, and which normally affects the White employer— because this has happened in domestic situations—is not well received. But where the impression can be created that it is a restrictive measure upon the Black man, this is bruited abroad and the wrong impression is given to the world.

In conclusion: The hon. the Minister has said that this Bill is actually a Committee Stage Bill. The hon. members of the Opposition have conceded this, but have nevertheless proceeded to attack the Bill in a committee stage way. I suggest therefore that the Bill could be more fruitfully discussed at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from speeches of hon. members, including the speech of the hon. the Minister, that the Opposition’s response and reaction to this piece of legislation has taken them by surprise, because quite clearly very little preparation has been made by hon. members on that side. I must join with the hon. member for Houghton and others who expressed their disappointment that this kind of legislation is being introduced as the hon. Minister’s dábut in his new responsibility. We had anticipated that this legislation would probably be left over for a while in order that the hon. the Minister could acquaint himself more closely with this legislation and other pieces of legislation before the House. I think it is a matter for regret that this was not done.

The hon. member for Brakpan has argued that we in the Opposition benches have sought to undermine the citizens of Transkei and of Bophuthatswana in regard to their loyalty and their commitment to their citizenship. One usually gets this kind of nonsense and I think the only response I can give to that and which should settle the matter quite simply is to allow those who are born in South Africa and yet come from a newly independent country to make their own choice. If they had that choice that would settle the matter beyond dispute. It should be left to them to make that choice. But this, of course, is not what this Government will allow.

The hon. member for Brakpan went to great lengths to talk in terms of legislation which was introduced in 1923 and then amended in 1937. It has nothing at all to do with the modern situation facing South Africa. We are here in a peculiar and particular situation, and I would have thought that we would have introduced legislation and amendments which would have served South Africa and all its peoples today and not worry about what happened in 1923.

The final thing I want to say to the hon. member for Brakpan is that once again we have heard the cry—and I think he said it two or three times—that it is very distressing that we are sending into the world wrong views about the Government’s attitude towards the Black people in this country. I wonder if he has ever thought about the impact and the effect that legislation of this kind has upon world opinion. If he is so concerned about world opinion I would suggest that the Minister withdraw the Bill, because the Bill itself does far more harm and damage than anything this small Opposition can do. Let us make it very clear, that is in any case not our intention. Our intention is to look carefully at what this Bill does to millions of people, and if it was for their improvement and if it meant that they would be given a better life, a beautifying of Soweto and other areas, we would give it our wholehearted support. However, we do not believe it does so.

Do you want to get another peace prize from the leftists?

I hope so; probably. I would deserve it a lot more than that hon. Whip sitting over there. We have moved an amendment which is a very serious amendment and we have done so because it deals with very serious matters. This amending legislation deals with citizenship, which is very important. It deals with employment and the definition of those who are unemployed, and the results and consequences which could flow from that definition. It deals also with reference books, and we all know the heat that surrounds that, what with identity documents, passports and travel documents. All of these are central issues, and that is why we have responded so seriously to this piece of legislation.

I want to underline the serious implications of this legislation, should it be passed, with specific reference to clause 3, which amends section 29 of the Act. In terms of the existing section 29, an authorized officer may without warrant arrest outside the homelands any Bantu whom he believes to be idle or undesirable and bring him before a Bantu Affairs Commissioner who can then deal with him in accordance with the provisions of this section.

Then we have a definition of what an idle person is. According to section 29(2) of the Act it is a Bantu other than a housewife over 15 and under 65 years who is normally unemployed. By this we understand an idle person to be someone who does not want to be employed, someone who is normally unemployed, who is a lay-about, who makes no attempt to obtain employment and who is a menace to those who are attempting to live a good and normal life in the society in which he is to be found. Therefore, the Government has all the legislation it requires to deal with this situation. We are not saying that provision should not be made to act against people who simply will not work. We believe that this is right.

However, when we change the definition, as we change it now, in clause 3 of the Bill, to read—

And then give a period of time—in this instance 122 days—

One major obstacle arises. We are not told how we are going to define “the preceding 12 months”. We are not told whether this is going to come into operation as soon as—if at all—this becomes law or whether it is retroactive. We are not told anything at all. We have no definition and no explanation of that has been given.

When we look at the situation which faces South Africa—and already reference has been made to the official figures from the Department of Statistics—this, in my mind, represents a figure of 635 000 Black people unemployed. That is 12% of the active working population amongst Blacks in South Africa. That is a very, very high figure, I submit. One wonders when we are going to face up to this problem.

On 31 January the hon. the Minister of Labour gave the figure of unemployed Blacks as 129 119. According to him that was the figure as at the end of December 1977. The very next day the Department of Statistics releases a figure which is well over 600 000. In other words, so great was the underestimate that the figures of the hon. the Minister of labour have been contradicted now by the Department of Statistics. There are many people—people who are not members of this party—many professors who are working very closely in this area of unemployment, who suggest that the figure should be 1,5 million. And many of these people are in the urban areas. I want the hon. member for Mooi River to know that we appreciate the support of his party and of his colleagues for our amendment We too, are very very concerned that this series of pieces of legislation joined together in one Bill will have a very bad effect upon the smouldering situation in our urban townships. We are also concerned about whether his legislation is really the first onslaught on section 10 of the Act. In other words, is this now the Government saying to the people of South Africa: “We are making it clear, once and for all, that although there will be some adaptation, some ‘ontplooiing’ of the policy, the basic fact of the impermanence of Blacks in urban areas must once again be underlined”? If that is so, I think the consequences are very very far reaching and serious. That is why we raise this very matter in this debate today. When the hon. member for Mooi River referred to the possible moving away from the discretionary powers of the Bantu Commissioner I gathered from the hon. the Minister that he felt that this was not so. We would like him to comment on this, because clause 3(b), which substitutes section 29(10) of the Act, now empowers the relevant Bantu Affairs Commissioner to—

This may be done only, and I quote—

In other words, this circumscribes his discretion. It must do. And when, in many ways, one thinks of the incredible powers of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, I am tempted to feel that it might be a very good thing to circumscribe that. However, when it means that it circumscribes his discretion in terms of those who appear before him on a first offence—and the Bill specifically refers to a first offence—this is not a sound reason. We would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether this does in fact restrict the discretionary power of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner.

In clause 3(c) I also have a problem on which I would like a comment from the hon. the Minister. This provides that the Bantu Affairs Commissioner who will keep a record of the proceedings may summon other Bantu to act as assessors. The amendment here is very interesting. The reference to urban Bantu councils has been dropped. There is no reference, as yet, to a community council, and perhaps for a good reason. It may be felt that this is too unwieldy, too big, and that we must therefore have specific people. However, I wonder if we would find very many urban Bantu working alongside a Bantu Affairs Commissioner—in declaring as habitually unemployed, perhaps hundreds and thousands of people who are unemployed because they cannot get a job, people who have no way of getting a job because of the recession which we face today—who will be party to this kind of decision. Will we find many of them who will say: “Yes, they are now defined as idle” and have them take all the consequences contained in the existing legislation as quoted to us by the hon. member for Houghton?

We cannot support this legislation. There are many aspects of this which seem to us very far reaching and disquietening. Therefore, I have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton.