Mr. Speaker, I regret having omitted yesterday to announce the business of the House for the coming week. In future this will be done on Wednesdays, and not on Fridays as in the past. Today the House will proceed with the business as printed on the Order Paper. Tomorrow private members’ motions will be discussed. On Monday and Tuesday the Part Appropriation will be taken, after which we shall again proceed with the business on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, this clause contains again an extension of the principle of substituting citizenship for that of birth, this time in regard to the issue of reference books. We on this side of the House will oppose the clause on that ground. The clause provides that where it comes to the notice of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner that a reference book has been issued to a Bantu who is not a South African citizen, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner may request the Bantu concerned, if he is required to be in possession of a passport or another identity document, to surrender such reference book or document to him. Such Bantu will then be required to have either an identity document or some other form of entry document. I must point out that in terms of the effect of this clause too, if the Bantu concerned does not comply with the request of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, he will be guilty of a criminal offence.

Once again, when we deal with this clause the hon. the Minister will agree that one is dealing with an area which is a very delicate area in the South African society. The rules of the House would not allow me to go deeply into the whole question of the administration of the pass laws, but we are dealing here with the question of identity documents, with requiring an individual to surrender an identity document and issuing him with some other identity document, and there is also as I have indicated, the question of a penalty involved, a penalty for a criminal offence, if such individual does not comply with such a request. One is simply horrified at the thought that hundreds of thousands of people perhaps may believe themselves to be in possession of proper identity documents whereas, in fact, they are not in possession of a document which they are required by law to possess. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will appreciate the sensitivity which is going to be required in administering this matter, particularly in the transition stage. I hope that some form of instruction will be given by the hon. the Minister to Bantu Affairs Commissioners and to other law enforcement agents to deal with this matter with considerable patience and with considerable sensitivity.

I believe that great care should be taken in order to make sure that the people concerned are aware of the fact that there has been a change in the law and that the reference books which they presently possess will no longer be valid in terms of the new law. Great care should also be taken to ensure that sympathy will be shown to them for a considerable period of time before any action is taken against them. I hope the hon. the Minister will see fit to give instructions in order to ensure that the change envisaged by this clause is going to be administered in a most patient and sensitive manner.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply to the hon. member immediately. I can assure him that I will accede to his request. Let me first of all point out that we no longer have pass laws in South Africa. Those days are past. Those laws have been abolished. Hon. members must please refrain from using that term again. Pass laws no longer exist. Control is no longer exercised in the way indicated by the hon. member. From the nature of things, we have had very fruitful discussions with the leaders of the homelands in this connection. During the debate on the motion of censure I referred to this matter and pointed out that agreement had already been reached to the effect that the reference book would eventually be replaced by identity documents, by a passport and travel documents similar to those applying in the case of all nations in the world. In that field, therefore, we no longer discriminate against our Black people.

I know what the attitude of the hon. member is. I notice he is smiling at me, but what I am saying is true. We have in fact agreed that great circumspection should be exercised during this transition period, because we are not seeking confrontation but co-operation. During the transition period this measure will be applied as humanely as possible in order to put the new system whereby the reference books will be replaced by the documents we have agreed upon into operation as speedily and practically as possible. We also undertook to apply it humanely.

By means of legislation we shall also empower the homeland leaders in their legislative assemblies to authorize their governments to issue such documents. Simultaneously, we shall pass legislation here which will give recognition to those documents. That is what has been agreed upon and we shall continue along those lines. In conclusion, I just want to add that the principle contained in the clause—if it does contain a principle—deals once again with the question of citizenship or place of birth. I think we have said everything there is to be said in that connection. I want to content myself by saying that my attitude is that citizenship is of far greater importance than place of birth. What is more, it is an international concept, and I want to treat the Black people the same as all the other people in the rest of the world and not discriminate against them.

Mr. Chairman, while I welcome very much the assurance the hon. the Minister has given the hon. member for Musgrave, namely that great care will be taken in implementing the provision which we are now considering, I cannot allow to go unchallenged certain statements he made at the same time as giving this assurance. I do not know where the hon. the Minister comes by the notion that there is no discrimination as far as the carrying of identity documents by Whites and by Blacks in South Africa is concerned. White people are not obliged to produce documents on demand, as Africans are. If the hon. the Minister wishes to call it a reference book instead of a passbook, that does not mean anything at all as far as I am concerned, and I am sure it means nothing whatever as far as the average African is concerned. He only knows that the reference book or pass or whatever you want to call it, limits his mobility, and that, of course, is the other difference between the identity book carried by Whites and the reference book or passbook carried by Blacks. It is a limitation of his mobility, even if he is a South African citizen …

There is a limitation on Whites as well.

No, there is no limitation of mobility in the case of Whites. [Interjections.] Sir, if the hon. member wants to move from Cape Town and go and live in Brandfort, there is nothing to stop him from doing so. There is nothing to stop the hon. member going from Vereeniging to live in Johannesburg, and he knows it. His identity document is used, as identity documents are used in every country of the world, should he be required to produce it because he has had a motor accident or because he is claiming money or a pension or anything like that. That is quite obvious. All of us know that. It does not, however, restrict his mobility. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his right to take up employment and, most of all, he does not have to produce it on demand. If he fails to produce it on demand, he is not subjected to any penalty. That is a very considerable difference. There are hundreds of thousands of Africans every year who can testify, through having to pay fines or having to go to gaol, that there is a very big difference indeed between the carrying of an identity book by the White man in South Africa and the carrying of a reference book or pass book by an African in South Africa.

Again, Sir, I cannot allow to go unchallenged the hon. the Minister’s statement that it is the norm throughout the world that citizenship should have higher priority than birth. In many countries, certainly in America and in England and, I think, in the rest of the Commonwealth, birth in fact gives citizenship. Birth, in fact, is the origin of citizenship. You can acquire it by naturalization, but it is birth that gives you the right to citizenship in those countries. Therefore, Sir, I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to start off with the wrong notion of what happens to Africans when they are picked up and cannot produce their passes. I did read somewhere—and the hon. the Minister must tell me if he was correctly reported—that he said he did not think it right that any policeman should be able to stop any Black man and ask him to produce his book.

That will be the case under the new dispensation.

I am delighted to hear that, Sir, because that will make an enormous difference to the life of the average African. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in fact instructions were issued years ago—some 10 or 15 years ago—to the police telling them to use their discretion in this regard and that if a man was not able to produce his pass on demand, he should be given a reasonable opportunity of doing so. This was done because people sometimes leave their passes at home or happen to be walking down the street when they have left their passes at their employer’s house.

Order! I think the hon. member is going very far now.

Sir, I was just replying to a statement by the hon. the Minister. I should like to conclude by asking the hon. the Minister this question: As from when will the new dispensation as far as the production of passes on demand is concerned, come into operation?

Not “passes” please!

I beg your pardon; I shall say it all over again. When will the new dispensation as far as the production of reference books come into operation?

Not that either.

Registration books?

No.

Passports?

Identity documents.

We can use any term the hon. the Minister likes, but as far as I am concerned this carries a penalty and I want to know when and how the hon. the Minister intends removing the penalties.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we in these benches should also indicate that we are, in fact, opposed to this particular clause and will, as such, be voting against it. The hon. the Minister and some of his colleagues on those benches have made great play, during this debate, of the fact that all they are doing is substituting citizenship for birth and that that is the practice in many countries of the world. There contention is that they are simply doing what other countries have done. I believe that the hon. the Minister has lost sight, however, of probably the most important fact in this regard, and that is that these other countries— in fact the rest of the world—have not forcibly removed people who were born-and-bred citizens and, whether they like it or not, declared that the people concerned, whether they are going to continue living in the country of their birth or not, would willy-nilly become citizens of another country. That is why we, in these benches, believe …

Did you say “forcibly”?

I said “willy-nilly”. They have no option. They are not given the choice of deciding whether they wish to become citizens of Transkei or citizens of South Africa. Recently a Bill has been introduced giving them a kind of circular path whereby if another homeland accepts them as citizens, they can become South African citizens again. I am prepared to acknowledge that. If however, in terms of this clause, we wish to compare South Africa with the rest of the world, I believe that we must bear in mind that there are people today who have lost their South African citizenship and yet are born-and-bred South Africans, have always lived within the present area of South Africa and will probably continue to do so, as did their fathers and grandfathers before them. We on these benches will therefore not be supporting the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the aim of this clause is to provide for the children of Black people who are born beyond the borders of the Republic of South Africa. As the Act reads at present, reference books cannot be issued to these people. That is the drawback. The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat did not plead the cause of these people, however. The fact of the matter is that if Blacks are born beyond the borders of the Republic, although both their parents are South African citizens, reference books cannot be issued to them because they have not been born in South Africa. The aim of this legislation, however, is to make it possible for those Black people born beyond the borders of South Africa, and whose parents are South African citizens, to obtain reference books as well. But those hon. members did not plead the cause of those people, and this surprises me. That is one of the objects of this clause. The hon. member for Houghton went so far off the subject that eventually I could not tell if she was still talking about this legislation.

Oh, come on!

I still cannot fully understand the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton. It seems to me that the hon. member for Houghton is now advocating the retention of the reference book,—if I understand her aright. That was the impression I gained. I do not want to be unfair to that hon. member. I do not want to ascribe things to her which are in fact not so because she is not as young as she used to be.

The hon. member for Houghton made a very far-fetched allegation here. I think it is unfair, and I think it should be put right for the record. The hon. member made an assertion here which is not true. The hon. member said that a White person in this country could go wherever he wanted and live wherever he wished.

In South Africa.

Yes, in South Africa. But, of course, that is not true. It is, in fact, quite untrue. In other words, that hon. member is on record as saying that a White person can go to any part of the country and do as he pleases. But that is totally untrue. I cannot go to live in Soweto. I cannot go there without a permit. I cannot even stay for 72 hours in an area such as that. Nevertheless, the hon. member says that a White person in this country can do as he pleases, but not a Black person and that this is another example of discrimination. But that is an untruth. It is completely devoid of all truth. But now it is on record and can be used against us. The fact of the matter is that a White person also has to obtain permission before he can enter a Black urban area or a homeland.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is much more to be said in this connection. I shall therefore briefly summarize the position. During the censure debate I announced that the three homeland leaders who investigated the whole question of influx control on behalf of the homelands had made a recommendation which we accepted. They did good work. This recommendation included a suggestion that the reference book as such should eventually disappear altogether. That is why I take exception to the hon. member’s speaking about a pass or about a reference book. The reference book will eventually disappear. With their concurrence—and further still, on their recommendation—it was decided that in the interests of the people themselves there had to be some form of control over the influx of people to various areas. If there is no such control, it means that a certain area may be overrun with workers, with the result that wages will be forced down to below a living standard because there are too many workers in relation to job opportunities. Therefore it is worthwhile having control. Control will be exercised in exactly the same way as it is exercised in regard to other people. In the case of non-independent homelands it will be in the form of an identity document to be drawn up and issued to people in due course. It could even be in the form of a travel document. In the case of independent territories such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana, it will be in the form of a passport. In other words, we are normalizing the position in accordance with international practice. Certain particulars will be incorporated in these documents, and these will be decided upon between the Government and the homeland authorities. We shall control the whole situation in that way.

But let me say at once that we shall need legislation for this. We have first to pass legislation in this Parliament by virtue of which the legislative assemblies of the homelands will be empowered to pass legislation enabling them to issue the documents. During the course of this session legislation will be introduced to give them this authority. In the meantime we shall continue with the present dispensation and we shall implement the law as humanely as possible. As the new documents are issued, they will become operative automatically and we shall change over to the new system, which in the nature of things will create a completely new situation. I want to add that under the new dispensation it will also not be compulsory for the Black man to have this document available at any time when he may be asked to produce it.

That is good.

He will be given time to produce his document, which is what I am allowed to do when I am in a foreign country. That is the idea behind this. Although the hon. member will be voting against the clause, I do hope that she will understand that we are trying to bring about an improvement here.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, we oppose this clause for the same reasons as we opposed the previous clause. It is really a consequential clause, again substituting the concept of citizenship for that of birth. However, this time it relates to Bantu departing from the Republic and to deceased Bantu other than those who are South African citizens. Again, for the reasons we have stated in respect of the previous clause, we shall vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, for the same reason as the one I gave under the previous clause, I ask that this clause be agreed to.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, as far as clause 10 is concerned the explanatory memorandum is, as in so many other instances, extremely brief. The reasons given for the repeal of section 16 of the Bantu Labour Act of 1964 is that “the handling of applications for authority to make deductions from the wages of Bantu employees causes a considerable burden on the State institutions concerned”. It goes on to say that with the development of the Bantu at the present time, this provision is no longer necessary. I want to suggest that this is not so and that we still need this.

One must bear in mind the composition of our labour force, and in particular our Black labour force, who will be affected by the repeal of this provision. One must also bear in mind that a vast number, if not a great majority, of Blacks are semi-skilled or unskilled and therefore still remain at the mercy of those who wish to take moneys from their normal income, salary or wages. I therefore believe that this House will agree that section 16 of the Bantu Labour Act is still required. Subsection (1) of the section which we are now repealing, prohibits the withholding of wages from Bantu employees by employers and then states—

One can compare this provision with the Masters and Servants Act, an Act which we had asked for a very long time to be repealed as many people had very strong objections to it. Finally, it was repealed. One of the reasons why we objected to it was because there were certain, in our judgment, punitive measures in that Act. Immediately it was repealed, however, certain protective measures were lost as well and immediately one had to try to find some way of protecting people who no longer had that protection. I think the same is true in this instance. The hon. the Minister has indicated that Bantu workers will have the right of appeal or that they will be able to take action if moneys are withheld without their permission. However, if one thinks of the litigation to which they will have to resort and the costs thereof, it will be quite clear that the unskilled or semi-skilled workers will lack the knowledge and certainly the money which they will require to take their employers to court Secondly, one should not only bear in mind the composition of the labour force and the fact that it comprises a large number of semi-skilled and unskilled workers. It should also be borne in mind that many of them come from outside South Africa and indeed from many of the homelands. Once this provision is repealed, therefore, it make it possible for authorities in homelands and elsewhere to negotiate with employers without the permission of the employees concerned to withhold moneys from the wages and salaries of these employees.

Therefore, without spending too much time on a discussion of this clause, let me say that we oppose the measure for that reason. It will be said, I assume, that this is once again an indication that we want to keep the Black man exactly where he is and that we are not prepared to allow him to speak for himself. However, that is not our view and never has been. I do believe that where protection has been afforded it should be maintained, and therefore we do not agree that section 16 of the Bantu Labour Act of 1964 should be repealed.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly do not understand why the PFP adopt the attitude they do in this connection. The clause, as we have it before us today, is a definite admission of the fact that the Black man has been emancipated, an admission that he is now able to conduct his own affairs. Hon. members opposite are continually telling us that these people must not be treated like children, and I agree with them. Here we have an opportunity for the Black man to conduct his own affairs. Why should we always do it for him? This task involves the officials of the relevant department in a tremendous amount of work. We are not in the process of emancipating these people; we accept that they have already been emancipated in this sphere.

The fact that the Opposition are opposed to the clause, is a sign of paternalism on their part, something which is absent in our case. That is the differences. What sort of requests do we receive? We even get requests which have to be subscribed to and approved by the Director of Bantu labour. These requests relate, inter alia, to pension scheme deductions, savings account schemes, etc. From the very nature of things, these are matters which can be attended to by the Black man himself. The hon. member has said that if action has to be taken, it will involve considerable expense; he also wanted to know how action was taken, etc. Through the medium of its Bantu Affairs Commissioners the department makes available to the Black people a free service which even goes so far as to assist them in issuing summonses on their behalf. We take it that in the year 1978 the Black man has become sufficiently emancipated to do that himself. We do not want to be paternalistic. The PFP want to be paternalistic and for that reason I can only say that my attitude is that we should carry on with this.

Mr. Chairman, I had hoped the hon. the Minister would try to resist the temptation of scoring a point at this time, but I suppose it was too much to ask of him. He has been so reasonable in the past few days that, at last, he cannot resist it. I tried to make the point that we do not favour any paternalistic attitude.

But you are acting like that in practice.

No. In South Africa, by accident of history and circumstances, a great percentage of the labour force happens to be Black—unskilled and semi-skilled—and who come from territories outside of the areas in which they work and reside. Furthermore, many of them—one can again describe it as an accident of history—are semi-literate or illiterate. It is true that certain opportunities are given to them, but nevertheless I believe that the law which we are now repealing, actually gives certain basic protection which, to my mind, many workers will want. I have worked in the area and I know what I am talking about. I know about the riots that took place and about the deaths that resulted from those riots. In an arbitrary fashion—I shall not mention any names—certain moneys were withheld with the consent of an employer and a particular country adjoining our borders. No reference whatsoever was made to the employee. As a result of this a riot took place and lives were lost. I am suggesting that if we repeal this law, once again we are opening the door to the possibility of a vast number of workers who cannot protect themselves at this time, being abused in this way, and for no other reason. The hon. the Minister knows full well in his own heart that we do not support paternalism. He also knows that we believe in the reality of the situation which suggests, to us at least, that certain basic protections are still necessary and that is the only reason why we are opposing the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinelands says they do not favour paternalism. I take his word for it, but he is being paternalistic because, whether he is opposed to it or not, his actions are paternalistic. I have listened for many years to that party—and I say this with due respect and deference … [Interjections.] … accusing us of discriminating against the Blacks and treating them differently from the Whites. And believe it or, Sir, today I actually found myself listening to the PFP advocating a discriminatory measure!

They are verkramp [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg is quite right; I certainly never expected them to be as verkramp as that.

Let us look at section 16 of the Bantu Labour Act, 1964, which is now being repealed. Section 16(1) reads as follows—

shall be guilty of an offence.

In other words, it would be reasonable for a Black man to ask me to make monthly deductions from the wages of a Black man in my employ, thereby settling my employee’s indebtedness to him. As the law stands at the moment, however, I would be committing an offence if I did so unless I obtained the written consent of the Director or an officer of the department. I honestly think hon. members opposite should reconsider their attitude in this matter. I think it is an insult to suggest that the Black people are not sufficiently mature or that they lack the mental ability or experience to make arrangements with their employers for certain monthly deductions to be made from their wages. As I know the Black people they are quite capable of conducting their own affairs. What is more, I think they are quite capable of handling their own finances. That has been my experience of these people. I honestly think it is being absolutely unreasonable not to grant them the right to do what section 16 says they cannot do. That is why I disagree completely with the hon. member for Pinelands as far as this matter is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who just sat down, could not resist the opportunity either and I concede him his right to have a bit of fun. If this Amendment Bill had suggested that certain portions of wages or salaries could be held back with the written consent of the employee, it would have been far more satisfactory than this wholesale repealing of section 16 of the Act. If that had happened, there would have been no talk of paternalism; it would have been a normal worker’s right. I should like the hon. the Minister to comment on this, particularly in terms of the deferred pay situation. With the repealing of this section, as we understand it, the way is opened for the possibility of Government arrangements, arrangements between homeland Governments and the Government of the Republic, to automatically defer pay from employees with them having no choice in the matter. They can certainly take action against it; they can object to it However, as far as Ican see this can open the door much wider than ever before and for the reasons already stated we shall oppose this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands. I cannot help but feel that hon. members are now arguing against their own better judgement. The fact is that what the hon. member is asking for here, can in any case still take place on a voluntary basis. It can be sorted out between employer and employee. It is an arrangement between them and the worker can give his written consent. Why should I still prescribe it by legislation? Surely I would then be acting paternalistically? Does the hon. member not understand that? Why should I treat the Black man differently to the White man? There is no law which prescribes to the White man in this regard or forbids him to do this. I do not want to discriminate and that is why I am deleting this provision. Those hon. members want now to discriminate and to prescribe certain rules for the Black man. The hon. member has saddled the wrong horse. They have fallen into a hole and are now trying to get out of it.

I want to make it very clear that this can be done now on a voluntary basis. If I prescribe it by law I shall be acting paternalistically. If I prescribe it, it is tantamount to saying that these people are not capable of handling their own affairs. At the end of the ’seventies the Black man is so emancipated that he is able to handle these matters himself. So I do not have to prescribe to them by way of legislation.

What about the deferred pay? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I would have been a little more impressed with the hon. the Minister’s arguments if he was abolishing all the discriminatory laws against Africans. However, he is now repealing section 16 of the Bantu Labour Act, which contains a protective device to stop employers from withholding wages from African employees unless they obtain consent in writing from the director or an officer of the Public Service authorized by the director, or any other person authorized thereto by any law or by any order of any court. It is all very well to ascribe paternalistic motives to us, but that is being absurd. I now talk as a woman. There are great movements throughout the world for the emancipation of women in all directions. I also feel very strongly about equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities for employment and so on. However, I do not ask for the removal of, for instance, the protective factory laws which do not allow women to handle dangerous and heavy machinery, something which they are unable to do. If that is being paternalistic, I welcome that sort of paternalism. It is a protective device. There are many other night-work and factory laws which protect women.

In this country it just so happens that there are Africans employed who are subjected to a deliberate policy. I do not say it is an accident of history. It is as a result of the withholding of opportunities for education that many Africans are not able to understand the contracts they have entered into, because they are not fully literate. None of us can claim that every African in the country is fully literate. We know it is not so. That is a tremendous handicap when they are bargaining with employers. It is also a handicap to be prohibited from removing oneself from one rural area to a city or to another rural area, or from one city to another city in seeking jobs. All these are factors that come into it. There is a very large number of foreign workers working in South Africa as migrant workers. They are often faced with contracts over which they do not have any control at all. These contracts have perhaps been negotiated by their own Governments. I really do not see that the desire to retain a protective device is paternalistic. I do not look at it in that light. However, it is very nice to know that the hon. the Minister is now going to be in the forefront of the removal of all discrimination. I shall be right behind him, if he is interested to know. [Interjections.]

I want to tell him that here he should not repeal the entire section. I do not think he should repeal the entire section. I think he should seriously consider the suggestion which has been made by my hon. friend for Pinelands, viz. that he consider excising in the Other Place the words “the Director or an officer of the Public Service authorized by the Director in writing to give such consent” from section 16. It could be substituted by the words “the employee concerned”. We then know that the man will understand what is going on, that he is prepared to have deferred pay sent back to whatever territory he comes from and we know that he is prepared to have money withheld for example for saving and contributory pension scheme purposes. It is then entirely up to the man himself. He can obtain advice about it from somebody else even if he is illiterate. He can then make his mark showing that he knows what he is doing. One cannot simply abolish this measure in toto as there are unscrupulous employers who dock wages at the slightest possible excuse. I am sure the hon. the Minister will not deny that.

They dock the wages of Africans who break machinery or break appliances, etc. They find they are having their wages docked and that cannot be done under the existing law. Employers cannot dock or withhold wages; they first have to obtain a court order for a thing like that. They have to receive the written permission of the Director. I think that that protection is needed in the special circumstances where there are hundreds of thousands of workers who are not able to protect themselves in this regard. If that is paternalism, I do not mind being paternalistic, or maternalistic, if you like.

Mr. Chairman, it makes no difference to me if the hon. member for Houghton enjoys the little game as to whether it be paternalistic or non-paternalistic. I am not wedded to that concept, but I want to show that precisely what the hon. member for Houghton would like to have happen, viz. that the protection which the workers now enjoy should continue—the workers to whom the hon. member for Pinelands referred—the protection embodied in section 16 of the Bantu Labour Act, operates contrary to the interests of the Black people. I shall give hon. members a practical illustration. Those hon. members are always reproaching us because they say that the Black people, particularly those engaged in agriculture, are the very people who are less qualified to do certain things. This is said, and in many respects it is probably true. There is nothing peculiar about it. They are also people who may have the lowest educational qualifications. In agriculture today we have a major task trying to protect those people against all sorts of people who come calling at the farms, or wherever they are to be found. We want to prevent this sort of thing happening to them. It has become the practice. If we were to canvass the 82 000 farmers in South Africa today, we would find that at least 70 000 of those farmers were contravening this provision of the Labour Act as it reads at present. It is done every day for humanitarian considerations if those Black people ask for something. For instance, they ask: I have bought a radio, or I have bought this or that, and I must pay so much a month on this article. Can I arrange to have the money deducted from my salary every month and paid direct? That is the control that is exercised at present so that those workers do not get all sorts of accounts and summonses from the people who have sold them things. The farmer sees to it that the correct amount is paid. I can give hon. members—I could almost say—hundreds of examples of this. The representative of hon. members of that party on the Select Committee on Credit Agreements last year will know about this. That was one of the very arguments used when we discussed credit agreements. It was suggested that we should come to an arrangement which would embody this protection. I say therefore that this provision discriminates against those Black people at present, because if one wishes to act in a certain manner on behalf of that employee, one is not permitted to do so unless one has written permission. It may be said that we can ask for written permission each time, but that is not practical. [Interjections.] If one is an employer, one has first to apply for permission to withhold a portion of that man’s salary to pay certain accounts for him.

Get it from the employee.

What should one get from the employee?

His consent.

One cannot get the consent of one’s employee to deduct money from his wages. That one cannot do. Permission has to be obtained from the director. It is in fact to protect those thousands of Black people involved in agriculture that the relative provisions are to be scrapped, so that one will then be in a position to protect these people.

Mr. Chairman, I thought we had made ourselves very clear. Maybe the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke was so busy working out his own speech that he did not listen to what I said. I am not suggesting that we cannot amend section 16 of the Act. [Interjections.] I wish the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke would listen when I talk. I am not suggesting that we cannot amend section 16. I realize the difficulties that he talks about, the nuisance of having to go and get the written permission of the Director every time one wants to assist an employee paying off a radio or whatever article it may be. However, one can surely get the written consent of the employee. That is all one has to do and that means a very simple amendment We just have to substitute for the phrase—

the following phrase—

That is all. It is very simple. Will the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke agree with this? There is nothing paternalistic. It leaves it to the employee and it will make it quite sure that wages will not just summarily be withheld. I believe that for every good case that the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke can mention there must be perhaps as many— but at least some—bad cases where employers would take advantage of their employees and withhold wages in an unjustifiable manner. The only way that can be stopped is by getting the consent in writing of the employee. That is all.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton. I appreciate her point of view, but I cannot help but feel that what she suggests can be done on a voluntary basis. If this clause is accepted, it can take place on a voluntary basis. There is nothing to stop that. I want to put it to the hon. member that that is in fact what will happen in practice. In the nature of things it will happen that way. Let me add that any employer who deducts money from his employee’s salary illegally can be prosecuted. I am informed that the number of complaints received in this connection is minimal. It is not a factor to be taken into account because it does not occur.

I repeat that a White person can enter into any agreement with his employer and it is honoured, no matter whether it is a written or oral agreement. This legislation is putting the Black man on the same basis as the White man as far as this matter is concerned. Consequently I am not discriminating. I am astounded that the PFP wants me to discriminate against the Black man. I am not prepared to do it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will not get away with that! [Interjections.] In the first instance, the White is not a migrant labourer and in the second instance the Black man does not have the protection of trade unions, something which is another very important factor. They are unorganized. The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke mentioned farm labourers. Farm labour is the most unorganized of all labour that we have. They have no rights at all, no mobility and are completely unorganized. They have no protection whatsoever. Those are the people we are talking about. The hon. the Minister rightly said that what we suggest can be done anyway, but one needs the legal protection making it necessary for the written consent to be given by the employee.

The reason why there have been so few cases against employers for withholding wages is precisely because section 16 is on the Statute Book. Therefore a man can be prosecuted by the State for breaking the law, but it is a very different thing when the employee has to initiate the court action. He does not have the money, and the hon. the Minister knows that. It is virtually impossible for an unprotected farm labourer or worker of any kind to initiate a case against his employer. It is very costly, and the man does not know his rights anyway.

One cannot in this instance compare an organized, skilled White worker—someone with trade union rights, who is literate and who has all the legal protections one can think of—with a migrant worker or a farm worker or any illiterate or semi-literate African worker in an unskilled occupation. It is a very very different thing. Protection is required, and it is the protection of the law that is required, not the protection of the courts, should the employee decide to go to court. He does not have the resources to do that.

Mr. Chairman, we are having a most interesting experience in this House today, in that we are watching the PFP losing one argument after the other. I trust that the Press which supports them will also take note of this. As a matter of fact, hon. members of that party strike a pathetic figure. The hon. member for Houghton rouses a measure of sympathy in me. Just see how consistent her argument is that the Blacks have no rights!

†Her words were that these people had no rights at all. She said that they had no access to the courts of law. Is that what she is suggesting?

No, not at all.

Is she then not suggesting that they have no access to courts of law?

No, I did not say that.

If she is not suggesting that, does she suggest that once in a court of law, discrimination will take place against Black people?

No. I said it is too expensive.

If that is not the case, what is the hon. member suggesting?

Oh, sit down!

Is she suggesting that Black people have no access to a court of law which can hear a criminal case? I ask this, because if wages are withheld from an employee without a judgment, then it is a case of theft. If she does not believe me, she can consult the hon. member for Mossel Bay, who is a reliable lawyer. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must admit that she has lost this argument.

*To return to the pathetic figure cut by the hon. member; you will remember, Mr. Chairman, as you have served in this House for many years, that that hon. member has in the past moved several motions in regard to the rights of women. She has always advanced one main argument, and I fell for it. Her argument was that a woman earning a large salary could not even sign a stoporder. She is not in a position to go to a bank or a building society to do business. Sir, has she taken cognizance of the phenomenal increase in the income of the Blacks? Is she aware of this? Does she realize that the furniture trade with the Blacks is flourishing? Is she aware of the fact that those people cannot sign a stoporder? Is she in favour of that state of affairs continuing? When the hon. member for Pinelands argues that these measures leave a loophole for the type of thing which previously caused riots because pay was withheld arbitrarily, I wish to point out that this happened under the law as it stands at the moment. I do not suggest that this was a valid example, but how for heaven’s sake can we control this by retaining these measures? The only conclusion I can come to is that the hon. member now regrets that any grounds for such an argument among the Blacks is now being removed. This is a drastic allegation. I realize that, but the only conclusion that we can come to is that the hon. member is trying to retain points of friction, while this measure has taken the wind right out of his sails.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I should like the hon. the Minister to know that we are supporting this clause. It is, of course, consequent upon clause 2 but without the prejudice, and we therefore believe that this is a decided improvement. We believe that this does, in fact, give opportunities to people from newly independent countries like Transkei and Bophuthatswana, for example. For those reasons we are therefore very happy to support this clause.

That is going too far.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I cannot believe my ears, but I am grateful.

I am a very reasonable man.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are going to oppose this clause because of the fact that it takes away from Parliament very far-reaching powers and vests these powers in the State President by way of proclamation. Clause 18 empowers the State President, by proclamation in the Gazette, firstly, to amend schedule 1 of the Act and, secondly, to amend any other provisions of the Act to give effect to such amendment. The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, then determine the areas in which such amendment shall apply and the date on which it shall be applicable in any particular area.

These are obviously very wide powers indeed which are being given to the State President. I have no doubt that it is the hon. the Minister’s intention—as he will no doubt tell us—to make use of this provision to extend the powers or jurisdiction of the Legislative Assemblies but, equally, in theory the provision could be used to limit those powers or take away powers from the Assemblies. Either way the right is taken away from this Parliament to have a say in these affairs. I am reminded of what I believe is a correct statement attributed to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor who, on his retirement, said that he believed that the whole issue of independence might be better dealt with by way of proclamation rather than by having these matters bandied about in the White Parliament. I therefore wonder whether this is a forerunner of such a move by the hon. the Minister. I think we are entitled to some reassurance from the hon. the Minister on this point. We should like to know that this is not a situation where, by proclamation, greater and greater powers are going to be taken, until such time as the situation, envisaged by the hon. Minister’s predecessor, is arrived at, a situation in which independence may be given to any particular homeland in South Africa by proclamation. I think the House is entitled to some sort of statement by the hon. the Minister on this matter, and on the very wide powers indeed which are now being taken away from this Parliament and given to the State President by way of proclamation.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react by saying that to my mind this amendment is a consequential one as far as the existing position is concerned. As the Minister who is responsible for this post, I just want to add with regard to the independence of homelands that I believe that in spite of the provisions of the Act, we shall come back to this Parliament when there is talk of new independence. That is my standpoint and my premise, and I should like to give the assurance that it is also my belief and conviction. I just want to add that it is not an effort to extend the powers of the State President abnormally. It is purely to expedite the matter and to conclude legislation more readily.

Not by-passing Parliament?

No.

Then we shall let it go.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this clause were discussed fairly extensively during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. The clause introduces a new method of acquiring citizenship or, more accurately, of regaining citizenship. It is designed to accommodate former South African citizens who by virtue of their membership of or attachment to an independent homeland have lost their citizenship and might now seek to regain it. The clause in its terms makes it clear that only persons who have at any time been South African citizens and citizens of a territorial authority can apply in this manner to regain citizenship of the Republic. It is therefore by definition designed only for the present generation of people so affected. We have dealt with this in the Second Reading, but it is clear from the wording of the clause itself that we are dealing here only with the present generation of people, because the clause stipulates that these must be people who were previously South African citizens and who, in addition to that, were members of a territorial authority. Quite clearly, therefore, in its terms it is designed only for the present generation of people. It is also quite clear that people born after independence are specifically excluded from this provision.

The Bill also, of course, introduces the innovation into our citizenship laws that South African citizenship can only be regained via membership of a non-independent homeland. A prerequisite to any of these people regaining South African citizenship is that they must do it via a non-independent homeland. The clause also lays down, in its provisions, a very difficult process in terms of which a person in these circumstances can endeavour to regain his lost citizenship. In the first place, it stipulates that he must apply to a non-independent homeland for admission. He must make the necessary application in the prescribed form. Secondly, it stipulates that the other homeland must recommend acceptance of the application and, thirdly, the provision says that the Minister may in his discretion grant such citizenship which would then be citizenship by birth. Quite clearly, it is not an easy process. A person faces a number of hazards before he can regain such citizenship.

Do you say it should be automatic?

Yes, of course we say it should be automatic. That is the very standpoint of this side of the House. Sir, all these hazards are put before the individual trying to regain his lost South African citizenship.

In dealing with the provisions of this clause in the Second Reading debate, we indicated exactly what I have just said in reply to the interjection made by the hon. member, viz. that in our view every citizen who has lost his citizenship by virtue of the granting of independence to a homeland should as of right be able to regain his South African citizenship. Sir, this clause falls far short of this situation.

When the hon. the Minister replied to the Second Reading, he indicated that in fact it was a fairly small category of people he had in mind in respect of whom the provisions of this clause would be applied. He indicated that there might be people who, on compassionate grounds, because of marriage or other situations of that kind, might want to regain their South African citizenship and that that was really the extent he envisaged of the application of these provisions.

I also referred to the fact that a total tribe could move.

Yes, the hon. the Minister also said a total tribe could move. This may well be so, and obviously one accepts the explanation given by the hon. the Minister as to what his intentions are. But we as a Parliament are dealing with the making of laws. Whatever the hon. the Minister’s intentions may be, we are perfectly within our rights to suggest that in terms of the law—as it is going to be when this provision is passed—all other sorts of situations may obtain. We have dealt with those situations during the Second Reading. We have dealt with the situation of people wanting to regain their South African citizenship and of moving from one homeland to the next. The Minister said, that this was a ridiculous example, but he must concede that, in terms of the provisions of this clause, that situation is perfectly possible. That person would certainly have to go through the difficult screening process to which I referred earlier.As the clause stands, that situation is perfectly possible.

We on this side of the House have indicated that we are not going to support this clause, firstly, because of the prevailing climate in South Africa in regard to the question of lost citizenship as a result of independent homelands coming into existence and, secondly, because the measure gives minimal benefits to people who have lost their citizenship. We accordingly believe that it introduces an undesirable element into the system of granting citizenship in South Africa. We think that the provisions of this clause are clumsy and inadequate and we are not prepared to lend respectability to it by supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave made an allegation in the last sentence of his speech which I want to refute at once. He said that if they supported the measure, that would lend it a measure of respectability. However, we do many things in this Parliament without his support, things which are quite respectable. Therefore I am sorry that the hon. member used those words. I presume it was a slip of the tongue and that he did not mean it seriously. He is after all a decent person. He was just blowing his own trumpet a bit and I do not blame him for that.

We accept that citizenship of an independent country such as Bophuthatswana or Transkei or any territory which becomes independent in the future is full citizenship and has all the characteristics of full citizenship, like those of South African citizenship, British citizenship or American citizenship. One does not acquire second-class citizenship if one belongs to a free State, but full citizenship. That is my first premise. Secondly, I want to give hon. members my assurance that what we are trying to do with this Bill is to make a concession to former homeland territories such as Transkei and Bophuthatswana so that some of their citizens may have the opportunity of regaining South African citizenship in a certain way. It is therefore a concession which is being made and I had hoped that it would be welcomed.

There is a third argument, however. Before independence this Government and those Governments agreed that at the time of independence everybody in that territory and everybody belonging to that ethnic group would become citizens of those homelands. That was the agreement, whether the hon. member likes it or not.

Bophuthatswana as well?

Yes, that applies to Bophuthatswana as well.

What about the letter which was written?

Yes, but I am talking about the agreement which was reached. The agreement was that on the night of 5 December all persons from Bophuthatswana in South Africa and Bophuthatswana would become citizens of Bophuthatswana That was the agreement. The hon. member does not like it, but that was the agreement.

I am just asking.

I am just answering. What is the rest of the position? We also agreed that we would leave the door open so that people could reapply for South African citizenship in certain circumstances. The Government can, however, impose certain conditions, just as they, the responsible Governments of those countries, can impose certain conditions when they grant people citizenship of those countries. Surely it is the sovereign right of every Government to determine who it accepts as a citizen of its country and who not. Surely that is international law.

What are we asking now? We are asking, in the first place, that that person should apply for citizenship. He must address his application to the homeland Government. We make it a condition that he apply to a homeland Government.

Any time?

Any time. No time limit has been imposed.

To any homeland?

He can apply to any of the existing homeland Governments. I want to recognize the power of the homeland Government as well. That Government has to judge whether or not it wants to accept that person as a citizen of its country. I do not want to tell that Government in a paternalistic way whether or not he should accept the person. The homeland Government has a say in the question of whether or not it wants to accept that man as a citizen of its country. If a homeland Government does not recommend him, I will not consider his application. Therefore I recognize the status and power of homeland Governments, such as Lebowa and Qwaqwa, when I ask them to make a recommendation. However, if they recommend him, the Minister has the discretion, in terms of the provisions of the clause, to restore to him his South African citizenship or to refuse it, depending on the circumstances. This discretion has to reside in the Minister. Let me explain why. I discussed this matter during the Second Reading debate and I just want to repeat it briefly, because I do not want to discuss the whole principle again. We have no say and we want no say as to whom Transkei and Bophuthatswana accept as their citizens, because they are sovereign States. If Bophuthatswana should decide tomorrow that it is prepared to accept 40 000 citizens of Botswana as citizens of Bophuthatswana, it is entitled to do so. However, I have a duty towards the Blacks in South Africa, in the sense that I cannot suddenly admit those 40 000 citizens of Bophuthatswana to South Africa and to all the privileges which are reserved for our own family of nations. I have to give them that protection and therefore I have to have the power which the provision vests in me. I do not want to make any suggestions, but it is theoretically possible that the Transkei Government or the Bophuthatswana Government may grant citizenship to Whites from Europe, from Eastern Europe or from Asia if they please. There is nothing to prevent them from doing so. If I do not possess the powers which the provision vests in me, such a person will immediately be able to use all the privileges reserved for the citizens of Bophuthatswana, as soon as he acquires citizenship. Those people will be able to enter the country, to take away the jobs of our own Black people and to deprive them of their privileges. That is not my intention, because I have a duty towards the Blacks in my country. That is why the provision is necessary.

The argument of the official Opposition is now placed in a very serious light, because the hon. member alleges that regaining of South African citizenship should take place automatically. The hon. member repeated it by means of interjections. In other words, the hon. member wants me to expose the Blacks in South Africa to the situation where these foreigners can automatically enter the country and take over, because they are now citizens of Bophuthatswana if they are permitted there. The hon. member is in a spot and he now has to try and get out of it if he can. I hope he can.

Therefore, I stand by my contention that the clause is necessary, in the first place to grant full citizenship of the independent homelands and to recognize it. In the second place, it is necessary to accord protection to the homelands which are not independent yet, so that they can have a say in who they want to accept as citizens of their homelands and who they do not want to accept In the third place, the provision is necessary to afford protection to workers in South Africa so that they are not crowded out by foreigners, foreigners who abuse the privileges which we have conceded to former South African citizens of Bophuthatswana and of Transkei. That is the reason for retaining the provision and that is my whole argument.

Mr. Chairman, I am moved by the hon. the Minister’s claim that he is very conscious about the very great duty which he has to the Black people of South Africa. I am also aware of the fact, however, that only the other day the hon. the Minister made it perfectly clear, in the bluntest possible terms, that in the not too distant future there would not be a single Black citizen of South Africa. What then will his duty be to the Black people of South Africa?

I did not say that. I said it will be the case when our policy reaches its ultimate consequence.

I know. The hon. the Minister made the statement while discussing this very measure that when their policy goes to its ultimate conclusion, there will not be a single Black citizen of the Republic of South Africa. Where now is his duty to the Black people of South Africa? Our whole case, when we talk about a person automatically being able to regain his citizenship, is that these are people who have been citizens of South Africa, who were born citizens of South Africa, who are living in South Africa and who will die in South Africa. We believe that these people are entitled, if they so wish, to regain their South African citizenship. This is the whole standpoint of this side of the House—perfectly logical and perfectly clear. If the hon. the Minister were to test the statement he made in the House the other day amongst the Black people to whom he says he owes the duty, I believe he will perceive a very great reaction indeed by the Black people who read in the paper that the Minister said that ultimately there will not be a single Black person who will be a citizen of South Africa when the Government has carried out his policy. I believe that is really the test as to who is looking after the interests of the Black people of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the official Opposition seems to forget which legislation we are dealing with at the moment. The specific clause amends an Act which deals with the citizenship of Bantu homelands. That is what the original Act is primarily about. The clause which is introducing an amendment deals primarily with the steps a Black man has to take if he wants to become a citizen of one of the homelands in South Africa which are not yet independent. That is what the legislation is about. It does not deal primarily with the regaining of South African citizenship, but with the acquisition of citizenship of a homeland in South Africa which does not yet have independent status. The Opposition loses sight of this. It is obvious that if someone applies for the citizenship of a homeland which is not yet independent, we should recognize the authority of that homeland and should give them the opportunity of stating whether they want to admit the applicant as a citizen of their particular homeland or not. It is as simple as that. When the hon. member for Pinelands says that a person should automatically obtain citizenship, he wants to intimate that we should disregard the right of the authority in that homeland to decide on whom it wants to accept as citizens of its homeland or not It boils down to an absolute disregard for the Black man’s authority over himself. With this Bill the Government once again recognizes the responsibility and the power of the Black authorities over their own people. There is only one reason why the hon. the Minister ultimately has to agree before the application can be approved. This reason has been set out repeatedly by the hon. the Minister, viz. that it inevitably follows that when the Black authority is prepared to accept the applicant as a citizen of its homeland, the applicant automatically becomes a citizen of South Africa too, because the homeland is not yet independent and therefore still forms part of South Africa. That is why the hon. the Minister of the South African Government also has to give his permission.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up one or two points which arise from the hon. the Minister’s reply to my colleague, the hon. member for Musgrave. The first point concerns the hon. the Minister’s argument regarding conditions for citizenship. The hon. the Minister quite rightly states that South Africa has the right to decide what the conditions should be. What he seems to avoid, is the point we are trying to make, i.e. that we are not talking about people who wish to become citizens for the first time. We are talking about people who wish to—we do not want to force people—regain their citizenship which once they had and which they lost without any choice when their homeland became an independent, sovereign State.

That is the argument we are advancing. We are not talking in general terms, and therefore the conditions the hon. the Minister refers to must specifically relate to those Blacks who are now resident in South Africa, those who were born here, will work here and will die here, and have automatically lost their citizenship. That is our quarrel with the hon. the Minister. We believe that in order to try and satisfy the two countries that have become independent, the method which is now being sought to go via a particular homeland, is simply not good enough and not satisfactory. For example, if one takes the ultimate development of his policy as envisaged by the hon. the Minister, we will see that that opportunity is a shrinking one. This is not an absurd thing to say when the hon. the Prime Minister himself declared in this House only the other day that within five years the Government’s policy of granting independence to all the homelands might well have fulfilled itself.

Except kwaZulu.

Yes, except perhaps for kwaZulu, but even there it may be possible. Five years is a very short time. So, it is not the ultimate end of the Nationalist policy we are talking about; we are talking about the circumstances which may exist in five years’ time. I want to suggest that my argument is not absurd. Let me take an actual case, of a person who is given the opportunity through this legislation of gaining citizenship of a non-independent homeland in 1978. In 1979 he will once again lose that citizenship because that particular homeland may have become independent. If such a person is really desirous to get South African citizenship and wants to use this method to get it, he will then have to apply to one of the remaining non-homeland areas for citizenship. It is an absurd situation; it’s a fiction. The hon. the Minister is not achieving anything and is not bluffing anyone either. That is the point. The hon. the Minister has been a tower of reasonableness and light, but when one begins to examine his arguments— not his sincerity—they fall to the ground. It is a fiction.

There is a second matter I want to argue about. When we were debating the other Bill in the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister made great play about us wanting to protect the Black man. He called it paternalism. Yet in this debate he tells us that he has a right and a responsibility to protect the Black man. He is right and I agree with it, but he must be consistent. Since we believe that this measure is cumbersome, involved and really solves nothing, except in the case of a few isolated examples the hon. the Minister referred to in the Second Reading, we simply cannot accept and support it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands a question. Is his plea concerned with children who have been born in the Republic of Transkei after independence and does he want to give them that right as well?

No, I am not talking about the children.

It was about those resident in South Africa.

Yes.

Good. Does he also want to give the right to children who were born in South Africa to citizens of the Transkei?

They should have the choice because they have been born in this country.

If one considers this matter carefully, one arrives again at the basic difference between us and hon. members on that side of the House. He used the example of someone who becomes a citizen of Lebowa in order to retain his South African citizenship and when Lebowa becomes independent, he applies for citizenship of another homeland in order to retain his South African citizenship. I want to ask those hon. members in all honesty why they are so worried. Why do they want these people to retain South African citizenship? [Interjections.] The hon. member says that we took it away, but we gave them something better instead. [Interjections.] We used to be British subjects and now we have something better, because we are now subjects of the South African Republic. I am really proud of that. I do not want to be a British subject again. I like the British very much and hold them in great esteem, but I only want to be what I am and nothing else.

So do I.

I am not inferior.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Certainly, certainly.

Thank you very much. [Interjections.] The hon. member tells us he is very proud of being a South African and so am I. How would he feel, however, if that were taken away from him?

Nobody can take away from me what I really am, because I am really a South African. One cannot turn a Xhosa into a second class White, because he is firstly and lastly a Xhosa. He is proud of it.

He can be a first-class South African.

I want to accuse those hon. members directly—and let us talk frankly, because we are not angry with one another—of disparaging citizenship of the homelands. They maintain that it is something inferior. They maintain that it is something the people do not want. Let me inform them confidentially, let me inform them sincerely: These people are proud of it. They may be able to show me a few Blacks who are not proud of their citizenship, but I can show them a few dissipated Afrikaners who are not proud of theirs either. It is a phenomenon one finds everywhere in the world. I do not have to search very hard in this House to find some of them. They are the dissipated ones.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “dissipated”.

I withdraw it, Sir. But what I want to emphasize is that nothing is being taken away from these people. They are only being given what belongs to them. These people are proud of it. They are proud of their citizenship. Let us in this Parliament not constantly belittle these people’s citizenship as though it were worthless. We know the road that we are taking. The hon. the Minister spoke of a “family of nations”. A family of nations means that there are certain bonds, that there are certain mutual privileges and that there is a certain affection for one another. If a Black man obtains citizenship, if he is a Tswana or a Xhosa or whatever, that citizenship entitles him to rights and privileges which a Malawian, Mozambican, Basuto or Swazi does not have. That is really the point. It is something which gives him privileges which another foreigner does not have. I shall content myself with that. I can only support this clause with all my heart, just as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to a very extraordinary argument from the hon. member for Lydenburg. The clause that we are dealing with is the one that allows a man to give up his citizenship. Why introduce this clause at all? The clause allows a man to apply for citizenship of another homeland and then regain his South African citizenship. So why does the hon. the Minister denigrate people by introducing such a clause?

They are belittling his citizenship.

According to his argument nobody ever wants to run away from his citizenship; so he should not give anyone the chance to do it. Therefore this clause is redundant as far as the logic of that hon. member is concerned. He should vote with us against this clause because it belittles the man by allowing him to give up his citizenship. That is the one argument.

The other is that I did not agree with the hon. member for Pinelands when he asks the hon. the Minister to be consistent. I welcome any deviation from the norm of NP policy and am always delighted to find a Minister who deviates from the norm and is not consistent. As far as I am concerned the hon. the Minister can go on being inconsistent as much as he likes. However, what I do want to ask him, and I do this in a way which is a bit of a malicious come-back on his paternalistic argument, is what has happened to ethnicity.

It became independent!

Who became independent?

Ethnicity!

Ethnicity? This clause is the very opposite of ethnicity, because it allows a Xhosa or a Tswana to apply to become the citizen of Lebowa, Qwaqwa, the Ciskei, Gazankulu or kwaZulu. You can be a raging patriot from the Transkei living in South Africa with Transkeian links and you can actually apply to be a Zulu. What has happened to ethnicity? This is what I want to ask the hon. the Minister. It is a good question, is it not?

And it has a good answer.

I hope it gets a good answer. The other question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is: Would it not be more logical—although I do not care about whether he is consistent or not, I do in my feminine way like him to be logical—and will he explain to us why he did not wait for the other Bill that he tells us is coming, the one which he says the hon. the Minister of the Interior is going to introduce, which will, to some extent any way, meet the requirements made by the Chief Minister of Bophuthatswana as far as the regaining of South African citizenship is concerned at the time we were discussing the Independence of Bophuthatswana Bill? Surely, it would have been more logical to have allowed that Bill to be introduced first, because that really deals with the big problem. The big problem is the regaining by Bophuthatswana citizens and citizens of the Transkei their South African citizenship by choice. Let me tell the hon. member for Lydenburg that we are not forcing this on anyone, we are not making it compulsory. We are suggesting they have the option of regaining South African citizenship if they happen to value it above the citizenship of Bophuthatswana or of the Transkei. Now, that is the point. However, the hon. member for Lydenburg talks about a family. Has he heard of poor relations? Well, it may very well be that the children of these people, since they will lose their section 10 rights—their South African citizenship rights—the children of former South African citizens resident in Soweto or Langa or elsewhere, are made poor relations, because the real economic opportunities are in the White Republic, whether the hon. member for Lydenburg admits it or not. He cannot tell me that the economic opportunity in Bophuthatswana or kwaZulu or Qwaqwa or in the Transkei or any other homeland, independent or otherwise, could possibly measure up to the economic opportunities that Black people have who are resident in the White republic of South Africa.

Except for the Union Hotel!

No, they have economic opportunities there too.

Mr. Chairman, I confess to having a certain amount of difficulty in understanding precisely what the hon. members of the PFP are trying to do. As far as I can understand they are suggesting that the House should negative this particular clause, the clause which is actually the crux of this Bill. I would like therefore to ask the hon. the Minister a question or two just to clarify my own mind. As we stand at the moment a member of an independent homeland—in other words, the Transkei or Bophuthatswana—has de facto lost his South African citizenship. This, however, is not the principle which is debated right here and now, because unfortunately— and I repeat, unfortunately—the relevant Acts have been passed causing these people to lose their citizenship, something with which I obviously cannot agree. However, this is a fact. These Acts have been passed. Now, am I correct in understanding that this particular Bill is a means of allowing those people who had been dispossessed of their South African citizenship to regain …

Under certain circumstances, yes.

Good enough. In other words, it gives them an avenue of obtaining South African citizenship, something which has not been open to them before.

It is meaningless!

I hear the comment here that it is meaningless, and in due course, I fully agree, it can be meaningless. If, as the hon. the Minister has said, all the homelands in due course become independent, it will become meaningless.

Precisely.

Precisely. But, as I see things in view of the answer to these questions, it is apparent that a Black man who is now a citizen of the Transkei might be able to regain his South African citizenship rights. It may only be for a period of five or ten years or, who knows, if Chief Buthelezi continues to hold out, it could be for a long, long time. It therefore could be meaningful. It strikes me that if one votes against this particular clause, one is voting against a clause which is giving a right, no matter how tenuous a right, to a Black man to retain his South African citizenship or to regain his South African citizenship, and in fact to be able to have his rights under section 10 restored to him. I must confess that I find it somewhat difficult to understand why, when we are going to be giving these Black people these rights, the Official Opposition is adopting this attitude.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s argument is quite right. His logic is quite right, and I want to tell him at once that if this is his argument, he ought to vote for this provision.

The Official Opposition, through the mouth of the hon. member for Musgrave, takes the view that all citizens of the Transkei and of Bophuthatswana, who obtained full citizenship of an independent State on a certain date by means of negotiation between Government and Government, and have their own diplomats in this country to represent them, should automatically have the right to regain South African citizenship. The hon. member for Musgrave said this; there is no doubt about it. I am taking a hypothetical case, but in theory it could mean that, the day after independence, everyone could say that they did not want that citizenship, but that they wanted South African citizenship. If this happens, one has a State without citizens.

No, the ones living in South Africa.

No, you say they should all have that right. How are you going to discriminate? They all had South African citizenship up to that date. The hon. member must be logical. All those citizens had South African citizenship up to the day preceding independence. This holds good for the people here and for the people in the homeland. Now the hon. member says that they should all be able to regain South African citizenship automatically. Why should those who lived in the homelands be discriminated against?

I was referring to those outside of the homelands.

No, you did not say so. You said that they should all be able to regain their South African citizenship automatically. In other words, we are then creating a non-State, a State without citizens, or at least the possibility of a State without citizens. These are the logical consequences of that hon. member’s argument. I repeat the point of view I stated in a previous debate. We do not make territory independent; the negotiations result in people and nations becoming fully independent. We then accept and recognize those nations as such.

The hon. member for Houghton asked me a question which she thought a good one. She wanted to know what had become of ethnicity in this whole picture. It is that very concept which is built into this provision. A person cannot obtain the citizenship of a homeland automatically unless that homeland Government agrees to grant it to him. That is where the question of ethnicity and the right of the authority enters into the picture. If the Government of Lebowa, which is a full and equal Government, refuses to grant citizenship to a man from Bophuthatswana, it has the right to do so. That Government may very well think, “ethnically the man does not fit in with us; he is a no-good and we do not want him; he is a troublemaker and we do not want him.” If that Government feels like that, it has a right to decide that it does not recommend that application for citizenship. In this way the right is built in on the basis of ethnicity. That is where the answer is to be found. Will the hon. member admit that it is a good answer too?

No.

Very well, the hon. member is not as decent as I was. It is a pity. It depends on whether that person can be assimilated into that nation. If he cannot, they will not allow him. If they consider him a person who cannot be assimilated into that nation, they are going to object to his citizenship. This is where the whole concept enters into the picture. We recognize the right of that Government to take full responsibility for its own decision in its own right.

Just look at the position in Britain today.

Yes, I do not even have to refer to the position in Britain and to the hon. member for Houghton’s counterpart, Mrs. Thatcher. Just think of the problems they are experiencing at the moment concerning the question of ethnicity. I am just mentioning it, but I do not want to chase up new hares now; I think we have enough hares running around already.

The hon. member asked me another question. She wanted to know why I did not wait until my colleague the Minister of the Interior had introduced his Bill before I introduced this one. There are two reasons for this. When my colleague introduces his Bill, they will want to know why he does not wait until this Bill of mine has been disposed of. [Interjections.] Which one should come first? The fact remains that we negotiated with the Bophuthatswana Government. An agreement was entered into between this Government and the Government of Bophuthatswana. The agreement was drawn up, after months of discussions, by a working committee which finalized all aspects. Those agreements were signed officially by our Government and their Government and they were given all the necessary publicity. Everything was arranged on that date. In consequence of the mutual discussions there was a request for certain matters to be laid down in the legislation. I was present at the discussions in my former capacity as Minister of the Interior, and that is why I have first-hand knowledge of this specific matter. The legislation, as requested by the Government of Bophuthatswana, was drawn up by the Department of the Interior and the law advisers, and was submitted to the Government of Bophuthatswana, its law advisers and other advisers. They had no fault to find with it and expressed their satisfaction with it. It complied with their request. Therefore, that Bill is one which falls under the Department of the Interior, and from the nature of the case it must be dealt with by the Minister of the Interior when it comes up. Then the whole argument can be raised once again. There was an agreement between us and the Government of Bophuthatswana as a result of which independence was accepted. That is why I say that I could not keep this back until that legislation had been dealt with. This has nothing to do with that specific matter. The hon. member for East London North is quite right, because a person who has lost his South African citizenship, can regain his homeland citizenship in this way. The hon. member for Barberton is correct because primarily this is a Bill for enabling homeland citizenship to be given to him. But then the homeland Government must have full say in the matter. After that, virtually automatically, the person concerned becomes a South African citizen because one cannot have a homeland citizen who is not a South African citizen, because this would mean that he would in fact be stateless.

Yes.

Then it follows virtually automatically. The primary object is to give him homeland citizenship, and in order to be able to effect this, the homeland Government must have authority. I do not want to add anything more.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make a few comments. I think it is clear to the House that we feel very strongly about this particular Bill and this particular clause. Let me refer now to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the question put to him by the hon. member for Houghton. I do not think the answer is as good as the hon. the Minister thinks it is.

I say this because we have been told, over the years, that one of the things the Nationalist Government wants to do is to emphasize that we are a multi-national country and that the way in which we can resolve the potential conflict and give everyone an opportunity is to have homelands which will lead eventually to independence, to their own sovereignty. All this was based on ethnicity. Now, however, the hon. the Minister seems to have changed his mind. Now it seems quite possible overnight, by application, to cease being a Tswana and to become a Xhosa, merely by way of a piece of paper. What we are dealing with here, however, is a man’s birthright, his tribe, his culture, his language and all the other differences that have been emphasized. We have tried to suggest that there are circumstances in which we can stand together and find another common unity. This Government, however, says: “No, that is not so.” I want to suggest that the Government has now forsaken one of its major pillars on which this enormous ideology has been built. It is gone! What I also want to suggest is that several of the other pillars are also going to go very soon. One is beginning to see a movement away from the ideology upon which apartheid has been built over the years, and we rejoice! [Interjections.]

I now want to turn to the other argument. The hon. the Minister suggests that it is ludicrous to adopt the position we are adopting, because it may well be that every one of the citizens of an independent country may opt to retain their South African citizenship. The very fact that he opens up that argument suggests that there are many, many people who would prefer … [Interjections.]

Nonsense!

That is the logical conclusion to draw from his argument.

That is a stupid approach.

Then it is not possible for it to happen, so why bring it up?

I said it hypothetically.

Well, why bring up a hypothetical argument such as that? He said it was logical.

I did not say that it was logical. Please! Read my Hansard!

Alright, I accept that. Mr. Chairman, why bring up a hypothetical argument? We are dealing with facts.

We were dealing with your hypothetical question.

That is no hypothetical question at all. This is actually what does happen and can happen. We say that there are some people who wish to regain their South African citizenship. That is a fact. However, the Government does not seem to agree with that.

The hon. member for Lydenburg made the charge that we in these benches are belittling the citizenship of homelands or independent countries like Transkei and Bophuthatswana. That is absolute nonsense. We do not belittle that. All we say is that, if a person who is living in South Africa and not in the territory concerned wishes to retain his South African citizenship rather than become a citizen of the newly independent country, he should have the right to do so.

Where is your amendment?

The amendment we moved at the Second Reading was thrown out. It was rejected by the House. [Interjections.] That is where it is.

Finally, the hon. member for East London North said he cannot understand the official Opposition. Well, Sir, I find it very difficult to understand his argument. He voted against the Second Reading of the Bill. What has then happened to his argument now? We have remained consistent, that is all.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands a question: Does he recognize Bophuthatswana as an independent State?

Yes, of course.

The hon. member for Pinelands says that they recognize Bophuthatswana as an independent State. This is a sign of tremendous progress in connection with the whole question of citizenship.

And in their thinking!

It may destroy their credibility abroad, but now I am digressing from the subject. Before you rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the Bill. The hon. member for Pinelands has admitted that Bophuthatswana is an independent State. Does he admit that it is independent in the way that England is? Does he recognize Bophuthatswana in that capacity? Does he recognize that it is independent in the way that Israel is? [Interjections.] “Yes”! Mr. Chairman, we are making tremendous progress. Now I come to the second step. The hon. member is suggesting that we should be able, without prior agreement with Israel or with England, to pilot legislation through this Parliament enabling citizens of those countries to become citizens of this country merely by exercising their choice. [Interjections.] That is what the hon. member is saying.

If they were born here and had their citizenship taken away?

If the hon. member recognizes Bophuthatswana as an independent State in its own right, if he recognizes that it is a State such as Israel and England, he must respect that State as far as its citizens are concerned. In that case, if one wants to negotiate anything regarding the citizens of that State, this must be done by means of an agreement with that State. It must be done on conditions laid down between the two independent States involved. This is what it says in the Bill. Through his argument, the hon. member is grossly insulting—not only by implication, but directly—Bophuthatswana citizenship and the control which an independent State has over its own citizens. I think that puts an end to the whole argument.

Does the hon. member for Houghton admit that she and her party were wrong when they said that the people of Bophuthatswana would be stateless? Does she admit that they are not stateless?

†I wish to remind the hon. member of the arguments she raised.

I am sorry, but I was not listening.

She argued that, in terms of the Act by virtue of which Bophuthatswana became independent last year, the people of that country would be rendered stateless. Does she now admit that she was wrong? If they are not stateless now she was wrong in her arguments.

I cannot remember exactly what I said.

The fact of the matter is that the premise of the hon. member’s argument disappears completely if she recognizes that this is an independent State in its own right. I actually think that this demolishes their argument, for there is nothing left to argue about if they make that admission.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot let such tortuous logic go unanswered. The example quoted by the hon. member for Bloemfontein North was not a very good one. We could look at what happened in the period of decolonization. When African States became independent, the people were offered a choice of accepting citizenship of the new State or returning to the mother country which had initiated the process of decolonization. This is what is at issue here. From the nature of the case, some of the citizens of the Transkei as well as Bophuthatswana were very keen to become independent under the circumstances under which they did in fact become independent. However, there are also those—and this is the problem—who do not want to become independent under those circumstances and who would like to retain their South African citizenship. I concede that the hon. the Minister is providing for some of those persons until that option is removed completely when the policy has been carried to its logical conclusion.

However, this is the principle which is at stake, and the test is simple: Give those people the opportunity to exercise the option. If there is so much pride, confidence and willingness on the part of those people that they all want to accept independence, there is no problem. However, if there are clear signs—and the hon. member knows this just as well as I do—that there are in fact a considerable number of Black people who do not want this, surely one cannot say that the problem is solved by appealing to these people’s pride or by saying that we have the right to maintain the ethnicity of these people, for one’s argument is contradicted by reality. These are the people whom the hon. the Minister and that hon. member do not want to argue about at all.

Order! Hon. members are repeating arguments. I should also be glad if hon. members would confine themselves to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have been accused of being inconsistent by the hon. member on my right I would, with respect suggest that I have not been inconsistent in any way whatsoever. Our party did not support this measure at the Second Reading; we rather voted for the amendment that was moved. Had the Official Opposition put forward an amendment to this particular clause in the Committee Stage which would have improved the position of the Black people by giving them more rights, I would have supported it unhesitatingly. However, our party has demonstrated very clearly that we are against the principle of citizenship being taken away from South African Blacks. This we have demonstrated in the past and we have demonstrated it during the Second Reading of this Bill. However, when it comes to this clause, where no amendment has been proposed by the Official Opposition, I believe that one is not being inconsistent in finding it difficult to understand their viewpoint. If by some miracle the oratory of hon. members on my right would have persuaded hon. members on the other side to negative the clause and therefore the Bill, we would end up with a situation—as I have said before—where the Black man would be worse off than he presently is.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I am not giving rise to a new debate, but I think hon. members should reflect on the matter in a sober and practical way for a change. In the Second Reading debate I referred briefly to the kind of cases where we want to render assistance. If a woman from Bophuthatswana is married to a man from Lebowa and they decide that they want to accept Lebowa citizenship, they should be able to do this. In the case of a child from one tribe who is adopted by parents from another, this should also be possible. This is the kind of case which we should like to deal with for reasons of humanity. I have not fabricated this example; there are other possibilities as well. In Transkei there are fairly large numbers of South Sothos. Let us suppose that one of the South Sothos in Transkei wants to join the South Sothos in Qwaqwa, people who speak the same language and belong to the same tribe as he. The legislation enables him to do this. In the same way, there are South Sothos in kwaZulu, and if one of them wants to join his people in Qwaqwa, the legislation enables him to do this. Without the legislation, however, it will be impossible for him. At the moment, there are South Sothos in Thaba Nchu in Bophuthatswana as well. If some of those South Sothos want to go back and remain citizens of their homeland, they automatically become this. There are quite a number of cases of this nature, so the legislation is not as theoretical as hon. members think. It is the result of practical considerations and I want to keep to it. I have carefully considered all the arguments and I have really been unable to find any reason for deviating from my standpoint, so I shall leave the matter at that.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

One of the functions of the Community Development Council in terms of the provisions of the Community Development Act, is to assist in the alienation of affected properties and to exercise control over these properties. For the information of those who are not fully conversant with the Act, affected property is property which, on the date of the proclamation of a group area, belonged to members in that area of a population group other than that for which the group area has been proclaimed. Where necessary, the council itself acquires affected properties in order to enable unqualified people to free their money with a view to their settlement in their own areas.

When the Act was passed in its original form in 1955, provision was made for the compensation of losses upon alienation of an affected property if that property was sold for less than its value at the time of the proclamation of the group area concerned. This was done by way of the payment by the council of a depreciation contribution of 80% to an owner upon alienation of his property. This contribution naturally promotes the alienation of affected properties which in turn contributes to sound community development Similarly it was provided that if an affected property is alienated for more than the value as at the date of proclamation—in other words, if the value of the property has increased after the proclamation of the group area—the owner had to pay the council 50% of the difference between the basic value and the price for which the property was disposed of. In other words, the council compensated an affected owner for 80% of his losses and shared in 50% of his profits.

In 1967 a concession was made in respect of the payment of appreciation contributions by amending the Act so that no such contribution was payable to the council for a period of five years after 1 February 1967 or the date of proclamation, whichever date was the latest, and that a contribution of only 25% was payable for the following year and the full contribution of 50% only after six years.

This concession was extended by three years in 1971 and by a further three years in 1974 by way of further amendments.

The concession was made to encourage unqualified people to sell their affected properties as soon as possible in order to expedite the development of communities.

The eleven years since 1 February 1967 during which no appreciation contributions were payable, expired on 31 January 1978. In future a contribution of 25% will have to be paid by the owner of the property and after 31 January 1979, the full 50% will be payable.

The Bill before the House seeks to abolish the payment of appreciation contributions completely. This will put an end to any uncertainty on the part of owners of affected properties. The payment of depreciation contributions is, of course, retained.

In short, the Community Development Council will no longer share in the profits of an owner, but will still help to bear 80% of his losses, if any.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that the measure will meet with general approval.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has given a brief, but comprehensive outline of the Bill. I think he is correct when he says that the measure will find general approval. I simply rise to say that we support the Bill, particularly because it benefits the owners of affected properties.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also extend our support on this particular Bill. It is noteworthy that it is now 1978, 11 years since the original Act was proclaimed. It would therefore appear that it would have been this year that the first payments in terms of this particular Act would have been made. I would simply like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in fact any payments have been made at any stage in terms of the Act.

No.

Secondly, I would like to congratulate him on the repeal of an Act which obviously was not a very good Act in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister explained, the original Act made provision for the fulfilment of certain functions and the exercise of certain powers by the Community Development Council. Today one is grateful that this council did not find it necessary to debate those powers and also that the Opposition was not tempted to drag in the question of the proclamation of group areas. In any case, of course, it is not relevant.

One cannot pass up this opportunity to say that the Community Development Council has over the years played an enormous part in ordering communities, in the sense that this council for the most part bought affected properties in order to make unqualified people financially liquid. The basic value of these properties was fixed before proclamation and the hon. the Minister indicated in his speech that the depreciation contribution of 80% would still be made. This contribution has become generally accepted practice over the years, and I am sure that many depreciation contributions have been paid. Nevertheless I think there was great opposition to the idea of the payment of an appreciation contribution in cases where the value of properties increased after proclamation. It was generally accepted that if there was depreciation as a result of a proclamation, it could be blamed on the Government and that the Government had to make good that shortage. In the same way it was accepted that when the proclamation led to an appreciation, it was the affected person’s good fortune and that the State should not share in that good fortune. During the past 11 years this legislation has grown in instalments to become the proposed legislation as we see it today. It is good to see that finality is now being reached. We on this side of the House support this amendment Bill whole-heartedly because there is probably not much possibility of an effective appreciation after proclamation during the present economic recession. Because people were also guaranteed against losses, the temptation did perhaps exist in the past to allow the property to deteriorate physically because the affected person was guaranteed against depreciation. We want to express the hope that since affected persons are now being granted certainty, the further development and ordering of communities will take place rapidly and in a competent manner.

Mr. Speaker, I am not so fortunate as to be able to say that I am speaking on behalf of this side of the House, but I can at least say that I am speaking on behalf of my two hon. colleagues when I say that we fully support this Bill. But it also gives me an excellent opportunity to do something which I have wanted to do for years. I should now like to express my thanks and pay tribute to the Department of Community Development and to the hon. the Minister as such for the manner in which they have performed their task through the years. I am doing it not so much in my capacity as a representative of a constituency, but rather as one who has for many years been, and still is, connected with local government and a city council which has derived particular benefit from co-operation with this department.

It is a department which is quite often exposed to attack as a result of its actions and the manner in which it performs its task. If I may guess, this department and perhaps also the hon. the Minister will come under attack before this session is much further advanced. Although these attacks are sometimes unreasonable, I can understand them, because if one touches a person’s property, one inevitably unleashes a storm. This department has a task to perform, namely to create order from chaos. The choice before the department is limited: either to neglect its duties or to endure criticism. On behalf of the people whom I represent I can only speak with the greatest respect and appreciation. I want to express my appreciation towards the officials and towards the hon. the Minister—who has been a friend of mine for many years—for the whole-hearted co-operation with equally dedicated municipal officials, who also have the interests of their people at heart. People who are concerned in the development of any community have a particularly difficult task to perform. Most of the time it is a very thankless task.

Mr. Speaker, had it not been that you would rule me out of order, I could have continued referring to splendid examples of the type of co-operation which we have enjoyed for many years, which has entailed great benefit and which has created from chaos that order which I have referred to, and which has at the same time brought great relief in the housing shortage of a large community such as that of which I form part. Any legislation which assists the department in the performance of its task ought to be supported. The intention with this amending Bill is to facilitate the task of the department and to ensure the co-operation of the owners of affected properties. Throughout the country there are undoubtedly many such affected properties, that is to say, where the owner himself cannot occupy his property, but is obliged to sell to an owner who is a member of another group.

Clause 6 of the Bill is intended to amend section 37 of the principal Act with the object of sorting out affected properties in these areas and also to ensure that orderly development will take place. It is indeed a step in the right direction. To me it has always been logical—and I emphasize this—that if in this case the Board were to be responsible for compensation of losses, the Board should at least be entitled to a portion of the profit, but unfortunately not everybody shares that opinion. It is simply in the nature of the human being that when he suffers loss, he expects to receive compensation, and when he makes a profit, he is quite satisfied to pocket that profit and not to share it.

The principal Act still provides, as the hon. the Minister has explained, that when owners of affected properties sell such properties and do not receive the full market value prevailing at the time of proclamation, they will receive the necessary compensation therefor. They still have the guarantee that they will not suffer loss. As against that, the Act is now being changed and whereas at present, the owner must pay over to the Board a part of the profit or benefit which he derives from the sale, in future he can pocket that part, let us call it the profit, and he need not share it.

I have said that on this occasion I want to pay tribute to the department, and in this connection I want to mention the example of our own city, where we can see a great difference as a result of the proclamations which resulted in the removal of people. We can see where the department tried to create order from what I like to call chaos, because it was indeed chaos. I think of South End for example, where from time to time hundreds of people had to be removed from their established residential area. It is generally known that at the time storms were unleashed. Everybody objected to it, but today, after many years, there are beautiful residential areas throughout the city, residential areas of which everyone is justifiably proud. People live there under bearable and respectable conditions, conditions which have given rise to a higher standard of living. Now the storm is over and everybody is satisfied. In Port Elizabeth, in the area where there were formerly slums, the beginning of a prestige development is now emerging. This prestige development is once again the result of teamwork and co-operation on the part of the Department of Community Development which gives the necessary encouragement, the necessary impetus for private initiative to undertake development there. For that I must say thank you very much.

There is of course also a third partner, namely the local ratepayer, who has made his contribution through the years by absorbing the loss in assessment rates, but I think the day is approaching when the city council of Port Elizabeth will derive benefit from this development. I wish to thank the hon. the Minister in anticipation for the department’s encouragement in giving a boost to that spot which has been lying there fruitlessly and undeveloped for so long. I hope and trust that the department will not be content to give it a limited boost, but that it will give it a great boost in order that that area may develop as soon as possible.

I want to conclude by expressing the hope that this legislation will help the department, also in other parts of our country, parts where the renewal process has not yet been carried through to the extent to which we have experienced it, to perform their task of sorting out of the areas so that the right people will reside in the right areas. I also trust that they will enjoy co-operation and not experience opposition as has usually been the case in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on his maiden speech in the House. We all know him as someone who has been in public life for a long time, someone who until recently was for two years mayor of one of our major cities, Port Elizabeth. He is someone who knows what he is talking about when he refers to the relations between the Department of Community Development and city councils. We on this side of the House greatly appreciate the fact that the hon. member could speak with such eloquence and conviction about the good relations which exist between the department and its officials on the one hand and the city councils and their officials on the other hand. We greatly appreciate this, because the Department of Community Development is a dedicated department, an idealistic department, and the little bit of encouragement they receive means a lot to them. I trust that in the years that lie ahead, we shall receive many more contributions from this hon. member, contributions which are constructive and which can help us in our striving after good and orderly housing for the South African nation. I wish the hon. member every success in his parliamentary career.

Then I also wish to express my appreciation towards hon. members on both sides of the House who supported this productive measure. I appreciate it very much. In particular I should like to thank the hon. member for Tygervallei for his contribution. I think it is to a large extent due to him that we all have a thorough understanding of the Bill, and that we can all vote with conviction for the Second Reading.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters was appointed in June 1975 to inquire into bottle-necks in respect of the provision of housing and land for housing and the cost thereof, and to make recommendations with a view to the elimination of such bottle-necks. As you will remember, the report of the commission was tabled towards the end of the Parliamentary session last year.

One of the aspects investigated by the commission, was the demolition of buildings utilized for residential purposes, as this question is closely connected with the provision and availability of housing.

At present a distinction is drawn in the Housing Act between a dwelling, as defined in the Act, and other residential buildings. In terms of the Act, a dwelling is a building which does not contain more than five living rooms, whether such building is a detached or semi-detached building, or is contained in a block of buildings, and no person may demolish such a building without the written permission of the Minister or a person delegated by him.

As far as other residential buildings are concerned, in other words even larger dwellings, no person may demolish them without the written permission of the local authority.

The commission concluded that control over the demolition of dwellings, as defined in the Housing Act, was very strict and effective but that, in the case of other residential buildings, the demolition of which take place merely with the permission of the local authority, many instances of demolition of even reasonably large numbers of dwellings, had been authorized and had taken place too readily. Consequently the commission recommended that the demolition of all dwelling units take place only after authorization by the Minister of Community Development or a person delegated by him. This Bill gives effect thereto.

In the past my department and I often received representations from the public and from public bodies in which they complained about the demolition of large numbers of dwelling units to make place for uses which were not always unavoidably essential. In regard to applications for demolition, members of local authorities are often subjected to considerable local pressure by persons and bodies. It is by no means the intention to derogate from the authority of local authorities in any respect, nor should this measure be seen as a motion of no confidence in the competence of local authorities to handle demolitions, but rather as a protective measure for members of such authorities and as an attempt to have care exercised in dealing with the available housing in the Republic.

Since it is generally accepted that the overall responsibility for and authority over housing matters ultimately vests in the Minister of Community Development, the proposed amendment in connection with demolitions is an essential consequence, as the maintenance of a country’s available housing constitutes an integral part of the housing position as a whole.

Decisions concerning applications for demolition permits will, as is presently the case, be taken after consultation with local authorities and other interested bodies and hon. members may rest assured that permission for demolition will not be withheld unreasonably in deserving cases, for example in the case of an urban transport plan promoting the public interest. In fact, the merits of each application for a demolition permit will be considered in relation to the necessity of retaining dwelling units so as to ascertain the relative public interest, which will be the criterion whether or not an application ought to be granted.

Mr. Speaker, I really had serious problems with this Bill, for two reasons in particular. The first was the very problems of a practical nature which the hon. the Minister has just outlined for us. Nobody can be apathetic towards those practical problems. The second concerned the principle being affected by the measure introduced here by the hon. the Minister to meet this practical problem.

The report of the Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters also dealt with these practical problems. I would like to thank the officials of the department in passing for the very friendly assistance they rendered when I tried to gather more information about this legislation. In paragraphs 156 and 157 reference is made to the problems which the commission experienced. I quote from paragraph 157 of the commission’s report—

It was as a result of this that the commission then recommended the introduction of this Bill.

In his Second Reading speech, the Minister referred cursorily to the principle involved. That is the measure of autonomy which a local authority has to order its own local affairs. I fully accept that the hon. the Minister is sincere when he says that there is no intention whatsoever to question the competence of the local authorities, and that they carry out their responsibilities in most instances, but in reality we nevertheless see here a loss of a discretionary freedom which the local authorities previously had. The implication is that in regard to this particular problem, the central government, through its organization, is better able to decide how housing is to be handled at local authority level. That, in my opinion, is the implication of this Bill. I wish to stress yet again that there are practical problems in this regard, and I appreciate these practical problems. But in general the attitude which we adopt in these benches, is that local authorities are in the majority of cases, better able to meet these practical problems. If certain local authorities in certain instances do not carry out their responsibilities and are perhaps negligent, why is it necessary to take measures such as these which involve all local authorities in solving the problem? Are there no other measures which can be taken? Can one not say that if a particular local authority consistently refuses to act responsibly in the matter of demolition action will be taken against that particular local authority? That is the question I put, and it is tied up with another question. What is the extent of the problem which the commission experienced? I was unable to determine the exact extent Can the hon. the Minister not perhaps inform us? Is irresponsible demolition a fairly general phenomenon, and does it happen fairly generally that demolition takes place in a manner disregarding the housing requirements of a particular local authority? What is, in the hon. the Minister’s opinion, the nature and extent of the problem necessitating this measure?

We do not intend making a fuss. We do not want to initiate a long and bitter debate here but I do think the point of view I should nevertheless express very clearly is that we in these benches think that this type of problem is dealt with efficiently by the local authorities in the majority of cases. I think cooperation can be brought about between the Department of Community Development and the local authorities without a measure like this, which in fact curtails the discretionary freedom of a local authority and places it in the hands of the Department of Community Development. It is for this reason that we feel that we cannot support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the point of view of my hon. friend on the opposite side with a measure of sympathy because, like him, I too, am jealous when it comes to the status and privileges and duties of our local authorities. In fact, earlier on we heard a former mayor of one of our largest cities paying a tribute to the department, a tribute because of the co-operation existing between us and the local authorities. Nobody is more aware of the fact that I am that the Department of Community Development will experience serious problems if it does not have this cordial and enthusiastic cooperation of the local authorities.

For that reason he should be so kind as to accept my assurance that here there is no intention whatsoever of “bulldozing” the local authorities in any way, if I may use an interesting, historical word like this. The sole object is to assist the local authorities in the performance of an important duty, and that is to decide whether permission should be granted for the demolition of dwelling units of up to a certain size.

I cannot give the exact extent of the problem, because, unfortunately, the information is not available to me at the moment, but the problem is encountered to some considerable degree that local authorities inevitably take local circumstances alone into account whilst the Department of Community Development, which has the overall responsibility as regards national problems, is in some cases—indeed, fairly often—in a better position to judge whether it is in the interests of the housing problem of the province or of the whole country as such. That is why we are asking this House to give us the authority to make the final decision. The city council, however, will not be disregarded. It will be consulted fully and its point of view as regards the local consequences and problems, will inevitably carry a great deal of weight with the department. My hon. friend may safely vote for this measure. I commit the Department of Community Development to implementing the legislation sympathetically and with due regard for the local authorities.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As in the case of the Housing Amendment Bill, the provisions of this Bill arise from the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Enquiry into Housing Matters. It is also based on one of the recommendations which have been accepted.

The proposals contained in the Slums Amendment Bill are quite simple and strictly in accordance with the principle already contained in the Slums Act, and that is that it is the duty of a local authority to provide sufficient housing for persons in the lower income groups. By means of thorough surveys conducted throughout the Republic and from reports received from local authorities, the commission ascertained that there were local authorities which did not have sufficient land for future low-cost as well as more expensive housing, and it came to the conclusion that as a result of this, they would not be able to perform their duty to provide housing. On the other hand, there were local authorities which had too much land for more expensive housing for example, whereas they had either nothing or too little for low-cost housing, and vice versa.

To the Department of Community Development as financing body for housing and for obtaining land for that purpose, it is imperative to have an exact picture of the position in order to be able to plan and programme properly in consultation with the Treasury, also for the purpose of providing funds. This amendment is of the utmost importance and the department with its overall task of providing housing in the Republic, cannot perform its function without this aid. The provision of housing and related facilities from Government funds is one of the matters in respect of which the department and local authorities co-operate closely and directly. In this respect, there is an absolute interdependence on each other. Therefore the special achievements of local authorities in this field during the past few years are the fruits of this co-operation. The measures contained in the Bill therefore seek to achieve the very object of further promoting mutual support and co-operation.

Mr. Speaker, the position with legislation in this respect has up to now been that local authorities had a general duty to supply housing to people within their area of jurisdiction. The Bill envisages that the Secretary of the department can instruct any local authority in detail to make available residential stands in certain specified categories and to submit annual reports in this connection. The Secretary can instruct, namely, that a certain number of erven in a certain price range and of a certain size must be made available to each racial group within a specified period. The unfortunate aspect of this is that the implication of this Bill, if it should become law, is that the Central Government would actually say to local authorities, or at least to some of them: “You have failed in your duty to supply sufficient housing, and it has therefore become necessary for us to take these powers upon ourselves.” I am not implying for a moment that it was the hon. the Minister’s intention to convey this attitude to local authorities. But it is clear that as far as this legislation is concerned, local authorities are being made a mere extension-piece of the Central Government instead of being treated as independent authorities. I wish to concede immediately that we recognize that problems may arise which may perhaps drive one to this type of legislation. The Fouché Commission indeed indicates that such problems arise, but we believe that this problem can be handled in a different way. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give the assurance that the introduction of this legislation is unavoidable if we want to do anything about the problem which we are discussing here. Note should be taken of what the Fouché Commission says in connection with this problem. I should like to refer to page 8 of the report of this commission where the following is said in paragraph 18—

It therefore appears as if local authorities do in fact accept the responsibility in this connection and that in many cases they strictly honour their obligations in this regard. It appears further that in those cases where delays are experienced in connection with the performance of their duties, there are reasons which are quite understandable. I quote from the report once again. In paragraph 17(1) on page 7 mention is made of the local authorities consulted during the experiment—

I am sure that the hon. the Minister is sympathetic about the problems which local authorities experience in this connection and that he is also sympathetic about the reasons given in the report for the delays which in fact arise.

We can discuss these reasons one by one. In the first place, there is the shortage of manpower. That is a situation in which the local authority will find itself, regardless of whether it has merely a moral duty or whether it has a legal duty to supply housing. That problem remains and is not removed by this legislation. The question of delays in the proclamation of townships is often an aspect which has little or nothing to do with local authorities. It is rather something which causes difficulties for local authorities as a result of unnecessary bureaucratic practices. The final reason mentioned, is the delay experienced in connection with the provision of services. This is obviously within the framework of the functions of local authorities.

After having studied the report, I am convinced that there is no indication that local authorities deliberately refuse to make residential stands available. Perhaps the hon. the Minister knows of instances where this in fact happened, but we should appreciate it if he would inform us about it and perhaps supply details of these few instances. It would further be appreciated if the hon. the Minister would give us an indication whether this problem is one of long standing. Furthermore, we should be pleased if he would say whether attempts have already been made to persuade local authorities to give their co-operation in this connection on a voluntary basis. Thirdly, we should be pleased to learn whether there are any local authorities that, after such efforts and requests, have obstinately refused to put matters in order. We should also appreciate his mentioning such local authorities by name.

Although we appreciate the nature of the problem, we on this side of the House should like to have more information in this connection and therefore our question is still: Is this over-centralization of authority the only solution to this problem? Must all local authorities now be saddled with this bureaucratic burden purely in consequence of the action or lack of action on the part of some of them? I consider that the vast majority of local authorities are doing a praiseworthy job in this connection and I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that they have done good work in connection with the supply of housing and that they deserve credit. We shall therefore not be able to support this drastic interference in the affairs of local authorities.

In terms of the proposed section 3(2)(a), it is required that local authorities must report every year on what is being done in connection with the provision of residential stands. Another aspect on which they have to report is the need for the provision of such stands and for the supply of housing within the next 10 years. There is perhaps a single aspect in this connection which deserves comment, viz., that if the department wishes to use this information to ascertain whether sufficient housing or stands are being supplied within a certain area, this is in my view the wrong way to go about it. I feel that the local authority which refuses without good reason to make available stands in a particular category, is probably not aware of the need or not prepared to accept that a need does exist, and will for that reason not report the need to the department Although we are sympathetically disposed towards the problem, we do feel that there are other ways of going about it and for that reason we cannot support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Green Point with interest. He often alleged that he had objections, but one could not discover what his objections were. The hon. member asked question after question, to which the hon. the Minister will be able to give satisfactory replies. In spite of the fact that he asked questions, he summarily alleged at the end of his speech that the legislation amounted to flagrant interference in the powers of local authorities. I really do not know where the hon. member tried to read that into the legislation. The hon. member successfully quoted the report of a commission here, but the hon. member has only to look at page 1 of the report to see who the members of the commission were, and then he will see the recommendation in the right perspective. The commission was not handled by a group of civil servants who made the recommendation out of a lust for power. After all, this is the popular complaint which comes from that side of the House. The legislation is not a consequence of the hon. the Minister no longer feeling inclined to allow local authorities to decide on this and wanting to take the matter upon himself. After all, the hon. the Minister did, in the first place, say very emphatically that local authorities very often have an imbalance in their provision of erven and housing. The normal tendency among local authorities is in fact to make provision in the more expensive class as well. This is because local authorities often receive insufficient rates and more expensive plots and more expensive developments are naturally a source of more taxation.

It is only human if people have to balance a local authority account and still stay popular on top of that—sometimes the Official Opposition also has to take certain standpoints in order to remain popular—that there would be too large a provision in this category. Now the hon. member wants the hon. the Minister to provide the names of the local authorities that are not prepared to co-operate. Does the hon. member really expect the hon. the Minister to attack local authorities here in the House about a matter in which he wants their co-operation? He is not seeking confrontation with the local authorities; he is in fact seeking their co-operation because his department is the co-ordinator of housing in South Africa, and because he has to carry out programming for housing on behalf of the Treasury. Therefore, it is necessary for him to be fully abreast of affairs and to have a controlling power in this regard. This is all that is being laid down by the Bill; there are no grounds for the sinister motives which the hon. member sees in it.

Under the circumstances, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the Bill, it becomes obvious that its aim is to ensure that local authorities will make the necessary erven available so that the required housing may be provided to all races and sections of the population. If this is the case—and I believe it is—the objective in itself is a good one. However, what bothers one is that the hon. the Minister has to introduce legislation to obtain the co-operation of the local authorities in order to make those facilities available. The question I ask myself is: Is there not too much legislation introduced in South Africa in order to solve problems which we may perhaps encounter? The hon. the Minister himself said earlier this afternoon that the cooperation and relationship between local authorities and the department had always been very good. I believe that this is in fact the case. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether it is necessary to carry this legislation through. Can we not see whether there are not other methods of achieving the objective of the Bill, viz. to provide sufficient housing to comply with the requirements of our time?

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the two hon. members who each made their second contribution to the discussions in the House. I sat in the Opposition benches for much longer than any of them, probably longer than all of them together. My advice to them is that one must be very careful not to decide to oppose first and then to look for arguments for opposing. The hon. members’ conduct in this debate gave me that impression. What is their main argument? Their main argument is that this arrangement holds a measure of constraint for local authorities and that we should rather seek alternative measures in order to combat the problem. This is, however, a Second Reading debate and there has been plenty of opportunities for the Opposition to make alternative suggestions. So far, however, there have been no such suggestions. There has been some destructive criticism, but no suggestion to show that they are not only talking about alternatives, but can also think of such alternatives. I think that their contribution to the debate left much to be desired.

It is because they have poor Whips!

Yes, I think they should fall back on the hon. member for Orange Grove as Whip once again. Then things would go better for them.

I should like to take a closer look at a few of the arguments of the hon. members. The hon. member for Green Point asked me to mention concrete examples of local authorities that did not fulfil their duties. Sir, I am not here to quarrel with the local authorities; I am here to bring about better co-operation with them. Therefore, I am not going to allege things in this House which may lead to arguments and misunderstandings. However, I shall assist the hon. member by telling him that the commission investigated conditions within 18 important local authorities. They were very pleased to discover that in 11 of the local authorities, sufficient provision had been made for the demand for building erven in the future. However, in the case of seven local authorities, viz. about 40% of them,sufficient provision had not been made. This is a serious situation.

In the case of one of our largest municipalities, no provision had been made for a single erf for future low-cost housing. The hon. member for Tygervallei gave the reason for this. When an authority plans and lays out erven and towns, it is only human for it to bear in mind its income from rates, and rates come in when they plan for the rich people and not when they plan for people from the lower income groups. That is why it is my duty as a Minister to see that they do in fact pay attention to that responsibility which the Act places upon them. As my hon. friend said, they accept their responsibility, but unfortunately they do not fulfil their duties without a little help from the Department of Community Development. I want to give that help to them now.

We are not going to place an unbearable burden upon them, because this amending Bill limits us in what we may ask of them. If the hon. member takes a look at the amending Bill, he will see—and I quote—

Therefore, our demand is limited. We are being forced to be reasonable by the provisions of the amending Bill and not to place an unfair burden on the local authority. Nor is it our intention to do so.

In consultation with the Treasury, the Department of Community Development has to budget for the housing requirements of the lower income groups, viz. the subeconomic and lower economic groups. This is our responsibility and it is a very great one. The hon. young members do not know this yet and therefore I want to remind them of matters which we have discussed before. Before the end of this century—that will be in only 22 years’ time—we in South Africa will have to build just as many houses as have been built since Jan van Riebeeck landed here. That is the extent of the problem. I do not have the time for protracted negotiations, struggles and pleas. I must have certain powers in order to see that this need is in fact met in the time which we have at our disposal. At the moment the Department of Community Development is financing the building of between 30 000 and 40 000 houses per annum. That is still not enough. Surely we must see that land is available for those purposes. We must also see that the municipality fulfils the duties which are entrusted to it. This is all that is envisaged by this amending Bill.

I really want to appeal to my hon. friends on the other side not to oppose this measure merely because that they are the Opposition, but to realize that it is an essential measure and an urgent one in the general interests of the people. South Africa has the right to expect them to help and support us when we take measures like this. They must realize that we have to calculate ten years ahead. The reason for this is obvious and underlies this whole amending Bill. We must plan and make money available in consultation with the Treasury, not only for this year, but for the years ahead. We must plan ahead and practically commit ourselves to certain minimum achievements. We cannot do this if the local authorities do not co-operate with us and give us a clear idea of what their requirements and their contributions are going to be, otherwise we will eventually have a situation where, for instance, if we realize that Johannesburg needs houses urgently, we find that we do in fact have the necessary money, but that they do not have the erven for it. Then time is wasted and a year or two could be lost in this way. On the other hand, we could also find ourselves in a situation where they may in fact have erven which we do not know about while we cannot provide the money. That is why there must be the closest co-operation between local authorities and the Department of Community Development in consultation with the Treasury, in order to be able to plan ahead. If a municipality does not co-operate and provide us with the basic information, no matter what the reason, planning becomes impossible and we may encounter problems in the future.

I really want to appeal to my hon. friends to realize these things. As far as the question of housing is concerned, we are dealing with a very great national problem. We must not quibble about this and look at small matters in order to embarrass one another. Let us think big and co-operate on a large scale in order to achieve the minimum which is necessary to ensure the future of our people and our nation.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The object of the Bill is to make provision for the control of tour guide services in order to direct and rationalize such services.

Tourism is today one of the Republic of South Africa’s most important imperceptible export products, which earned the Republic an estimated amount of R279 million in foreign exchange during 1976. In order to place this industry on a sounder footing, to ensure growth, as well as to ensure that South Africa will in future receive an ever-in-creasing share of international tourism, my department is at present engaged in a programme which is aimed at improving the geographic distribution of tourism within our borders. In addition we are also trying to make tourism in this country less dependent on the season. In order to attract an already growing number of foreign tourists to South Africa, the S.A. Tourist Corporation, is launching an ever-increasing number of dynamic marketing campaigns abroad. The S.A. Railways and the S.A. Airways, as well as the private sector, are making very highly appreciated contributions in this regard.

The growth of tourism in recent years has resulted in the emphasis being placed to an increasing extent on the improvement of the existing services that are being offered to the tourist. What is required, therefore, is a greater measure of professionalism in all spheres. The important part played in this respect by the tour guide cannot be overemphasized. The success of the tour frequently depends on the way in which tour guides manage touring groups or individual tourists entrusted to their care. The international tourist considers the tour guide to be a reliable source of information about the country, its people, its customs and development, and expects him to furnish information on a large and divergent variety of aspects concerning the country being visited. This information makes a lasting impression on the tourist and also comprises an important part of the information which he will convey upon returning to his own country. Quite frequently, too, the tour guide is the only true contact on a personal level which a tourist has with the people of a foreign country. Many of the foreign visitors to South Africa have a completely distorted impression of our history, population structure, traditions, etc. Hon. members will agree with me that a well-trained and competent tour guide can be a true ambassador for South Africa here.

It is therefore clear that our tour guide services should also, in all respects, be of the highest calibre in order to promote South Africa’s tourist industry. Unfortunately it is a fact that the present tour guide services in the Republic are in many respects unsatisfactory. Numerous examples have been recorded— and some of my hon. friends have probably seen these on television—of tour guides who accompanied tours and who in the process did so much harm that it inevitably led to the Republic’s image being impaired—and here I do not mean only in the sphere of tourism. This situation arose primarily because the tour guides concerned in the said cases were possibly incompetent, were no doubt inadequately trained, and might in exceptional cases even have been malicious and consequently caused incidents in the course of their work or succeeded in presenting our country or South African systems and institutions in a poor and also sometimes distorted light.

On the other hand I must concede that there are quite a number of well-grounded, well-trained, competent and loyal tour guides in South Africa who do their work in the best interests of South Africa and of the visiting tourist and who deserve our appreciation for the good work they are doing. However, that does not alter the extreme necessity for this important sector of the tourist industry to be rapidly set in order and rationalized, particularly in view of the prevailing circumstances. It is in the interests of our tourist industry that tour guide services should be effectively set in order in a way that is based on proper selection. At present the position is that in the absence of such a step, any person may offer his services as a tour guide and this must inevitably lead to the unsatisfactory situation to which I have just referred.

The three main principles contained in the Bill are briefly as follows: In the first place it is being provided that any person who wishes to act as a tour guide will have to apply to the Department of Tourism for registration as such; secondly, that no person who is not registered as a tour guide may act or serve in such capacity; and thirdly, that no person shall employ as a tour guide any other person who is not registered as a tour guide or allow him to render services in that capacity.

In order to give effect to these concepts, however, it is necessary to make a number of administrative and other arrangements. These are simple and clear and I am not going to spend any time dealing with the Bill clause by clause. It will be possible to elucidate and discuss them further during the Committee Stage.

In general terms I should like to mention that it is not the intention to apply and enforce the provisions of the Bill arbitrarily and bureaucratically. I realize that it is necessary for all sectors of the industry to make a contribution to rationalize tour guide services in the interests of the tourist industry. I also realize that the various business sectors, owing to their knowledge and experience, can be of great value and assistance in laying down the requirements and provisions, and in general with the implementation of other provisions of the Bill. That is why provision is being included in the Bill—in clause 4— for the creation of an advisory committee, consisting of not more than nine members, with the important provision that the majority of the members should be persons chosen from a list of names submitted to the Minister at his request by those organizations recognized as being representative of the tourist industry—and this automatically includes tour guides. This committee will assist the Minister and the Registrar in all kinds of matters affecting the application of the Bill. Examples of matters of this kind are the handling of dubious applications for registration, the cancelling of registration and the drawing up of regulations, particularly those in which requirements for registration are laid down. In this way there will be continuous liaison and contact with the industry in order to ensure that all interests are served in the best and most beneficial way. Hon. members will be pleased to ascertain in this regard that a national tour guides association was recently established in South Africa as a result of encouragement by my Department of Tourism. The Association is geared to representing and furthering the interests of tour guides on a national basis and to seeking to achieve the rationalization and professionalization of tour guide services in South Africa.

It is my conviction that we in South Africa, against the background which I have sketched for hon. members, need this instrument and need it urgently to bring out tour guide services on to such a footing that they are generally acceptable and will be of the highest calibre and will be completely acceptable to those who utilize such services, in the interests of our tourist industry and of South Africa. I have every confidence that hon. members will also appreciate the necessity for the measure and will give it their support.

Finally, I should just like to mention—it seems to me hon. members opposite do not realize this—that all the interested sectors of the industry were consulted on the principle and contents of the Bill and that the wholehearted support of everyone was received for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is with appreciation and gratification that we take cognizance of the establishment of the Tour Guides Association. It is obviously a step in the right direction and it is to be welcomed. This association will contribute to creating a greater measure of expertise in tour guide services in South Africa. However, I am afraid that I cannot say that this Bill, as it now reads, gives any indication that it is in future going to make a contribution to the greater expertise of tour guides.

To begin with, “tour guide” in the definitions clause is described in such a way that there is not an hon. member sitting in this House who will not be able to qualify as a tour guide. However, I shall deal with that point in greater detail at a later stage. The Bill seeks to create a mechanism for the registration of tour guides. There will be a Registrar of Tour Guides. A committee will be appointed. A greater measure of control is being envisaged, and tour guides will have to apply for registration. It will also be possible to suspend such registration, or it may be refused after application. Ultimately, such registration may also be cancelled. I am not certain whether this Bill is not perhaps going to do the tourist industry harm. Our tourist industry is still in a stage of comparative growth. There is still a great future for tourism in South Africa. Apart from the central urban areas, there is still a tremendously wide field for the further development of tourism. One should not, considering this fact, try to enforce professionalism or a certain standard at an early stage—and particularly not by means of legislation. When I refer to a certain standard, then we are not, in terms of this legislation, certain what that standard is either. The Bill, as it now reads, is tremendously vague. There is no indication whatsoever of what qualifications the registrar is going to require before he grants registration to a tour guide.

Surely one does not write this into an Act.

I am afraid that this is going to reflect on this legislation.

I want to suggest that there are a considerable number of alternative methods which may be adopted in order to solve this problem. For example courses may be made available to tour guides to ensure that they are better informed and better equipped for their duties. This will lead to their acquiring a better understanding of the background history of the country and its institutions, and to an appreciation for these things being cultivated in them. It would be better to try to achieve this goal on a voluntary basis. In addition, what about ensuring that there is a continuous supply of information? A great deal can be done, especially now that this new body, the Tour Guides Association, has been established, in order to render a service in this sphere and to promote greater expertise.

I come now to what I find to be the most perturbing aspect of the Bill. Although we can discuss the other aspects of the Bill, I cannot see how we can support this one. I am referring to the fact that the registrar, or his delegate, may suspend the registration of a tour guide. As I read the legislation, he may do so overnight. After a period of 30 days after cause has been shown the registration may finally be cancelled. If we accept that we have a growing tourist industry, that tour guides have to be trained and that the tour guide profession is still a growing one, is it the right thing to propose a measure such as this at this stage, a measure which in my opinion will discourage tour guides from entering that profession. I want to state candidly that I would not be prepared to enter a profession in which a person—the Registrar of Tour Guides or any other person—has the right and the power to suspend my registration as such overnight and therefore to prohibit me from discharging my duties and practising my profession. This is an extreme measure, I must say.

The measure for which provision is being made in this legislation is a measure which we do not even encounter in many important professions in South Africa. In my opinion the Bill, as it reads at present, cannot make any contribution to the promotion of tourism or the promotion of expertize among tour guides. I think that there are many other methods which could be adopted to remedy this situation. The hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that there had been ugly incidents of people who put forward misconceptions about South Africa. However, is this Bill going to eradicate this completely if it becomes law? On the other hand, who is the person who is going to decide whether or not misconceptions about South Africa are being put forward? In my opinion tour guides are most certainly not the category of people who will deliberately try to blacken South Africa’s name by providing tourists with erroneous and distorted information. I wonder whether this measure is not simply another case of an attempt to crush a peanut with a sledgehammer. For these reasons, and because I do not think that this measure will promote the tourist industry in any way, we cannot pledge our support to this measure.

Mr. Speaker, if my task was difficult enough to start with, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, has made it even more difficult because I may not cross swords with him on anything which is controversial. Therefore I merely want to put it to him that if there is any difference of opinion it is not deliberate but merely fortuitous. I am rising to give this legislation my fullest support.

It is interesting to go into the history of this matter. Since the then Union Government voted and indeed contributed the first R50 000 for the promotion of tourism in South Africa in 1914 it has, as it also did elsewhere in the world, expanded considerably and, as the hon. the Minister has already said, it is today earning foreign exchange to the value of R260 000 million for South Africa. It is therefore a pity that in 1976 we had a setback in tourism with a drop of approximately 12½% in the tourist industry for that year. Seen in the light of general world trends, however, I believe that the situation will right itself again and that this industry will soar to new heights. After the hon. the Minister indicated last year during the discussion of his Vote that he intended introducing this legislation this year, the industry has been looking forward to it expectantly. It is also interesting to note that as long ago as 1936 the author Norval wrote as follows—

It is generally accepted that the tour guide services in South Africa are unsatisfactory. I do not think there is any argument about this. It is the one sector of the tourist industry which is not only divided and unorganized but with which almost no contact is being made at present, or was made in the past In large areas of the country no services are being provided, except perhaps—one has to admit this—on certain of the good tourist groups where one does find well-trained tour guides.

For the most part, however, use is made of casual and temporary labour, people who do not have the training, the knowledge or—and this is perhaps the most important aspect—the aptitude to render these specialized services. It is a well-known axiom in any commercial undertaking that, if one wishes to sell, order or deliver any product, it is absolutely essential that the person who wishes to sell or otherwise dispose of such a commodity, should first be thoroughly acquainted with and understand it in order to be successful. Then one asks oneself the following question: Why should the tourist industry by any different from other industries? For years the State as well as the private sector has been spending hundreds of thousands of rands on advertisements and propaganda in this sphere. Let me at once express my praise and appreciation of Satour and all other bodies that have been doing this over the years. As a result of the lack of local tour guides, however, more of these things are being fully utilized. That is why I believe that this legislation is essential and urgent and that it should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as is feasible.

This legislation now brings us into line with European countries for the first time. All the hon. members who have visited Europe will be aware of the fact that it is the tour guide who makes a tour successful or otherwise. With his knowledge the tour guide not only furnishes the facts, but adds colour to one’s visit. Will anyone who has ever visited Edinburgh and perhaps attended a “Caledonian night”, eaten haggis and in the end perhaps wanted to join the Scots in knocking the stuffing out of the English, ever forget it? Anyone who has had the good fortune to visit Israel and to meet the wonderful Eli, to sing along with him and to sing the praises of Israel, to laugh and to cry with him, will remember these things when he has returned to South Africa and will dream only of the chance of going back there again. This is what I believe is necessary in our country, and is what this legislation will accomplish.

In this connection it is perhaps interesting to note that Israel has legislation comparable with the legislation which is at present before this House. In Israel any tour guide first undergoes a three-year period of training. In this connection I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken. What is particularly important, however, is that the accent here should be placed on patriotism. I wish to express the hope that the hon. the Minister, and his Advisory Committee will, in this regard, take thorough cognizance of this aspect of patriotism.

That, in brief, is all I want to say about the foreign tourist. I should also like to consider for a moment the local tourist. Owing to a lack of sound training for tour guides in South Africa, our country is particularly lacking in recorded urban and regional history or, stated another way, historical geography. It is perhaps interesting to point out that in a book which appeared in 1968, i.e. the Cambridge History of Iran, one entire volume was devoted to the aspect of geographic history, while in a publication which appeared in 1969, the Oxford History of South Africa, only a single page was devoted to this subject. I believe that this will serve as an example of how empoverished we still are in this respect. It is a pity that there are few if any tour guides in this country who are for example able to tell the local tourist about the beehive houses, better known in Afrikaans as the “korbeelhuisies”, between Williston and Carnarvon. These houses are unique in our own country, but it is interesting to note that they conform to similar dwellings which were built approximately 3 000 years ago in Southern Europe. I believe that it will be possible, by means of well-trained tour guides, to convey this information and many other facts as well, to our own children.

Fortunately, a journal called Contree is now being published, two editions of which have already appeared. To show how far we are lagging behind and to demonstrate the difference between our country and other countries, I shall quote a passage from the January 1977 edition of this journal. The article is entitled “The Attitude to Regional History in the U.S.A.”. It reads as follows—

I quote the following brief portion which is a comparison with South Africa—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this legislation can specifically help us not only to make our history known, but also to learn to appreciate it I believe that this measure should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible and I also believe that it will help to promote our tourism. In fact, I believe that it is one of the best investments we will ever be able to make because, when all is said and done, the Republic of South Africa is still the most beautiful country in the world.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for having listened to me.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member for Green Point will take it amiss of me if I do not follow up on his arguments in this debate today. Please allow me, however, to convey a few words of congratulation to the hon. member for Vasco, who made his maiden speech in this House in such a competent manner. I trust that the hon. member’s stay in this House will be pleasant and enriching for him.

When the authoress Anna M. Louw wrote in her travel book “Agter my ’n Albatros”that her greatest fear was the fear of getting lost, I think she was giving expression to what lies dormant in the heart of every tourist in a foreign country. This is the anxiety to see as much as possible with the available funds and in the limited time without any unnecessary waste of time and energy. I think it is generally known that the tourist industry plays an important part in the earnings of foreign exchange in any country. This must certainly apply to the Republic of South Africa as well.

In South Africa, however, there is an additional dimension involved in tourism. It affords us the opportunity of marketing ourselves to foreigners. In a total spiritual onslaught our best investment for a favourable projection of the image of South Africa, is the recruiting and goodwill of a well-meaning tourist. It offers such a visitor the opportunity to acquire first-hand information concerning our ethnic set-up. In brief, the legislation creates an opportunity for rendering a service to the tourist. Secondly, it imparts status to the tour guide, for in this way certain codes of conduct can be laid down and it is being stipulated that no unauthorized person may profess to be a tour guide. Thirdly, the legislation creates order, for in terms of the provisions of clause 13 of the Bill, steps can be taken against malpractices. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Vasco, who indicated that the tourist industry reached a high-water mark in the year 1975 when 738 000 people visited South Africa. The hon. member then went on to indicate that the industry started to level off shortly afterwards and he expressed the wish and the hope that the situation would soon reach a turning-point.

I am nevertheless of the opinion that the industry reached the turning-point at the end of October of last year, judging from the interest that has since been shown in our airlines and in our hotel industry. In my opinion one can now look forward with optimism to a revived interest in the tourist industry in South Africa.

Finally, I just wish to express the hope that when the tourists, having been accompanied by the tour guides who are going to act within the framework of this legislation, then return to their respective fatherlands, they will not only carry with them pleasant memories of the Republic of South Africa, but will also show a greater understanding of our complex challenges.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Krugersdorp on his maiden speech. I believe he will have a highly successful stay in the House. He has shown a genuine interest in the tourist trade of the country, and from this side of the House we certainly wish him well. We ought also to convey our congratulations to the hon. member for Vasco and to wish him well. I had the pleasure to be with him in another place for some years, and I can assure the House that he is a doughty debater and a fighter for good causes.

I have listened to the debate this afternoon with a sense of total unreality, because I believe that we are moving in a sort of Alice in Wonderland scene with regard to this particular legislation. What, in the first place, are the kinds of complaints that the hon. the Minister has received? Is he trying to tell us that there have been tourists to this country who have solemnly come along to the Department of Tourism and said: “Do you know that we were taken to the Kruger National Park by a certain tour guide who suddenly started making anti-South African utterances?” Is this really what he is basing this legislation on? I cannot believe that this is so, because it must have been some queer member of a John Birch Society who visited the country and was put out by some verligte comment. What is the mischief that the hon. the Minister is attempting to deal with? The hon. member for Green Point used the analogy of a peanut and a sledgehammer, but what is in fact the peanut that the hon. the Minister is worried about? I have been on several tours and I have never known a tour guide suddenly to start launching off from the subject of fauna and flora, or whatever it may be, into some political diatribe against South Africa. I do not believe it happens. I think we are really wasting the time of the House. I cannot believe we have to go through all the trauma of setting up a new post of Registrar of Tour Guides who is going to sit in Pretoria exercising all sorts of power, and who will have to open up an office and a register. We are going to spend more and more money, and all that the registrar will be doing will be to keep a list of these interesting characters who accompany us on safaris and what have you through the Republic and South West Africa.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister did in order to persuade this new association that legislation was required, but what I know is that it is natural for any association to seek to protect its own interests. For that reason I am not particularly impressed with that argument. What I want to know is whether this legislation is, in fact, going to be in the interest of South Africa.

There are some questions I want to ask the hon. the Minister. Firstly, is this Bill directed only at the evils of misinformation at the hands of tour guides directed to foreign visitors? I ask this because I cannot find any place in the Bill where the victim of this misinformation is specified as a foreigner.

Of course not.

The hon. the Minister says it is not restricted to foreigners. In other words, the hon. the Minister has a mistrust of his own fellow South Africans. Does he think that South Africans travelling within this country are going to be propagandized by tour guides?

I thought you would talk less nonsense in this House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister must take his medicine and listen for a change. He is one of the very best at interjecting and at making stupid comments. I think he must listen carefully. If this legislation is in fact directed at South Africans travelling within our borders, the hon. the Minister reflects a lack of confidence in his own people. Why do our people go to public meetings? Is he going to stop South Africans going to political meetings? There they are going to be propagandized. What on earth is wrong with a tour guide, addressing some people in a motor-coach, suddenly changing from the subject of a zebra to South African politics? Is a South African sitting in a safari coach conditioned in some evil way to accept what the tour guide is going to say? Is he somehow in a weaker condition than he is in when he is elsewhere? I do not follow the logic of this. The tourist is going to step down from the safari coach and is going to pick up a newspaper. Is he not going to be propagandized by Die Burger or The Cape Times? I do not understand the lack of confidence that the hon. the Minister has in our own people. They are going to have to be immunized against the possibility of influence by people like tour guides.

However, it still goes much further than this. Is it in fact only the professional tour guide that the hon. the Minister is seeking to contain and control? Is that what the hon. the Minister is attempting to do? Is he, in fact, attempting to control only the person who sets himself up in public as a tour guide? I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is shaking his head or nodding his head. I think it is a reasonable question and if he would only give me some indication of whether it is that class of person whom he is aiming at— he only has to say “Yea” or “Nay”—then so much the quicker will I be through with my speech.

Take your time.

Mr. Speaker, either the hon. the Minister is clowning, or he does not know, or he will not tell me because he is hiding something. It can only be one of those three things. I want to ask the hon. the Minister again: Does he intend by this legislation to control only the so-called “professional” tour guides who accompany people on commercial tours like safaris, coach tours and things like that? The hon. the Minister knows to whom I am referring. Is that the only people the hon. the Minister wants to control? Mr. Speaker, I do not want to debate across the House. I am not allowed to anyway, but the hon. the Minister is sitting so silent…

I am listening.

I do not only want the hon. the Minister to listen. I want him to shake his head. He is not the last person to make facial contortions and to indicate his attitude when it suits him; in fact he is the very first person to do so. What has he got to hide now?

I do not understand …

I shall answer the question for him. I think the hon. the Minister has not read this Bill properly. That is why he cannot explain it properly. In the back of his mind the hon. the Minister was really hoping that he would be dealing only with professional, or let me call them commercial, tour guides. In fact he has allowed his department, some law adviser, or whoever it may be, to so cast this Bill that it includes every single person in the country. Let us look at the Bill. Clause 11 provides that no person shall act in this country as a tour guide unless he is registered. That is correct and obvious, the kernel and crux of the legislation. At last we have the hon. the Minister nodding his head. Right, we are at base one.

I do not understand what you are trying to say.

The hon. the Minister should not interject; he should just answer questions. [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to look at clause l(viii)—the definition of a “tour guide”. The hon. the Minister has already conceded that no person may act as a tour guide if not registered. The definition is—

Let me use an example. Say a voter, for instance in the Groote Schuur constituency, phones me and says he believes we have a fantastic university against the mountain side and that he would like to visit the campus, see the statue of Rhodes, the famous Jameson Hall, etc. I then agree to accompany him to the university, whether for reward or not. In my case it would not be for reward. We are obviously visiting a place within the Republic. If I then furnish him with certain comments and information, the hon. the Minister will not go to gaol, nor would my constituent, but I will. The penalty is, in fact, a fine not exceeding R500 or six months imprisonment.

It will be a blessing.

What I am getting at is this: Is this what the hon. the Minister intends? If he does not intend that he must redraft this Bill. Otherwise he is going to place the Supreme Court of the country in an impossible position, because there are going to be prosecutions and the hon. the Minister is leaving to a judge of the Supreme Court the task of so cutting down the reading of the Bill as to restrict it to the purview of the commercial tour guide. It is this House that should be doing that and not leaving it to litigants and the Supreme Court. We cannot advise a judge. The judge is not going to read the debates in this House; he will have to follow the wording of the Bill. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in all sincerity: Let us stop joking; we can go back to joking in a moment, because there is a lot more that we can joke about. I want to be absolutely serious. The hon. the Minister should look again at clause l(viii) and apply his mind and ask himself whether this definition is not unrealistically widely cast. That is the first question I put to the hon. the Minister.

However, there is a great deal which is much worse in this Bill. With all his oratorical skill the hon. the Minister cannot disguise the fact that the real intention behind this measure is to make sure that tour guides say the right thing about South Africa. That is what the hon. the Minister says and what I believe is the intention behind the Bill. [Interjections.] But how can one control what people say? In other words, the hon. the Minister should, consequentially, stop all newspapers critical of South Africa.

They have started!

Yes, they have started. He should then close all universities and schools which are critical of the Government. He should furthermore then ban all syllabuses which contain criticism of the Government. Surely he is not going to say that in an inter-school debate school children are not allowed to criticize South Africa, the Government or the PFP? Why has he turned on the poor tour guide? Why is this mammoth cannon being fired at him?

Schoolchildren do not speak to foreigners.

The hon. Chief Whip will have lots of time to discuss this, both here and outside. He must contain himself as long as he possibly can.

Why does the hon. the Minister believe that the tour guide of all people has to be contained in this way?

Poor guide.

That is right. The situation is made worse by the fact that before a tour guide can obtain his certificate of registration—this is where the intention reveals itself—the registrar can call the poor applicant in and cross-question him on all aspects which he, the registrar, regards as being a fair test of the man’s suitability. Clause 6(3) reads as follows—

What does that mean? According to the hon. the Minister himself it means that the Registrar of Tour Guides is going to ask the poor chap whether he is a good South African, upon which the applicant is required to say, “Yes, Sir”. He can test him on his views on the Anglo-Boer War, politics or the Government. [Interjections.] Of course! How else can the registrar satisfy himself that in fact he is not going to do the things the hon. the Minister does not want him to do? This appears quite plainly from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. How is he going to satisfy himself on those matters without asking that tough kind of question? It is so obvious. What other question does the hon. the Minister want him to ask? Must he ask him when Jan van Riebeeck landed in this country? Is the registrar really going to hold a sort of general knowledge quiz for all the applicants? Is that what the hon. the Minister has in mind? The absurdity of it all is confirmed by the fact that the registrar can categorize tour guides. What does that mean? Does it mean that some man is going to be capable of taking visitors up a mountain, another to the seaside, and others may talk about history?

The trouble is that you know nothing about tourism. You are talking nonsense.

I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister has been on more tours through South Africa than I have been. I doubt it. I do not think he is used to travelling as an ordinary citizen in a safari coach. I have been doing it for years. That is why I said at the start that I have never known a single tour guide who has put a foot wrong. I have honestly never heard them talking about politics. I want to know whether it is true then that this form of catechism which is provided for in clause 6(3) is designed to ensure that the applicant is a suitable person to propagandize tourists, both foreign and domestic. I do not know whether one should always reduce an argument to its logical conclusion, but I am not so sure—I do not know whether the registrar has been designated yet—that such a person would not in fact be tempted to abuse his position in order to favour the Government of the day. It is in this kind of silly, unreal situation where a public servant has such power that in fact he may be tempted to exercise it.

Sir, I go further. Where is this trend going to stop? What kind of category of worker or person in this country is the hon. the Minister going to single out next to prevent propagandizing both foreigners and South Africans? I should like to tell him about an experience I had when I was travelling with the S.A. Airways last year. I was flying in a plane from East London to Cape Town when I met the jolly joker of the S.A. Airways. He was the pilot, who had a running commentary on everything between East London and Cape Town. He was a very good pilot, but he never stopped talking. In terms of this definition he was a tour guide, because he was furnishing me with comments, not on any matter, but on every matter. He made a couple of jokes about the Government, Oudtshoorn and George. Does that man have to be registered as a tour guide? It is a reasonable question. [Interjections.] Why not? Not only does the Bill in fact cover him, but in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own explanation of what he is attempting to prohibit, that man ought to be registered. He ought to be taken to Pretoria to appear before the Registrar of Tour Guides and he should be cross-examined to determine his suitability, because, who knows, he may have been making the most extraordinarily inaccurate comments about the National Government. I happened to think that he was not doing that, but he might have been. What, however, happens in the case of taxi-drivers and the people who man our museums, our public gardens, our libraries and Fernwood? The hon. the Minister does not want exposure of foreigners and South Africans to people who may just happen to be able to put in a little politics, even if there is no evil intent. If he does not want exposure, he must be consequential. Just look at all the people to whom these foreigners and South Africans are constantly exposed. What does he say about museums, libraries and the groundsmen at Fernwood?

I cannot think of a single person who can accompany me without making some comments. My wife will have to be registered as a tour guide, because I accompany her to all sorts of places. She tells me all sorts of things which are completely unsolicited, highly inaccurate and highly anti-Government. She would be an ideal person to be registered as a tour guide. Unless the hon. the Minister gives me the satisfaction of a proper reply, I shall have to go home tonight and tell her that at last she is going to get that badge of honour as a Tour Guide which I have always felt she should have anyway.

The matter goes further than this. This Bill sets up a whole vast State machine. It is a Parkinson’s law situation par excellence. There is going to be an official Registrar of Tour Guides, who will have under-officials because there are three clauses which deal with delegated powers.

There is the one-man court.

I am coming to the one-man court in a moment.

Tour guide snoopers as well.

You are going to have a little imperium in imperio. It costs money. Does the hon. the Minister really believe that the creation of a post like a registrarship and the issuing of badges and certificates of registration, the holding of courts, that all this is not expenditure of public money? Of course it is! And the hon. the Minister may well say that it is only going to cost a couple of thousand rand. Of course it will to get it off the ground. But later on, Parkinson’s law will operate even more and it will cost twice, three times, four times more. Why are we spending this money? I do not understand it.

Finally, I am horrified at the situation which was sketched by the hon. member for Green Point. A person is registered as a tour guide. That is now his job; he is now a commercial man, as the hon. member for Constantia puts it. That man may say something which is unacceptable to the registrar. Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that this can only work through a kind of reign of terror—slipping in a complaint to a department That is the only way the system can work—by a tourist complaining that Mr. Joe Soakes had something to say about South Africa or the Government.

They might have to have inspectors.

Yes, they might have to put inspectors at the back of the charabancs. Otherwise it is going to be by way of complaint. Then this official who has no legal training and has been appointed, in terms of the hon. the Minister’s own admission, in order to prevent the propagandizing of people, is going to sit in judgment on a man. I completely agree with the hon. member for Green Point on this point. I have never heard of anything quite so pernicious.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a storm in a teacup. We are not making a “groot bohaai” over nothing. I think a matter of principle is at stake here, i.e. for the first time in my 12 years in public life in this country I have had an outright admission from a spokesman of the National Party Government that the object of legislation is in fact to muzzle persons who may be able to say things to foreign visitors to South Africa.

Who admitted that?

It is a muzzling procedure—that is perfectly obvious.

Answer me.

There is no question but that we shall fight this legislation tooth and nail.

You cannot answer me.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I am unable to comment on what was said by the hon. member for Groote Schuur. However I trust that he enjoyed the jokes about the pilot and I believe that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with the necessary reply in this regard.

I should like to express a few ideas in support of the legislation and in respect of tourism in general. I should like to suggest that this particular piece of legislation is a logical outcome of what has been going on in this country for many years and which, as far back as 1963, was given concrete expression in the establishment by the Government of the Department of Tourism. I say that this is a necessary step in order to give further effect to what the department has already done in regard to the positive development of the tourist industry in South Africa. Assisted by the South African Tourist Corporation and the Hotel Board, the tourist industry has established a sound infrastructure as a result of the positive efforts of the Department of Tourism thus far. This was vital in order to establish that organization. Looking at the growing numbers of visitors to South Africa, one sees that in 1956, about 161 000 visitors came to South Africa as against roughly 638 000 in 1976. This is so despite the fact that South Africa is situated far from America and the main European tourist industry. This, I respectfully submit, occurred largely as a result of positive planning and the handling of those visitors by our department, and was done in such a way that there was no interference with the holiday needs of our own people in South Africa.

At present we have available about 87 000 beds in graded hotels in South Africa with about 31,7 million bednights in respect of them alone without taking into account any of the other accommodation that is available. The economic evaluation of the tourist industry has already been referred to by the hon. the Minister and also by previous speakers when they indicated that it was a major earner of foreign exchange. The figure for foreign tourism is approximately R260 million, and as far as internal tourism is concerned, the amount is about R400 million per annum. I should also just like to quote a few statistics in this regard which indicate that in 1966 it was estimated that the earnings of foreign exchange world-wide in the tourist industry at the time amounted to about £6 000 million, and that there was a growth of about 7% at that stage. As far as the figures for 1977 are concerned, I should just like to indicate that they represented more than that 7% increase, and that in 1977 about 230 million people throughout the world departed on journeys with a foreign destination. The annual expenditure of those tourists in 1977 amounted to R30 billion. That is a vast sum of money. That is why the regulation of what is needed in this industry is in all respects essential in order to gear our tourist industry to the earning of those large amounts of foreign exchange. It is well known that many countries throughout the world, Tahiti among others, are able to pay the deficit on their balance of payments purely on what they earn from their tourist industry. South Africa is ideally adapted in that respect, and it is interesting that a certain Mr. Michael Peters, in his book International Tourism—and for the most part his study concerns the tourist industry in France and America—writes that at that stage virtually all tourists going on holiday were in the first instance concerned about the climate. Sunshine in particular played a very large role, and we in South Africa are particularly well geared for that and blessed with all those assets.

I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting the legislation and I respectfully suggest that as regards our road network, scenic beauty, etc., too, we are in an ideal position to give the tourists who come to South Africa from elsewhere and our own tourists an outstanding contribution in regard to what they can experience locally, particularly if there are able tour guides who can illustrate tours for those people.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Roodepoort sincerely on his maiden speech in this House. I also want to congratulate him on the good presentation, as well as on his knowledge of the tourist industry and I want to wish him a very pleasant and long stay in this House. May his stay be just as beneficial as that of his hon. predecessor was. We found it edifying to listen to him after having had to listen to the row the hon. member for Groote Schuur kicked up.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur seized upon this piece of legislation to suggest to the outside world that the Government is using this legislation to get at people who say the wrong things about South Africa. That was in fact his accusation, that the hon. the Minister wants to get at people who say the wrong things about South Africa. I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Groote Schuur to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 9 April 1976. I think he knows this paper very well indeed. After all, it is one of their papers. In this newspaper report Helen Zeelie complains about certain tour guides. And what does she complain about? She complains because the tour guide in question apparently told a certain group of tourists that there is compulsory education for all South Africans of all races between the ages of six and 16 years. That is what Helen Zeelie complains about. Hon. members of the PFP are now coming forward with a statement to the opposite effect. They claim that we want to introduce this legislation in order to get at people who say the wrong things about South Africa. This lady on the other hand, complains because a tour guide said to a group of tourists that there is compulsory education for all people in South Africa. Helen Zeelie takes it even further and maintains that this tour guide also allegedly said that no Black labourers in the mines bring their wives with them to South Africa because they want to eliminate the cost of extra housing. Therefore, it has nothing at all to do with what the hon. member for Groote Schuur claims, i.e. that we want to get at people who say the wrong things about South Africa. The point is simply that we want to give correct information to all tourists in South Africa. This applies to tourists from abroad as well as to our own tourists. After all, there are quite a number of tourist organizations in South Africa. There are many travel agencies that are constantly organizing tours for foreign tourists as well as our own tourists.

Surely we do not want a foreign tourist to leave South Africa with incorrect information. Whether this is true or not, I do not know, but someone told me that a tourist asked a tour guide somewhere what the main product of a specific area was, and that the tour guide replied: “I do not know, but I think dagga!”

That must have been in Groote Schuur! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is true—and somebody here suggests it was Groote Schuur; I do not know—but surely we cannot allow this kind of information to be conveyed to our tourists. Therefore, this does not concern a piece of legislation which the Government insists on having for the purpose of virtually, as the hon. member of Groote Schuur claims, getting at people if they disseminate the wrong information about South Africa. If this was the case, we would not have needed this legislation. Then we would have needed legislation to ban political parties in South Africa.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur went even further and even dragged the Supreme Court into this issue. He said that when a tour guide appears before the Registrar and when he is dismissed, it becomes a case for the Supreme Court. With that allegation, I think the hon. member was casting aspersions on the profession of our our tour guides.

What is our real objective with this legislation? This afternoon the hon. the Minister and other hon. members subjected a very fine industry in South Africa, the tourist industry, to close scrutiny. They stressed the value of this industry, and in my opinion we can never stress sufficiently the role of tourism in the economy of the world. Much hard work is being done in South Africa in this particular area. Just think of Satour, the Department of Tourism, the various regional societies concerned with tourism and all the various travel agencies in our country. The staff of those institutions work very hard and do their utmost to bring tourists to South Africa.However, there is one person who plays an extremely important role in the tourist industry. That is the tour guide. Once a touring party has boarded a bus, they are left in the hands of a tour guide and they are dependent on the information and the guidance that the tour guide gives them.

Now our only fear is—and for that reason we have this legislation concerning which we have the support of everyone who is involved in the industry—that something might be lost along the way, that people might not get all the information and all the knowledge about South Africa. We want tourists to use their time correctly. We want a tour guide to be competent, to have all the necessary knowledge and information to satisfy tourists, to make them feel that it was worth while to have spent so much money on a visit to South Africa. Therefore the question arises as to whether the information is conveyed correctly. I repeat that the tour guide plays an extremely important role in this connection. For that reason we welcome this legislation. Firstly it enhances the status of tour guides. That is in fact something the tour guides themselves want. It gives tour guides professional status. Its objective is definitely not to get at tour guides and to oppress them. The objective is in fact to give them professional status.

Furthermore this legislation now leads to more control over tour guides, something that everyone in the profession wants and would like to have. For that reason I believe that the registration of tour guides in South Africa has become absolutely necessary. I have here in my hand a piece of comment from the Tourist Committee of the Suid-Afrikaanse Handels-instituut, a body which supports this legislation wholeheartedly, and actually states that such legislation is essential.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur, however, has made a very wide detour. Like a cow he grazed over the entire field, and said here that we cannot proceed with the existing definition of a tour guide. I concede that the definition is in fact wide, but the hon. member should also understand that it concerns organized groups in the trade, in other words, people who make tourism their business. In this case we need control. Surely it is ridiculous to argue that when I receive a group of friends in Oudtshoorn—and that is something that often happens—and I accompany them through the district and bring them to the Cango Caves, to the ostrich farms and to other places, I am going to be prohibited from doing that in future. Surely it is absolutely ridiculous to read anything like that into it. Surely the objective is not to get at people who entertain their friends. The people we want to get at are the tour guides in the industry who give people the wrong information. Surely there are people who are not qualified to be tour guides. I can say in all honesty that should I want to visit the University of Cape Town, I shall not ask the hon. member for Groote Schuur to accompany me there.

Never! Never!

No, I shall rather ask another hon. member. People who are not qualified to be tour guides should be excluded from the industry. They do not do the industry credit and I believe that all travel agencies agree with this. If an organization employs a bad tour guide, the tourists tend to inform one another about it and eventually the organization loses custom.

Reference was also made to students. I know students are used during holidays. We should, however, note that in terms of the legislation exemption may be granted in certain cases. We find that in clause 11(3). Yet the hon. member for Groote Schuur accuses the hon. the Minister of not having read the Bill. In my opinion the hon. member did not read the Bill. It is stated clearly in section 11(3) that the Minister may grant exemptions in certain cases. Surely it is obvious that when students act as tour guides during holidays—and they are used everywhere—the organization who employs them may apply to the Minister for an exemption and that those students may be exempted for that period and under those circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, allow me a final comment. The objective of this legislation is to eliminate incorrect and negative information. For that reason we on this side of the House support the legislation and we believe that the tourist industry in South Africa fully supports it.