Mr. Speaker, today we shall follow the Order Paper as printed. Tomorrow the Provincial Finance and Audit Amendment Bill, as well as the Registration of Vendors Bill—both measures of the hon. the Minister of Finance—will come up for discussion. Friday is private members’ day. On Monday the Additional Appropriation will be considered. On Tuesday and Wednesday we shall again follow the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I am reasonably satisfied with the explanations given during the Second Reading debate in connection with this clause by the hon. member for Bloemfontein East and by the hon. the Minister. I agree, after having heard the explanations, that the new definition of “dealer” simplifies the question and, I think, will simplify the implementation of the Act. Accordingly, we will not oppose this clause. I would, however, like to ask the Minister to react to just two points and, in fact, to give two assurances. Firstly, I would be most grateful if he would give us the assurance that the new definition does not in fact broaden the scope of the definition of “dealer” other than in the terms of the stated intention at Second Reading, and that if exceptions do arise, i.e. that businesses are inadvertently brought into the ambit of this Act, which would not normally be the case, they will be dealt with by means of exemptions. Secondly, I would like to ask the Minister to give us the assurance that the memorandum which is on his desk and which is presently on mine as well—I refer to the memorandum which has been received from the Metal Merchants’ Association—will, although it does not relate specifically to the amending Bill before us today, be considered seriously with a view to further improving the legislation at an early opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I want to give the assurance that in my view the new definition does not in fact broaden the scope of the present definition. I think it is exactly the same definition as we had before, except that we have removed the references to the old Acts which have already been abrogated. I cannot, of course, give the assurance that people who fall within the purview of this Act will not be prosecuted or looked at. Nevertheless, I can give the assurance that this certainly does not broaden the scope of the definition.

As far as the memorandum from the Metal Merchants’ Association is concerned, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we will look at this memorandum. The hon. member is correct when he says that the memorandum does not really deal specifically with any matter covered by the present Bill, but we shall certainly have a look at it. I shall ask the Commissioner of Police to have a careful look at it, and if there is anything which should be brought within the purview of this particular Act, we shall do so when we meet again next year.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that there is a principle involved in clause 3 and I do not think we could propose an amendment which would cure the defect we have complained about. As I understand it…

Order! The hon. member must remember that the principle has been accepted.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I think it is the custom of the House to allow one speaker from each party to state his view on any particular clause, and I ask for that permission.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understood the explanation given by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Bloemfontein East, the introduction of this clause into the Act will, in fact, regularize an administrative procedure which has largely been followed in the past, a procedure in which the police, rather than a magistrate, have had the final say in the granting of certificates to dealers in second-hand goods. That does not, of course, mean that we as a party can approve of that system or feel that it is indeed desirable.

There are two points that arise out of the Second Reading debate—points relating to this clause—which I should briefly like to mention. It was argued that this is, in fact, a police matter and that, especially taking into account the type of business concerned, it is best handled by the police. If, however, one looks at the procedures relating to the granting of certificates and licences in a broad spectrum of business, one sees that that procedure is not adopted. In the case of liquor licensing, applications are made to a specially constituted Liquor Board, the head of which is usually a magistrate. Trade licences also all go through such a specially constituted board and, in fact, through magistrates. I remember years ago, when I was involved in licensing, as a chairman of the Johannesburg Licensing Board, that very many trade licences came before me. On many occasions I received reports from, and listened to the opinions of, the police concerning the characters of people applying for licences, and it was then the duty of that board to adjudicate on the policemen’s arguments but also, above all, to allow the affected person, the applicant for the certificate or licence, the right to put his side of the case to an independent person. In other words, to allow for the implementation of the audi alteram partem rule. If we accept a situation excluding the magistrate from the final judgment, we shall have a situation where that very important principle of law— even if only in a small matter such as this—is negated.

It was also argued that the PFP, by disagreeing with this clause, was in fact displaying an anti-South African Police attitude. The hon. the Minister himself mentioned this. He said it was a manifestation of our attitude to the S.A. Police. I wish to state with absolute sincerity, however, that that aspect was not, in any way, in evidence in any arguments or discussions in my party. What was involved was a question of principle. The argument being put forward by us in no way reflects upon the ability of the police to perform their functions. But what are their functions? Their functions are crime prevention, the keeping of the peace, the apprehension of criminals and the investigation and prosecution of crimes and criminals. The police, however, are not trained to be judges, magistrates or arbiters. I therefore believe that the police, no matter what their merits may be, cannot in fairness to themselves be investigators, prosecutors and final judges or arbiters in cases, particularly where vested interests are involved. We believe that this should be the function of an independent person, and despite the administrative convenience described by the hon. the Minister, we honestly feel that this is a function which should remain a quasi-judicial function performed by a magistrate. Accordingly we regret that we cannot support the passage of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the bona fides of the hon. member for Sandton when he says that he has nothing against the S.A. Police personally. In fact, I said that in the Second Reading debate already. I think the hon. member will remember that on that occasion I specifically mentioned two hon. members on his side of the House, and unfortunately I have to stand by what I said.

I was speaking for my party.

With his argument there is something the hon. member is overlooking. I concede that the S.A. Police report to many bodies that have to issue licences, etc., where a wider discretion is involved than that which the police have on an administrative level. In other words, where the police report is only one of the factors such a body has to assess before it issues something, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member that it is not the function of the S.A. Police to issue such a certificate. But when the issuing of a certificate is virtually part of the administrative part of the work of the S.A. Police, it should come within their jurisdiction. In that case it is only an extension of their own administrative actions. Let me give the hon. member another example, viz. the Arms and Ammunition Act. The discretion for issuing an arms licence is vested entirely in the police because the issuing of such a licence is in reality merely an extension of the administrative duty of the police to see that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. Exactly the same applies here. The dealer’s licence as such is issued by another body with another type of discretion, but the certification of the person and the premises is an administrative part of the actions of the police and therefore it is police business and not the province of a magistrate who actually has nothing to do with it. That is the difference.

Mr. Chairman, there are two difficulties involved. The first difficulty—I shall just explain it once more and then let the clause be put—is that when the hon. the Minister quotes as an example the issuing of licences for fire-arms, this does not involve a question of finance or vested interests. It merely involves the possession of one or two fire-arms for certain purposes. It does not, however, involve the livelihood of people. When we are dealing with the question of the issuing of a certificate to a person to operate as a second-hand goods dealer, before he gets to the point where he asks for this certificate, he must already have obtained a general dealer’s licence of one sort or another. Therefore he will already have been through the process of being adjudicated on by some quasi-judicial authority. Having reached that stage, we must realize that the police then have a duty, which is to investigate and report upon the good character, usually, of the person concerned, as to whether such person would be suitable to handle this type of business, taking into account the sort of business involved. The point I wish to make is that, as the person’s character, his vested interests and perhaps even his very livelihood are affected, is it not correct that the audi alteram partem rule should apply, that he should have a right to be heard by a body other than the body which investigated his case in the first instance? That is the point I am trying to make. I think it does differ from the examples given by the hon. the Minister. Therefore I am afraid I must say that we are unconvinced and remain opposed to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should point out to the hon. member, for the sake of completeness, that if he had argued that the licence should under no circumstances have been issued by the local authority without the necessary police report, in other words if the hon. member had argued that the permit which the police issue should actually be incorporated in the trade licence issued by the local authority, the hon. member would have had a good argument. The local authority issues a trade licence, for whatever reasons, but the police are only interested in certain aspects of the man’s character. The police want to know whether he has ever committed any crimes, whether he has a record; in other words, whether he has ever come to the attention of the police in connection with contraband. That is the only thing the police are interested in. The police are not interested in his general character. No discretion is exercised as to whether he is a good person. The discretion is with regard to previous offences which he may have committed. It must be determined whether he is a contrabandist or not, whether the police know him and whether his premises are of such a nature that the second-hand goods cannot be stolen. That is all. For that reason I say that this is really the province of the police.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything more to say except that, for reasons that have already been stated during Second Reading and during Committee, we remain in opposition to the passing of this Bill in the form in which it is.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate we queried the wisdom of proceeding with this clause, particularly in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister is taking additional powers as an extension of his existing power. We feel that this to a degree reflects on the competence and the autonomy of the board. I know that the hon. the Minister said during the Second Reading that he had the highest regard for the board. Indeed, he praised the work of the board of this corporation. Its reports have shown that it is indeed an efficient board. Therefore it is surprising that the hon. the Minister is proposing the amendment contained in clause 3, because the existing position, as far as we are aware, seems to meet any eventuality where the hon. the Minister may be required to give a decision. The question of submitting any matter to the hon. the Minister for decision rests with the board. It is entirely in the board’s discretion whether they should submit a matter to the hon. the Minister for his decision. That has been the existing position in terms of section 9(4) of the principal Act.

This provision seeks to extend the powers of the hon. the Minister. We find it rather strange that the Minister should ask for this additional power in view of the fact that in other legislation this power has not existed. Indeed, the position has remained unaltered since 1962, when the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book. The hon. the Minister indicated that he believed it was right that he should bring this legislation into line with a similar provision relating to the Bantu Investment Corporation. As we see the situation at the present time, there appears to be no satisfactory answer to our query as to why the hon. the Minister is seeking these additional powers. We would like to ask him in what way he has found the existing position, as set out in the principal Act, to be unsatisfactory. If one looks at the constitution of the board, there are 13 members including representatives of the industrial and commercial world. There is also a representative of the Secretary of the Department of Coloured Relations. It will appear that in regard to any particular matters which the hon. the Minister wishes to raise at board level, he does have access to the board by virtue of the fact that he appoints the board. The board is appointed by the Government and, in addition, the hon. the Minister does have a representative on that board. Taking all these matters into consideration, we believe the existing position is satisfactory, and therefore we consider that clause 3, as it stands, is unnecessary and that the existing position should prevail. Without a satisfactory explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why he seeks this extension of his powers, we believe the clause should not be passed by the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I put the same question to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate and his reply in this respect was a formal one. He said that he has to endure the barrage of criticism, that he has to accept the responsibilities, etc. I realize that the hon. the Minister finds himself in this position. The question at issue is why this specific provision is necessary at this juncture. In the Second Reading debate I asked whether the hon. the Minister could give a clear example from the past where such an incident or anomaly occurred and whether there might be something the hon. the Minister anticipates in future, which will affect the functions of the corporation so that these powers are necessary. We should like an explanation in this connection. I want to associate myself in this connection with the hon. member for Umbilo by saying that if one does not have a clear reason for that, it is very difficult simply to say that the hon. the Minister may arrogate these powers to himself.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the Second Reading debate yesterday I neglected to congratulate the hon. member for Umbilo on his promotion to chief spokesman of the NRP on Coloured affairs. I do so now. I am very happy that the hon. member for Umbilo has been promoted to that particular position, because I have known the hon. member for many years and I am aware of his very keen interest in matters relating to the Coloureds.

*The hon. member has repeated the question that he put yesterday; the hon. member for Rondebosch did the same. The hon. member for Rondebosch wants to know specifically whether an incident or something of that nature occurred. I want to assure the hon. member that there was no incident at all. Nor do I foresee any possibility in future which will make it necessary for me to take drastic action in this connection. I told the House yesterday that there is the very best relationship between the board and me. I also indicated yesterday that this Bill is an effort to bring the legislation with regard to the corporation into line with other legislation.

In this regard I used the example of the Economic Development Corporation for homelands. I could indicate that although a similar provision does not appear in the recent legislation with regard to the Indian Industrial Development Corporation, the same procedure is laid down there, procedure for which provision is made in the principal Act. In this connection I am thinking in particular of the promulgation by the Minister in the Gazette of regulations on certain matters. I can add to the list of things about which the corporation first has to consult me. I have already mentioned that this legislation is an attempt to bring the legislation on the CDC into line with the legislation on the Economic Development Corporation of the Bantu homelands. It is much easier and convenient to do away with a set of regulations to which one must, if necessary, effect ad hoc changes by way of proclamation in the Gazette. Apart from the proposed dispensation the board may consult me of its own accord, which is something they very frequently do. If I feel that I want to talk to them, this legislation will provide me with a wide scope and therefore I do not need to promulgate a regulation in the Gazette first. The provisions of the Bill are merely simplifying the situation. I want to assure both hon. members that we have no ulterior motives with this measure. They both know me well enough to know that I am not power drunk. I am not looking for unnecessary powers. These provisions merely facilitate the daily procedure.

Mr. Chairman, there is no question of our accusing the hon. the Minister of being power drunk. We are only trying to see the matter from the point of view of the people who serve on the board of the corporation. In the past they could use their discretion, but now they will have to fall in with the Minister’s conditions. The following subparagraph is being inserted in the principal Act by clause 3—

When people have been using a discretion for many years, it is not easy to accept that that discretion is suddenly being taken away from them. That might be regarded as proof of a certain degree of mistrust in them.

The hon. member for Worcester said a few days ago that there was anxiety. I do not believe it is a question of there having been anxiety. The fact of the matter is that there still is anxiety about the implementation of these provisions. The hon. the Minister quoted the Economic Development Corporation of the homelands, Act 46 of 1968, as an example. Surely there is a difference between the legislation relating to these two boards. The powers which are being given to the Minister in this Bill are in terms of Act 46 of 1968 conferred upon the trustee who is in fact the State President. In this regard the obvious difference is therefore that the powers are conferred upon the trustee and not upon the Minister, as in this case. A second difference is that the people who have been appointed to the Economic Development Corporation were appointed from the outset on certain conditions, whereas the people who serve on the CDC, did not start under those conditions.

There is also the industrial council for Indians. The hon. Minister said yesterday that that was an industrial council. However, I do not believe that this has anything to do with the price of eggs.

It has a very limited field of activity.

That is true, but we have here a case of a corporation that has been functioning for 16 years, and in those 16 years no problems have arisen.

There is another point I want to suggest for the hon. Minister’s consideration, i.e. that the hon. the Minister will as a matter of course have to delegate some of the powers which are being conferred upon him here. One could argue that this council could for example fall under the Department of Economic Affairs and that these professional people might need the help and guidance of people who are active in the financial and economic world. In this case it actually falls under a department which is only an ordinary Government department. For this reason I believe that the Minister could in any case have obtained all the information which he wanted in the past.

I am not looking for other information. *

I believe that the only reason the hon. the Minister has given us is that he somehow wants to bring about a kind of uniformity. He said that more and more Coloureds will be appointed as directors of this board. It is a somewhat unfortunate state of affairs, when one wants to appoint more and more Coloureds—and surely that is the goal we should aspire to—at this stage when the character of the board is to a certain extent being altered, to try to bring about uniformity on the analogy of—and as I have said, there is already a difference—Act No. 46 of 1968, the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Act. I can understand to a certain extent why the hon. the Minister decided that he might as well do it, because it has already been done in other areas to bring about uniformity. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that this is perhaps not the right time to propose something for the sake of uniformity which may be regarded by the directors as a kind of mistrust and which may be condoned in the wrong way if one should continue to appoint more and more Coloureds to the board.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to add very much to what the hon. member for Durban Central has said. I only want to say that though we have questioned this measure, it is not that we doubt the hon. the Minister’s good intentions. The fact is that this is legislation which will remain regardless of who the Minister is that administers it. In the second place it is not a question of there being sound liaison. We obviously assume that there is liaison. The hon. the Minister can contact the council as often as he likes, and vice versa. What is at issue here is a statutory provision which stipulates that in regard to any matter submitted to the Minister in terms of subsection (4), the Minister may, either in general or in particular, impose such conditions as he may think fit. Therefore it is a statutory power he is arrogating to himself here. The point at issue here is therefore not his intentions or the nature of the liaison between him and the board. It is the fact that he is obtaining a power here which he may exercise over that board. It is still not clear to me precisely for what purpose the hon. the Minister wants to use this.

Mr. Chairman, I am really surprised at hon. members advancing arguments of this nature at this stage. I am almost at a loss to say what the arguments of the hon. member for Durban Central remind me of. He is looking for things which do not exist and he is trying to arouse unfounded suspicions among people. I think I have convinced the Committee that I have no other intention but to bring this legislation into line with other similar legislation and to do away with the complicated procedures of regulations. These are regulations which have already been proclaimed in the Gazette and which provide for such matters as the acquisition of business undertakings by people who are not Coloureds, the investment of surplus funds through channels other than the Public Debt Commissioners, exceeding the limits of the borrowing powers of the corporation, the appointment of a managing director, etc., matters on which the board has to consult me. The present legislation makes provision for that. They can consult me of their own accord about anything, but on these matters they must come to me. However, should I find that they must come to me and that they do not do so of their own accord, I find myself in the position that I first have to promulgate a proclamation in the Gazette. Surely that is a cumbersome procedure and for that reason provision is being made for me to go to the board in the same way as they may come to me. Our relationship remains the same, viz. that we discuss problems with one another. However, I am the person who is finally accountable to this House, and I told hon. members so yesterday. For that reason I ought to have that right.

There is nothing sinister behind this. I take it amiss of the hon. member for Durban Central for even daring to make such suggestions.

I omitted to reply to one aspect, and that is the matter which the hon. member for Umbilo raised. He referred to the fact that a representative of my department is also serving on the board. That is true. But I think the hon. member does not understand it correctly. The function of the representative of my department on that board is not to represent the Minister there. The moment he is appointed director, he is there in his capacity as a director of the corporation. He does not go there to represent the Minister. I hope the hon. member will understand that. It is a business undertaking, and therefore he does not go there to represent me.

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

Clause 4:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, clause 12(3) provides that—

The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that the South African Nursing Council will be totally dependent on its own members for its income, in other words, its entire income is derived from its own members. Furthermore it is responsible for the utilization of its own funds. There is no Government subsidy. The Government does not vote money for the council. My motive in moving this amendment is that as the council is completely responsible for its own income and the utilization of its funds, it is unnecessary interference in the carrying out of its duties and its functions to make the appointment or dismissal of its registrar subject to the approval of the Minister. Surely we are dealing here with a body which is a responsible body, a body with long experience, a body which has carried out all its duties with meticulous care and responsibility in the past. It seems therefore that this provision will result in the impression being created that this body is not capable of acting in a responsible manner with regard to the appointment or dismissal of its registrar and that the Minister is being given an unnecessary right to interfere. I want to point out yet again that this plea also comes from the nursing profession itself. I have consulted with various leading personalities in the profession and have discussed these matters with them. They are all of the opinion that it is unnecessary to include this provision in the legislation. Therefore I once again want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister, and I hope that he is in a friendlier mood today than he was yesterday afternoon. I want to ask him to comply with the request of the nursing profession and to omit that provision by accepting the amendment I now move—

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches are somewhat at a loss to understand the amendments moved by the PFP because this is a fairly standard clause. If one looks through legislation of a similar nature this clause appears, almost word for word, in legislation such as the Pharmacy Act, 1974, and the Medical, Dental and Supplementary Health Services (Professional) Act, 1974. If one goes through the volumes of Hansard on those debates one finds that those clauses were accepted fully in terms of those Bills by the then Progressive Party.

We do not have any quarrel with the clause as it stands. The same measure is incorporated in existing statutes relating to the bodies concerned and we are not in a position to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston.

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that I was not unfriendly yesterday. I certainly disagreed with the hon. member as far as his amendments were concerned. However, a very good mood prevailed in the House. I do not want to be unfriendly this afternoon either.

Then accept my amendment!

However, that does not mean that I have to agree with the hon. member. The hon. member has already stated repeatedly that he has consulted the nursing profession and that he therefore, by implication, speaks for the profession. I have of course no objection to his consulting the profession; on the contrary, he has every right to do so. He should, however, realize that my department never ignores the profession, but that we do thrash matters out thoroughly in consultation with the profession. I am therefore amazed when spokesmen of the profession display this exceptional ignorance of the Acts—Acts which are similar to the legislation under discussion—and say that they agree whole-heartedly with the arguments the hon. member raised here and that they therefore want his proposed amendment in the legislation.

†Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Berea did his homework. I should like to continue by saying what I think he would have said if he had had to argue this matter.

*We have to remember that this council is a statutory council. It is a council which has been appointed by the Government according to law, and it has delegated powers. The Government gives this statutory council the powers by law to collect funds from its registered members. In other words, they obtain their finances in terms of a law and under the protection of the Government. When they do not receive those finances, such a member may be deprived of his daily bread. In the case of such a statutory council, where the Government takes all these responsibilities upon itself in an indirect way, we cannot leave the appointment of the principal official to a free decision or possible capriciousness. Proceeding that standpoint such a provision has been included in all the other Acts, for example the Medical Practitioners Act and the Pharmacy Act. Therefore the hon. member will realize full well that I cannot make an exception in this case by leaving the appointment of the main executive official to the mercy of a statutory council which acts through delegated powers. I hope he will understand that I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am not at any time at a loss to understand why the NRP are at a loss to understand. That is a problem that they have, and I do not think I can help them with it. [Interjections.] The NRP spokesman said that the reason why they support the inclusion of this particular provision is that it is standard practice in a number of other pieces of legislation to have that particular provision. I would like to say to that hon. member that an innumerable number of injustices are standard practice in terms of an innumerable number of laws which are on the Statute Book of South Africa. It does not mean that because the same mistake has been made on a number of previous occasions, we should continue with that mistake. I think it is about time that the NRP showed a little flexibility and a little more ability to understand that we have here an opportunity to improve a new law on the experience of mistakes that were made in the past. The Minister falls into exactly the same trap. He says that the reason why this provision is in this Bill and why it cannot be excluded from this Bill, is because it makes its appearance in other laws.

*Does the Minister want to suggest that because similar provisions exist in other earlier pieces of legislation, they should appear in this legislation as well? In other words, if errors were made in the past in respect of certain provisions, should we continue to include those errors in new laws? Sir, I say it is unnecessary to embody a provision of that nature in this legislation. The Minister conceded that here we were dealing with a responsible body, one which obtained its revenue from its own ranks and which utilized its own funds. It is a body which has acted responsibly in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it will not act completely responsibly in performing its duties in future as well. But by embodying this provision in this Bill, the impression is being created that that council cannot be relied upon to act responsibly. It also creates the impression that the Minister may exercise the ultimate power as regards the appointment or dismissal of the registrar and that he may therefore exercise total, ultimate power over the proceedings and functions of that council. That is the impression which is being created. In saying this, I am speaking on behalf of the profession itself that is making these representations through me to the Minister. I think the Minister is aware of this, and all I can say is that this is an argument which he may safely reconsider favourably.

Mr. Chairman, I get the feeling that the hon. member for Bryanston sees a “Gauleiter” jumping out from behind every bush.

He sees another one!

Subsection (2) of clause 12 clearly states—

So it follows that clause 12(3) whereby—

… can be applied upon the recommendation of the council. There is no question whatsoever of this being something which has been overlooked in previous Bills. This has been perfectly good legislation until now, but suddenly we find a bit of “nit-picking” and politicking on the part of the so-called effective Official Opposition. We find them suddenly making a big “hoo-ha” about it. We are quite happy with this clause as it stands.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

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

The amendment provides that clause 18(1)(d) be omitted. The provision reads that the council may remove from the register or roll the name of any person who has failed to pay any annual fee. In terms of clause 18(2) a registrar has to notify a person in writing of his removal, and in terms of clause 18(3) that removal only comes into effect three months after such notification. Annual fees are actually a renewal of the registration of a nurse and if such a person has not paid the registration fees, his membership expires in any case. We therefore have the anomaly that the removal may come into effect on the date of notification, but in the case of failure to pay, the removal may actually come into effect at any time, from one month to three months after the due date, in other words after the last date on which the fees were payable. Simply to rectify that anomaly I am asking for clause 18(1)(d) to be omitted. We can of course do this by way of regulation in terms of clause 45(1)(s). Provision is being made there for regulations according to which the payment of annual fees may be arranged.

It does not have to embarrass the people in the profession. There is hardly any chance of that happening, because people are notified long before the time by registered post. Notification also appears in their publications, employers are reminded, etc., and therefore I do not think that there is any lack of measures to ensure the fair treatment of the people concerned in this case. For that reason I have moved my amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

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

What this actually amounts to is a slight simplification. The practice is that a certificate is issued annually to the registered person. He receives a receipt, and that is his proof. If my amendment is accepted, all the words referred to could be omitted and merely be substituted by the words “annual fees”. The person may then use his receipt as proof. That is in fact what happens in practice. My motion entails that the existing practice is simply being recognized in the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36:

Mr. Chairman, I have a small query in respect of clause 36(1)(d), which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. The provision reads as follows—

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could indicate whether substances other than scheduled substances, but which may have addictive properties, are excluded. Is the reference there specifically to scheduled substances or might the provision include any other substances that are possibly of an addictive nature?

Mr. Chairman, the provision may in future perhaps include substances such as the hon. member has in mind. However, as far as I know, we have included in schedules 1 to 9 all the substances that are either potentially harmful, harmful or habit-forming. We would not want to exclude any substance that may be potentially harmful. As I say, as far as we are concerned, we have included all such substances in the schedules. However, one can never say what the case may be in the future. Substances may be added to the schedule which represents the legal roll of different substances relating to the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 38:

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say a few words with regard to the South African Nursing Association. The legislation under discussion arises to a large extent from the work done by the South African Nursing Association and the leading people in that organization. Consequently the Bill makes specific provision for membership of the South African Nursing Association in clause 38. I understand that the association made representations to the Minister to incorporate the objectives of the association in summarized form in the legislation. Unfortunately this has not been done. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see whether it will not be possible in future to state the objectives of the association clearly and pertinently in some form or other in the legislation itself or in a regulation made in terms of the legislation.

The record of service to the public by this association is impressive indeed. In my Second Reading speech I pointed out that South Africa already had more than 50 000 registered nurses. This is undoubtedly an enviable privilege for and asset to any country. The orderly fashion in which the nurses arrange their affairs is mainly attributable to the sense of duty and enthusiasm of the South African Nursing Association and to the conscientiousness with which they perform their task. This association renders a whole series of important services to its members. For example, the association has introduced an insurance scheme for its members.

Order! I share the hon. member’s point of view, but I think that he should not deal with this matter too exhaustively.

No, Sir, I shall not do so. The association also introduced a life insurance scheme for its members. Moreover, they produce their own publications and these are made available to certain libraries. These also contain reading matter for the children of its members. Last, but not the least, they also have a home for the aged as well as a pension scheme.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the matter of making known and publicizing this legislation, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give full recognition to the contribution made by the S.A. Nursing Association in having this legislation drafted and in having it placed on the South African Statute Book.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot, of course, disagree with the hon. member as regards the fine words he addressed to the S.A. Nursing Association. It is true that that association did make certain representations to supplement what already appeared in the legislation. Those were not matters we rejected out of hand. As a matter of fact, they are matters which we are still considering and which may be added in future. Hon. members will remember that their whole story was, so to speak, included in the earlier legislation. I paid tribute to the S.A. Nursing Association at the Second Reading, perhaps more by implication than explicitly. As regards the matter of publicizing the legislation, I think that I can leave it to the department to involve all parties in this matter. These parties include those local authorities who employ such people, midwives, the Nursing Council itself, the S.A. Nursing Association and many others. Hon. members may rest assured, however, that we shall give recognition to the role of the Nursing Association.

So much as far as this matter is concerned. In this regard we are not dealing with an amendment, but with an aspect raised by the hon. member.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40:

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

Clause 40(2)(b) provides—

The intention is fairly clear, and we can agree that the inclusion of this clause is necessary and desirable. However, we in these benches feel that the wording “any action” is perhaps a little wide and the scope a little too great. We felt that the wording should be slightly changed by the inclusion of the words “wilful” so as to make it perfectly clear that only actions of a deliberate or concerted nature leading to disruption or likely to lead to disruption should be actionable.

Mr. Chairman, I have some trouble with this amendment. The action referred to in this clause means, to my knowledge and as far as I have been advised, intentional actions and, in any case, a wilful action. Because this kind of action—and in this instance action should be combined or be coupled with the idea of disruption—can have very serious consequences, as it can lead to the disruption of essential and strategic public services. I am quite satisfied that the court, in this case, will decide on the intentional aspect of the matter and I really do not think that I should include another word to stipulate anything further, because this word is actually regarded as being superfluous by my legal advisers. In such cases one must be prepared to be led by the people who know how the legal wording of phrases like this should be formulated. That is why I do not think it is necessary at all; it is superfluous. I know what was at the back of the mind of the hon. member for Berea, but I cannot accept his amendment.

Amendment negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the Cape Province it is provided in terms of section 3 of the Municipalities Ordinance, No. 20 of 1974, which ordinance is a consolidation of former similar ordinances, that the body corporate of a municipality is comprised of the “inhabitants” of such municipal area and the council acts by implication as a trustee or agent of the inhabitants.

What this provision amounts to is that in order to determine the group character of a municipality in the Cape Province for the purposes of the Group Areas Act No. 36 of 1966, it would virtually be necessary to carry out a survey of the inhabitants in order to determine which group of inhabitants was in the majority. It is impossible to carry out such a census in practice, taking into account, too, the fact that the inhabitants of such an area vary from day to day.

In order to eliminate this problem, specific provision has already been made in the definitions of “disqualified person” and “statutory body” in section 1 of the Group Areas Act to the effect that as regards a municipality in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope, the group character thereof is determined by the majority of the members of the council.

As regards divisional councils in the Cape Province, it was laid down in section 5 of the Divisional Council Ordinance, No. 52 of 1952, that the body corporate of that division was represented by the council thereof. When this ordinance was revised and consolidated in 1976, the drafter of the consolidated ordinance deemed it desirable, for the sake of uniformity, to bring divisional councils into line with municipalities in the Cape. In other words, in terms of section 3 of ordinance 18 of 1976, it is provided that the body corporate of a division, too, is now comprised of its inhabitants, and the same difficulty with regard to the determining of the group character of a divisional council, as has previously been the case in respect of municipalities, arose.

As a result, the Registrar of Deeds experienced difficulties in determining precisely when a transaction between a divisional council and a specific national group was legal, and when not. The Government law advisers are in agreement that in order to eliminate this anomaly, it is necessary to amend the Group Areas Act by inserting the words “or division” into the definitions of “disqualified person” and “statutory body” in section 1 of the Group Areas Act. In this way the group character of a divisional council will be determined by the majority of the members of the council, as has already been provided in respect of municipalities.

The envisaged amendment is only aimed at facilitating the administration of affairs in the interests of all, without affecting any existing rights. I hope that the hon. members will accept it in that spirit.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave the House the assurance that the amendment Bill is not aimed at infringing anyone’s rights, but is merely aimed at effecting a technical correction of the existing legislation. However, it is very difficult to accept that assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister without further ado. The reason is that the Group Areas Act is one of the Acts on the South African Statute Book which causes more problems in South Africa than any other. It is an Act which discriminates grossly on the basis of colour among the various population groups in South Africa. It is, too, an Act which discriminates very grossly against the individual.

You want to repeal it.

The hon. member is aware of our standpoint concerning the Group Areas Act. We are totally opposed to the provisions of the Act because it discriminates against South African citizens on the basis of colour. [Interjections.] It is this legislation that destroys family life, shatters the aspirations of the individual, causes racial friction and is used summarily to deprive people of their rights.

Order! I do not wish to limit the hon. member too much, but he may not discuss the Group Areas Act and its advantages and disadvantages now. The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill. I shall allow a slightly wider discussion, but certainly not too wide.

Mr. Speaker, may I just point out that in terms of the technical amendment being effected by means of this Bill, the provisions of the Group Areas Act are now going to be applied to communities which were not formerly subject to those provisions.

You are speaking nonsense!

This is very clearly the case. If it were not so, what, then, is the motivation for the introduction of this amendment Bill?

It is discrimination.

If all the communities in South Africa were already subject to the provisions of the Act, why should an amendment now be submitted in terms of which divisional councils will now also fall under the Act? No, Mr. Speaker, there is another reason for it. We suspect that that reason is that there was a loophole in the existing legislation and that the departmental law advisers advised the hon. the Minister that under the existing legislation action could not be taken against certain communities which at present reside in divisional council areas. If it is the aim of the Government to take action in the near future against communities at present residing in divisional council areas, it is necessary for an amendment to the existing legislation to be effected. Because we believe that the provisions of the Bill will be used against communities which are not at present subject to the provisions of the Group Areas Act, we want to express our strongest opposition to the measure. We know what the effect is of the application of the Group Areas Act to certain communities in South Africa. We know about the thousands upon thousands of people who have been deprived of their rights and who have been summarily moved out of the areas in which they had been living for hundreds of years.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member for Bryanston not discussing the principle of the existing Act?

I am not discussing the principle of the existing Act. I am objecting to the fact that this legislation is now being extended to apply to these communities as well, whereas previously it did not apply to them. [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to permit a discussion of the principle of the Group Areas Act. At most, hon. members can discuss the circumstances which gave rise to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. He can reply to it later. He states that it is virtually impossible to determine the group character of a certain area on the present basis because the Minister will have to hold a census in a divisional council area in order to determine the so-called group character of that area. For that reason the procedure is now being amended. The group character will now be determined by the composition of the members of the divisional council controlling that area. I want to ask the hon. the Minister how many areas there are in South Africa which, according to a census, would be a Black or Coloured residential area, for example, but would be a White area on the basis of the members of the divisional council? Is it not true that by means of the implementation of this Bill many areas in South Africa can now be declared White by analysing the composition of the divisional council whereas the majority of people living in that area are in fact non-Whites? Is it justified, then, to introduce an amendment Bill which will deprive the majority of the people in that area of their rights in this way? I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to this question.

I want to put another question to him. The hon. Minister who sits just in front of the hon. the Minister would do well to advise him at this point. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Community Development does not perhaps have a great deal to do with the fact that this Bill appears on the Order Paper today. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Community Development does not need it to enable him to continue with his work.

You wonder wrong.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Community Development does not need this legislation to enable him to send his bulldozers into areas which have to date been exempt from bulldozing. It is an interesting question. Is it not true that those squatter camps, with thousands upon thousands of houses belonging to innocent, defenceless people are in divisional areas?

Show me one example.

The hon. the Minister can reply to my questions in a moment. Does Crossroads not fall within a divisional council area?

Are there no squatter camps in divisional council areas?

Order! Squatter camps and the Group Areas Act as such have nothing to do with each other.

Is it not true that in order to enable him to send in his bulldozers to flatten the squatter camps in divisional council areas, the Minister perhaps needs this provision in this particular Bill? This is a question we are putting to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister can say: “Yes” or “No”. If the hon. the Minister states that this is not so, we shall accept that until the first bulldozer makes its appearance, but if the hon. the Minister says that it is in fact necessary …

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

No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister can make his own speech in a moment. I have a suspicion and my suspicion is based on the record of the Government. In virtually all the legislation which has come before this House in the past, the hon. Ministers who have introduced the legislation have given pious assurances that the legislation would not be used to deprive people of their rights. Nevertheless we quickly found that that legislation was in fact used specifically to deprive people of their rights. This also applies to the so-called cleaning-up of squatter camps. We have quite a strong suspicion that this amendment is not an innocent one, that it is not merely a technical correction, but that somewhere in the existing legislation there is a loophole and the Government now finds it necessary to remove that loophole, because the Government would very much like to act against communities in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act, communities which to date have escaped the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department. For that reason we are wholly opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech by the hon. member for Bryanston. He made it clear that that side of the House does not support the measure, and it is obvious that this is for one of two reasons: Either the hon. member does not understand the purpose of the measure before the House, or the hon. member is using this measure, an exclusively technical one, to preach blatant integration politics.

Both!

I have a strong suspicion that I know what the speech by the hon. member for Bryanston is aimed at doing. We can speculate about his motives, but this side of the House takes the strongest exception to the way in which the hon. member for Bryanston is debating the measure in this House. In a subtle way feelings are being incited among the colour groups. In a subtle way an effort is being made to drive a wedge between the intentions of this side of the House and the administration of the Group Areas Act. The picture sketched by the hon. member for Bryanston is lamentably one-sided. He maintains that this legislation will give rise to more difficulties than it will solve. He states that it is a Bill which discriminates grossly. According to him it is a Bill which discriminates on a basis of colour, and family life will be destroyed by it. As I have said, this is a one-sided picture. Why did the hon. member not say that it contains no provisions that cannot be revised by way of permit? Why did he not say that in terms of the Group Areas Act, the population groups are guaranteed the right to own property? Why did he not state that in this House? Why did the hon. member not say that in terms of the Group Areas Act, sound communities have been developed …

How many people have been moved in terms of that Act?

As far as the hon. member is concerned I can …

How many people have been moved?

I am fully aware of the number of people who have been moved. I want to try and indicate that the picture which the hon. member for Bryanston gave the House is a one-sided one and that he should also have said that for every one case of inconvenience due to the moving of people of colour, there are hundreds of cases in which a better community life has been established for them. This side of the House looks with total disfavour on the allegations, the tone and the intonation of the hon. member.

I should just like to reply to the accusation which the hon. member levelled at the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I am under the impression that when he discusses the Group Areas Act, the hon. member ought to at least to be knowledgeable about that Act. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has to do with the Group Areas Act when it affects a proclaimed area. However, when a controlled area is involved, it is a matter for the hon. the Minister of Planning. The hon. member’s whole tirade, which was directed at the hon. the Minister of Community Development, misses the mark completely. The issue here is a controlled area, and a controlled area falls within the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister of Planning.

To come back to the Bill, I want to make the following statements. In terms of section 84(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa—Act No. 32 of 1961—the provinces are authorized to promulgate ordinances and, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated in his Second Reading speech, two ordinances were promulgated, viz. the Municipal Ordinance and the Divisional Councils Ordinance. The problem which makes this amendment necessary, can be sketched as follows. Whereas in the case of municipalities, the body corporate is comprised by the council as such, the body corporate of the divisional council is comprised by the inhabitants of the area of jurisdiction of the divisional council in question.

This state of affairs has certain practical implications. On the one hand, there is a direct contradiction between two ordinances which regulate precisely the same matters. On the other hand, as far as group areas are concerned, this gives rise to confusion in determining who is a qualified person and who is not as regards the transfer of title and the occupation of a property belonging to the divisional council is concerned. The amendment envisaged by the Bill under discussion is merely designed to define clearly the group character of a controlled area, in so far as it affects the divisional council, with regard to determining who is a qualified person and who is not, when title or occupation of a property has to be transferred from the divisional council to a specific population group. That is all that the Bill is about.

It is pointless, therefore, to grasp at it as at a straw, and to make a big fuss about it with much noise and bravado. In conclusion I just want to state that I should like to support his Bill because it furthers race harmony, relations between people and healthy community development.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bellville has raised a number of questions to which I hope to react in the course of my speech. First of all I want to start where the hon. the Minister has ended. He said that the introduction of the Bill is necessary in order to facilitate administrative matters. As far as we in these benches are concerned we look upon this measure as something which may facilitate administrative measures, but the hon. the Minister has included in the Bill certain other principles to which we feel we must raise our objection.

The definition of a disqualified person in relation to immovable property, land or premise in a controlled area is being amended in terms of the Bill in order to bring divisional councils directly in line with municipalities. The idea is to have the same test which is being applied in the case of municipal councils applicable to divisional councils. The hon. member for Bellville referred to the transfer of duties, but the Bill does not merely concern a transfer of duties; the Bill also embraces matters such as occupation, hiring and leasing of immovable property. What it actually boils down to, is the widening of the area in which a disqualified person can be affected.

When one thinks in terms of a disqualified person, the Group Areas Act immediately comes to mind and one has to consider things such as permits and insecurity of tenure. In order to appreciate the NRP’s views in this connection, it will first of all be absolutely necessary to look at the situation in which municipal councils find themselves at present. It has already been pointed out that in terms of Ordinance No. 20 of 1974 the inhabitants of each municipal area shall under the name assigned to it be the body corporate. In the second place it should be borne in mind that since the definition of a disqualified person is operative in so far as municipalities are concerned, the group identity of a municipality is determined by the identity of the majority of the members of the council. What effect does this have in practice? In practice it means that councils throughout the Cape Province are deemed to be White. The Blacks and the Coloured are therefore the people who now automatically become disqualified persons. This is the issue which concerns us. Who are the people to fáce the reality that they automatically become disqualified? The hon. the Minister mentioned that the group identity in a municipal council is determined by the identity of the majority of the council’s members. It is this very fact which gives rise to other issues. One such issue, for example, is that if a disqualified person is allowed to use immovable property in a municipal area, there must of necessity be a system of permits.

Let us look at the situation in which divisional councils find themselves. At present we find that the body corporate of a divisional council is a mixed body; in other words, it is racially neutral. It can therefore be White, Coloured or Black. This being the case, there is no single group which automatically becomes disqualified. In a controlled area there is preferential occupation and the preference is closely related to the question of whether the occupant is a disqualified person. In this connection it is of utmost importance to bear in mind that where the owner of the property concerned is a racially neutral person, there can be no automatic disqualification and therefore anybody can occupy the property quite legally. I may point out that this position also applies in the case of the Group Areas Development Board. This also applies, at the present time, to property owned by a divisional council. This is the issue to which we must reconcile ourselves. This is the present state of affairs. As a result of the fact that group identity is not being determined by the membership of the board, as one moves beyond municipal jurisdiction, throughout the Cape Province, one moves into the jurisdiction of divisional councils. Any person, no matter what race group he belongs to, can hold his head high and say he is not an automatically disqualified person. If this amendment Bill is accepted, however, ownership will be determined by divisional councils in the same manner as it is determined by municipalities. Let us now look at the position of divisional councils.

The legislation states that divisional councils throughout consist of White members. This is the situation throughout the province. The majority of members are White, and therefore divisional councils cease to be racially neutral bodies.

That is not so.

That hon. member says: “That is not so.” Well, let him or one of his colleagues stand up and prove me wrong. Because divisional councils cease to be racially neutral bodies, ownership of all property in the controlled areas under their jurisdiction will therefore be deemed to be White. The practical effect of this will therefore be to extend the areas of disqualification in which it will be necessary, because they are controlled areas, to obtain permits from the department. Hence our opposition. It is opposition in principle as far as this is concerned.

The hon. the Minister may claim that we already have a system of permits and are, in any event, dealing with the situation on a permit basis. He claimed difficulties on account of the fact that the inhabitants formed the body corporate and on account of the fact that counts had to be taken, etc., but the issue was never that a particular group was regarded or classified as automatically disqualified. In terms of the amendment Bill—and we must realize this when we come to rectify some of the technical aspects—all Coloureds and Blacks within the jurisdiction of the divisional councils are automatically disqualified and they all will require permits. This is the principle we are concerned about. One can really shorten the long title of the Bill by simply asking one question, and that is: Who shall be disqualified persons in relation to immovable property? In solving our technical problem, the answer is clearly that all Coloureds and Blacks are automatically dis-qualified. There is another important factor we must consider. In the past the race classification of the members serving on the divisional council was not taken into consideration in determining who was to be disqualified in respect of immovable property owned by the divisional council. I should now like to state quite clearly where we in the NRP stand on this particular issue, especially since we are opposing this measure. By stating that attitude, hon. members will be able to appreciate our opposition to this. To us statutory race classification is something that should, in fact, be abolished.

What will be required, I believe, is a system of statutory registration of all South African citizens.

Order! That does not constitute the subject matter of this Bill at all.

Mr. Speaker, let me then return to the question of the membership of divisional councils. When it comes to the membership of divisional councils, the race classification of such councils is taken into consideration. We feel that, by bringing in the whole question of race to that extent, by bringing that question into the divisional councils, this will open up all the issues associated with the Group Areas Act. The definition of disqualified people as is proposed here is therefore an extension of the application of the Group Areas Act and therefore we want no part of it.

Mr. Speaker …

Order! I have now given all three parties the opportunity to conduct a wide discussion, but now I am going to limit the discussion to the Bill. The hon. member may proceed.

It is clear that both the Official Opposition and the NRP want to read far more into this measure than is justified. If ever there was an innocent measure before the House, then it is this Bill. I want to refer in particular to the problem the hon. member for Bryanston has with it. He expressed the fear that communities—that is the term he used—which were not previously covered by the Act, would be involved in this. The hon. members opposite say they are suspicious about the hidden motives behind this Bill. However, I am sure that we have reason to call their motives for opposing so innocent a measure into question. Not only is it innocent, it is of so technical a nature that I should think that some of the law advisers advising the department could perhaps have wondered whether it was at all necessary to effect this minor technical alteration. As usual, lawyers often do things ex abundante cautelia, viz. out of exaggerated caution and in order to be prepared for any possible contingency which could arise.

It takes patience to explain something to people who patently do not need an explanation. I suspect that the hon. members for Bryanston and Durban Central understand the Bill far better than they make out. They do not want to understand it. They want to read more into it than is intended. If, then, we must explain it, let me point out to them that in the present definition of “disqualified person”, reference is also made to statutory bodies, apart from other categories. It was also necessary to divide statutory bodies into two categories. They could not be regarded as being in one category because one had the unusual phenomenon that in contrast to other statutory bodies in South Africa, the municipalities in the Cape implemented a certain provision as regards the body corporate of these bodies. It was only in the Cape municipalities that in accordance with the old ordinance, the body corporate was not comprised of the council but of the inhabitants of the municipal areas in question. In fact it was unique of its kind as far as local authority legislation was concerned. That was the position as laid down in section 6 of the old Municipalities Ordinance, No. 19 of 1951. When the ordinance was consolidated in terms of ordinance 20 of 1974, that provision was repeated in section 3 of that ordinance. As a result, after 1974 one still had the position that the body corporate of municipalities in the Cape was comprised of the inhabitants, and not the council. Up to that stage they were still the only local authorities with this arrangement. However, the divisional councils in the Cape were differently organized. In terms of section 5 of the old Divisional Councils Ordinance, No. 15 of 1952, the body corporate of divisional councils was comprised of the council and not the inhabitants as in the case of municipalities. Whereas the position was stabilized as regards the body corporate of these bodies through the consolidation of the Municipalities Ordinance in 1974, a change was effected in 1976 as far as divisional councils were concerned, when the Divisional Councils Ordinance was consolidated.

At that time uniformity was effected as far as the local authorities of the Cape were concerned. Under section 3 of the new Divisional Councils Ordinance, No. 18 of 1976, a drastic change was effected when provision was made that the body corporate of these bodies would in future also comprise the inhabitants of the area and not the council. This is the only reason why it is deemed necessary—I do not say that it is necessary—to change this provision. It is only being done so as to bring it into line with the amendment effected to the divisional councils ordinance of the Cape. Now it is necessary to include divisional councils as well in the second category of statutory bodies for which this definition provides. As I have said, at first it was only municipalities that fell into that category, and consequently one had the odd phenomenon that a separate category had to be provided in the definition for municipalities. Because there had been a change in the meantime in regard to divisional councils, it is deemed necessary to include divisional councils in this specified category of statutory bodies which, previously, had only included municipalities.

That is how simple and innocent this measure is. One wonders if the hon. members opposite who object to it are really so dense that they are unable to perceive or understand this and that they do not want to accept the word of the hon. the Deputy Minister. One wonders, too, whether there is not perhaps something else behind it and whether they want to make use of this innocent peg on which to hang their usual old questionable hat of suspicion and, by so doing, to sow suspicion. Possibly they are also doing this with a view to sowing venom in the minds of people affected by group areas in order to frustrate what the Government wants to do.

I support the measure because it is completely innocent and justified and because nothing wrong whatsoever can be found in it by anyone unless his motives are questionable or nefarious.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to put it very clearly that my party supports the legislation. We see no need for the sowing of suspicion which is taking place in the House. We in the Cape have two forms of local government, viz. the municipalities and the divisional councils, and there is no reason why there should be a difference between these two as far as this matter is concerned. It would perhaps be as well if the hon. the Minister could explain briefly to those who are objecting to the legislation, what the difference really entails. In other words, he must explain what a divisional council will be able to do after this legislation has been passed which it is unable to do now. As I see it, the only difference is that at this stage unnecessary delays occur. In my opinion it is correct to maintain that the divisional council has to apply for permits when it wants to sell to certain groups. The divisional council will in any event receive the permits if it applies for them. I am not quite sure of the facts, but the hon. the Deputy Minister may as well explain whether that is so or not. However, we are convinced that the legislation provides that the machine will run more smoothly and that nothing under the sun can be done which cannot be done already. Consequently we give the legislation our full support.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to say that over the past few days and especially this afternoon when I saw the reaction to the legislation here, I was reminded of a dear old soul in the Western Transvaal. I did not send the legislation to members of the SAP. That happened as a result of the time factor. I want to place on record, however, that this legislation was fully discussed with the two other Opposition parties by officials of my department. Because the legislation contains nothing suspicious or nasty it appeared at first as though it would have been possible to take all three stages on the same day. But I can understand certain people being suspicious. This reminds me once again of old Mr. Oosthuizen of the Western Transvaal. He simply could not get on with his neighbour. He always suspected him of something bad. One day his wife forced him to go to his neighbour to borrow a plough as his was broken and he had to plough. At his wife’s insistence he set off by horse-cart to go and borrow his neighbour’s plough. On his way there he decided in advance that old Jan would have thought of some trifling excuse for not lending him his plough. When old Mr. Oosthuizen stopped at old Jan’s farm—this is a true story—Jan came to meet him and said, “Goodday, neighbour, do you want to unharness your horse?” Mr. Oosthuizen replied, “Keep your damned plough to yourself.” Then he turned back and drove off.

He must have been a Nationalist.

Yes, I suppose he was a Nationalist. But one can still understand a Nationalist like that. He at least acted consistently. I cannot, however, make head or tail of the confusion on the opposite side of this House. No one can understand that.

We are dealing here with a simple piece of legislation which has already been explained to members on the opposite side of the House. Their first reaction to the legislation in this House was as though they were being shown a red cloth. They saw squatters’ camps, monsters and spectres in the legislation. I do not know how the hon. member for Bryanston can sleep peacefully, because he probably sees monsters behind every bush and tree. I simply cannot understand the Minister of Community Development, with whom I have not exchanged a single word on this legislation and who has nothing to do with it, being dragged into this. I do not want to quarrel with the hon. Opposition. For the sake of the country which is experiencing very difficult times and since we have to maintain racial harmony between people and communities, I want to do my share in trying to bring about racial harmony. However, hon. members on that side of the House make it difficult for me to try to act respectably and to try to realise that other people, too, are honest and sincere in their points of view. I do not want to doubt other people’s honesty. I must object, however, if people, not only by their thoughts, but also by utterances here in this House, start doubting my integrity and the integrity of the Minister of Community Development. I also take grave exception when members on that side of the House laugh, when they should be acting responsibly, at the honest intentions of people. It goes beyond a joke to read into small measures proposed in this House—after all, they were fully discussed in advance and my door is open for everyone to come and discuss them fully with me—all kinds of things such as, inter alia, the demolition of squatters’ camps. The hon. the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NRP made appeals here, in this House to the effect that we should not make statements or act in such a way as to disturb relations. I want to use the friendliest word possible for that. I do not know of anything more irresponsible than clutching at any straw to do this type of thing. I do not mind if there is criticism of the legislation or even of the person who introduces it, but I do object on behalf of the Coloureds, Indians and other population groups to the stirring up of the type of hatred amongst Whites, Indians, Coloureds and Blacks that was stirred up by the speech of the hon. member for Bryanston.

He hates South Africa.

Now I want to return to the merits of this legislation. The hon. member for Durban Central raised a few points of objection to which I want to reply first. I want to say that even though I differ from him altogether, he at least expressed his objection in a responsible way. One may differ about this type of legislation, and the hon. member is welcome to ask questions. Had he put the questions to me in private, I would also have answered them.

The hon. member dealt, inter alia, with the long title of the Bill and said that it might be misleading. As in many other things, there is a grain of truth in his argument that the long title might be interpreted incorrectly. However, if one reads past those things, one does arrive at the essence of the legislation, as it was spelt out by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

A legal firm requested us to help them eliminate certain obscurities encountered by them in the transfer of properties. It is no secret; the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central pointed this out as well. I should like to read out to this House the letter written by a Cape legal firm. It is dated 21st February 1977 and is addressed to “The Regional Representative of the Department of Planning, Grand Parade Centre, Darling Street, Cape Town” and reads as follows—

[Interjections.] May I, Sir, request the two hon. gentlemen on the opposite side who oppose this Bill and who will have to decide shortly with their votes as responsible people whether they want to vote for or against the legislation, to listen to this? The letter continues—

It is not a problem which arose because of the Act, but one which arose because of the new ordinance of the Cape Provincial Administration. The legal firm requested our assistance to resolve these problems. We obtained legal advice from the State law advisors, people who are not associated with political parties, but who objectively try to rectify legislation which has gone wrong because of amendments to ordinances, etc. The simple problem that had arisen, was that in section 3(4) of the Ordinance of 1976 the following was stated—

Section 3 of the ordinance then reads—

The section goes on to provide that the people who have to implement this is the council elected for the purpose. I want to say with the greatest respect to the people who are looking for something strange in this, that nothing new is being introduced. If hon. members do not want to take my word for this, I shall read once again from the letter of the firm of lawyers, which also has its own advisers—

†The hon. member for East London North, who was a member of the provincial council, will know about this. This letter reads—

There was no change whatsoever in what was intended by the Group Areas Act to be done. Difficulties arose only after the proclamation of 1976 came into force. It then came about only in so far as divisional councils and areas and land owned by divisional councils were concerned. We had to facilitate the transfer of fixed property from one owner to another owner with these affidavits which stated to which race group one belonged. I do not want to discuss, as hon. members on the other side of the House tried to do, the merits or otherwise of the Group Areas Act. However, I am quite prepared at any time to debate the rights or wrongs of it. The only thing which sounds unbelievable to me is that when people debate matters of the highest political priority in the country and say that we should have a federation or a confederation, throughout the whole debate—one can read through it—they accept the principle of groups, group areas and separate entities. I do not know how one can explain that away. I am trying my level best to understand how the people on those benches can in their whole concept try to do that. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deviate from the course to which you want me to keep. I merely want to repeat what I said in my introductory speech, that there are no ulterior motives behind this Bill whatsoever. We are trying to assist people who are governing certain areas in the Cape Province. We are trying to assist people owning property. If people intend to dispose of their property to another party, we try to assist them and to facilitate matters so that there is no need to call for a referendum to determine whether they are even allowed to sell or to buy property.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he concedes the point made by the hon. member for Durban Central, that the net result of the legislation is to make Coloured people, who are now not disqualified persons, disqualified persons?

I am not conceding that point. I am prepared to admit that there could have been misunderstanding. However, even if they had been qualified in terms of the ordinance, read together with the Act, it would also have had to be tested in a court of law at any time. It was a debatable point at any time. They will not be disqualified in terms of this amendment to the Act. There were disqualifications in terms of the existing Act. That is correct, as the hon. member for Durban Central says. Therefore these people will still require a permit and we shall be issuing permits …

Will you issue them to all the Coloured people?

We shall issue them to those people who are disqualified in terms of the Act, whether they be Coloured or Black people. That is correct.

That is why we object to it.

If that is the objection, we shall merely have to see what the House decides about it. The fact is that the disqualification or otherwise of people to own property in a certain area or not has been accepted in the past in this House. The matter has already been debated, discussed and decided upon.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—111: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F.W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, J. P. A. Reyneke, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—21: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments contained in this Bill do not affect any basic principles, but are in fact necessary in the light of the experience that has been gained. Firstly, the definitions of “pneumoconiosis” and “compensatable disease”, are being adapted. In the case of pneumoconiosis, the words “excluding a calcified lesion” are being inserted in order to bring this into line with the definition of tuberculosis which, according to the existing definition, excludes an inactive calcified lesion. Especially in the case of people who have worked in or at asbestos mines, or who have been exposed to asbestos in some way or other—for example by living in the vicinity of asbestos mines—a single small calcified lesion is sometimes detected in the lung tissue by means of radiology. These small lesions, which can often only be detected posthumously, cause no damage whatsoever and really cannot be classified as a disease. Frequently, too, no connection can be found between those lesions and asbestos dust. Similar small lesions are often also found in people who have never been exposed to asbestos dust.

Scientifically, and from the viewpoint of compensation, it is untenable to certify these insignificant, harmless small lesions in the case of miners, lesions which are often found amongst the general public as well, and to allow them compensation amounting to R13 200 when their health or working ability has in no way been impaired. Instead of that, miners can benefit by a more liberal approach as far as the condition known as “permanent obstruction of the airways” is concerned. In the case of a permanent obstruction of the airways, the definition of “compensatable disease” at present requires the certification committee to certify the disease only if the committee is satisfied that it was attributable to the inhalation of dust in the course of the performance of risk work. In passing I should like to emphasize the word “dust”. Experience has taught us, however, that the disease can also be caused by other factors in mines, for example gases, vapours, chemical substances, fluctuating temperatures, etc. and also in works, for example, Iscor, where dust is not the primary problem. The proposed legislation now makes it possible for the disease to be certified and compensated in those other cases as well.

The simple calculations which need to be made these days in order to determine what amount a mine or a work must pay into the compensation fund, or in connection with other matters, no longer justifies consultation with an actuary. Therefore, this requirement is being done away with.

The control of the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases is being transferred from the Medical Research Council to the Department of Health and the proposed adjustment in this regard has therefore become necessary. Therefore, this is also being included in the Bill now.

Provision is also being made to accommodate remote mines and works so that they do not have to pay interest on the levy payments which are posted in time, but which do not reach the Compensation Commissioner on the prescribed day because of postal delays.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side have no objection to the Bill. There are a few technical points which we may perhaps be able to discuss with a view to greater clarity and since these points are not very important, I may as well discuss them now. In the first place I must point out that in the case of clause 1, subsection (a) in the Afrikaans text is the translation of subsection (b) in the English text, while subsection (a) in the English text is the translation of subsection (b) in the Afrikaans text. I am merely drawing attention to this to prevent us from talking at cross purposes. I shall confine myself to the Afrikaans text.

We presume that the purpose of the amendment in cluase 1(a) is basically that workers who contracted tuberculosis in the past and recovered completely from the disease, should be allowed to return to their work. It must then be possible for them to be regarded as healthy workers. However, if the exception refers to a calcified lesion only, the legislation is not going far enough to be applicable to people who have completely recovered from tuberculosis. Nevertheless, we have no objection to the provision, because it is in fact an improvement. We are also aware of the problems, for according to the medical advice which we obtained, it is very difficult to determine whether a person who has previously suffered from tuberculosis has recovered completely. Therefore, in the view of present medical knowledge it is not really possible for an amendment to go far enough to eliminate that class of person entirely. We welcome the fact that the amendment goes as far as it does.

As far as clause 1(b) is concerned, we agree that permanent obstructions of the airways can be contracted due to other causes besides the inhalation of dust. It is therefore necessary for the envisaged amendment to the clause to be made. This is actually an adaptation to modern circumstances.

As far as the remaining clauses are concerned, we do not have any objection to them either. We consider the amendments contained in them to be improvements and consequently we shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the legislation and to thank him. The Bill is the outcome of co-operation between the mining group of the NP and the hon. the Minister. We conferred for many hours on these matters and I am grateful that the result of those deliberations are embodied in the Bill. We thank him for it. I agree with the hon. member for Constantia that the Bill brings about an improvement to the existing position. The Bill makes it possible to adopt a more liberal approach—if I may use such a word—to the certification of a miner. We know the circumstances of the miner, and by means of the Bill the privileges enjoyed by the miner are being extended. I also want to agree with the hon. member for Constantia and to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this regard. This is also a matter which is very important to me. There are men who were certified years ago when it was discovered that they were suffering from tuberculosis. We know that this is a disease which people contract underground, but we also know from the medical practitioners that those people can recover completely and therefore should be afforded the opportunity of working underground again. This would make life a lot easier for those people. Of course, there is a great difference in remuneration for people who work underground and those who work on the surface. Therefore, I shall be very pleased if persons who, according to medical certificates, are able to work underground again, will in future be allowed to do that work. I say thank you very much, and I believe that this legislation will be enthusiastically supported in this House.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I think that one advantage of being the tail-end “Charlie” is that by the time the uncontroversial Bills arrive at our benches we have received the assurances and answers to the queries we had. I am therefore standing up merely to say that we on this side of the House will support the Bill. We see nothing contentious in it at all.

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. the Minister has said that the amendments in this legislation are in fact the result of the greater extent of our knowledge of these diseases, I want to say a few words on this occasion about the institute which is responsible for the fact that active research is being done in connection with occupational diseases in our country. I am referring to the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases which actually has a long history. It has been closely connected with the gold-mining industry in this country since 1896. However, it was only in 1903 that gold-mining companies began to drill the quartz with rock drills and to work in mine shafts at depths of more than 300 feet. This caused tremendous dust problems, and gave rise in 1916 to the establishment of the so-called Phthisis Bureau which issued the well-known red card to miners to indicate that they were fit to work in a dusty atmosphere. For the first time there was proper control over these occupations in dusty atmospheres. Initially, therefore, the whole problem of silicosis was limited entirely to the mining industry, and more specifically to the gold mining industry. Gradually, however, the mining industry evolved better techniques, techniques such as wet drilling, effective ventilation and improved working hours for the workers, and the danger of silicosis and tuberculosis, which was usually associated with it, abated considerably. However, it was feared originally that circumstances would be created in the warm, damp climate to cause tuberculosis to flare up, but fortunately this was not the case. It was only by the middle ’fifties, however, that a considerable drop in the general incidence of these lung diseases took place. It is realized now that this type of lung infection can also be caused by other factors such as the inhalation of silica particles. Other substances such as asbestos, or even irritating gases or chemical preparations, can cause the same fibrotic conditions of the lungs. This entire group of lung diseases is therefore summarized under the concept of “pneumoconiosis”. The pneumoconiosis unit of the S.A. Institute for Medical Research was established and continued the research work aimed at preventing silicosis and other lung infections which may occur, especially in the gold-mining industry. I make so bold as to say that it is primarily due to the research work done by these people that these diseases were restricted to a large extent, especially in the mining industry. By the middle of the ’sixties it became clear that silicosis in the gold-mining industry had shown a real drop. Serious cases of silicosis and even of asbestosis, however, are being found to an increasing extent in industries other than the mining industry. As a result of that we had the information of the National Research Institute for Occupational Diseases and the introduction of this Bill.

I should like to quote a few figures from the report of the above-mentioned institute. These figures relate to the period January 1976 to March 1977. In that period, the following cases of pneumoconiosis occurred in industries: As far as asbestosis was concerned, there were 22 cases in the asbestos cement industry, five cases in the asbestos insulation industry, two cases in the asbestos weaving industry, two in the chemical industry, one which was found in the harbours, and one case of a person who worked for the S.A. Railways—this gives a total of 33 cases of asbestosis in one year; as far as silicosis is concerned, a total of 22 cases were found in the cement industry, the ceramics industry and in various branches of the engineering industry. In other words, more than 50 cases of pneumoconiosis occurred in our industries in one year. This really is a serious state of affairs and this institute will have to pay attention to combating it further.

The amendments which the hon. the Minister moved, consists of an improved definition of the term “pneumoconiosis” and certain technical changes as far as the determination of the amounts payable to the compensation fund are concerned, concerning the calcified pulmonary lesions to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech. All this will definitely make an improvement to the Act. One thing is certain: The workers in any risk occupation in South Africa can be assured that the Government is doing everything in its power through the National Institute for Occupational Diseases to protect their health to the maximum and to make our industries even more safe in the future. That is why I gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before we started discussing this Bill, I knew that there would be support for this Bill from all sides of the House since it is in fact the culmination of extensive discussions. A Bill which affects people so drastically, is not drawn up before proper discussions on it have been held. Nevertheless, I want to thank hon. members sincerely for their support.

The hon. member for Constantia asked me for the reason for the alternation in the Afrikaans and English texts. The explanation which I got was that it is in alphabetical order. I think we must just accept it as such.

It could cause confusion.

Yes, I understand that. In any event, the important point is that the hon. member supports the legislation. Since it is such a technical Bill, one could hold a long, extensive discussion on it. Especially when it comes to the medical aspects, one would rather like to leave the discussion of it to the medical experts. Nevertheless, the Bill has been properly discussed and I am grateful that it has been accepted.

The hon. member for Stilfontein also indicated that he supports the Bill. It is true that we have discussed this matter before. It is important—and here I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pietersburg—that a country like South Africa has many mining industries in this modern time. Perhaps one does not think of it, but do hon. members know that at present in South Africa we mine more than 71 types of material which are processed into a variety of products? In recent times in particular one notices that due to the mining conditions and the new products which are appearing, there are occupational diseases which accompany them. This applies to asbestos in particular. As hon. members know, we are a major asbestos producing country, and asbestos in particular has given rise to problems. Last year an international congress on asbestosis was held in South Africa. It generated a great deal of interest and people from all over the world were here. I was there too and I followed the discussions. One gained the impression of the great appreciation which exists throughout the whole world—amongst the medical profession in particular—for the safety of our mines and the trouble which has been taken on the part of the medical profession as well as on the part of the mining industry to make our mines safe. That is why I am pleased that the hon. member for Pietersburg referred to the National Institute for Occupational Diseases because I think it is fitting that we tell these people now and again what appreciation exists in this House, too, for their work.

In a country like South Africa, where the mines produce a tremendous output, one can understand that technical heat problems will be found, especially in our deep mines. We must not forget that South Africa has the deepest mines in the world. Some of our mines already go down to 13 000 feet and there are new mining products which are also being mined at very great depths. Even a product such as asbestos is no longer mined near the surface; it is mined at great depth. That is why it is inevitable that we should experience problems which accompany mining activities at such great depths. Therefore, if appreciation from the entire world can be expressed on an occasion like this for the safety of our mines, I think that this House should take note of this fact too, and I want to express my appreciation for the words of the hon. member for Pietersburg.

I thank hon. members who participated in the discussion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 34 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1967, makes provision for a fine not exceeding R10 000 or imprisonment not exceeding 20 years or both for a person who, amongst other things, without the authority of the Atomic Energy Board discloses to any person any information in regard to anything done by or on behalf of the board in the exercise of its powers. In terms of section 11 of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, a penalty not exceeding only R200 is laid down for conviction of a similar offence. Hon. members will realize that a penalty of R200 for an offence of this nature is totally inadequate, and the object of this Bill is merely to bring the penalty provision into line with that of the Atomic Energy Act, 1967. That is especially necessary in the light of the present circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, in this case, too, we have no objection to the legislation. We fully agree that the penalties imposed for the leakage of information in terms of the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act differ greatly from those provided for in the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act. Considering the possible dangers of such leakages of information, the penalty, if there has to be a difference, should rather be heavier for contraventions of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act than for contraventions of the Atomic Energy Act, precisely because secrecy in respect of certain nuclear installations will in future be much more important from an industrial point of view than in respect of the research work which is primarily being done in terms of the Atomic Energy Act. We shall therefore accept that at least the penalties should be the same or that the maximum penalties should be the same. We support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the view of the hon. member for Constantia that it is necessary for this amendment to be made to the Act in order to change the penalties. In the times in which we live, in a world which is not friendly towards South Africa, it is essential that we act drastically and safely to protect what is ours, like the things defined in the legislation, against any leakage. The legislation provides for a fine of R10 000 or 20 years’ imprisonment; I should have wanted to add the death penalty to that.

Mr. Speaker, in telling the hon. the Minister why this party will be supporting the amendment, I would like to substantiate a few of the reasons why we are going to do it. It is not everyday that an amendment which increases penalties by 2 000% and 4 000% is brought before the House. We have examined the increase in penalties in the light of the fact that the law has two primary social functions. In the first place the law must provide for the imposition of punishment on those who transgress the institutionalized norms of society in such manner and degree that the punishment fits the crime. The present provisions of section 11 of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Security) Act suggest that the illicit dissemination of information vis-à-vis the source material, the newly discovered enrichment processes and related technical information, could be equated to no more than a serious traffic offence. The present legislation, as mentioned by the hon. the Minister, only makes provision for a maximum period of imprisonment of six months or a fine of R200. It is therefore patently obvious that, bearing in mind the nature, the seriousness and the consequences of transgressions of this particular law, it is not at present possible to impose a punishment that will fit the consequences of the crime.

A second very important social function of the application of the law is that the punishment prescribed should act as a deterrent to those foolish enough to wish to transgress our statutes. The betrayal of information in the nuclear field can have potentially disastrous consequences. Nuclear energy is the one source of energy with a multiplicity of potentials. Nuclear energy can provide us with adequate electrical generation, heat generation and also the desalination of salt water. What is more important than that, however, is the fact that nuclear energy is the one source of energy which has a strategic defence potential as well. I believe it is incumbent upon us to support this measure in order to indicate to those who may have loose tongues that the conveyance of illicit information is considered in a very serious light by the legislators of this country.

At the same time I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the necessary assurance that adequate preventive steps are also being taken in order to make it extremely difficult for international professional espionage cartels actually to get to the information which we are trying to protect by the imposition of these very heavy penalties. I do not think the hon. the Minister would like to see the imposition of very heavy penalties for these acts, only to find ourselves in a position where the horse has bolted after we have closed the stable door. I would like to receive the assurance of the hon. the Minister that equal intensity of attention has been given to preventive measures as has been given to punitive measures.

As I have indicated at the beginning of my short speech, we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support the measures proposed by the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my thanks towards the hon. members for their support of the legislation. This legislation is very important to us in South Africa, especially in view of the fact that we as a nuclear country find it necessary to institute the necessary control measures for the safeguarding of our position.

†I should like to assure the hon. member for Durban North that very strict and very stringent security measures are being maintained so as to ensure that not only the punitive side, but also the security side, will always be looked after in South Africa. We do of course deal here with a very important commodity and an impingement on security is always possible, but I can assure the hon. gentleman and the House that we are doing as much as we can to look after the interests and the security of this very important industry. I would like to commend the hon. member for his remarks and for the reasons he put forward in supporting the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The National Study Loans and Bursaries Act, 1964, makes provision, inter alia, for the establishment of a National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund for students. The fund derives its revenue mainly from donations on which a tax rebate is allowed and in terms of the law, the money must be applied exclusively for the purpose of granting study loans and study bursaries to students who require financial assistance to enable them to continue or complete their studies at a university, a college for advanced technical education, or a college for tertiary education under the direct control of my department.

Every year, donations received by the fund are divided among the institutions on a specific basis with a view to granting study loans and bursaries to needy students. The universities and other institutions concerned must themselves handle the administration of the repayment of study loans and the interest thereon. Initially there was an arrangement that one-half per cent of the loan allocations could be paid over to the institution to cover the administration costs and possible loss due to a non-payment. As an incentive measure, there was also an arrangement that a certain percentage of a student’s loan obligations could be remitted if he completed his course within the minimum prescribed period, or if, during the final year of his course, he attained an average pass percentage of 60% or more.

The practice of compensating universities for administrative costs and granting remission to students, had to be discontinued, however, as legal advice obtained indicated that it was not permissible to apply moneys from the fund for any purpose other than study loans and study bursaries to students, and that an amendment of the law would consequently be necessary if the department wanted to continue paying compensation or granting remission to students in certain circumstances. Subsequent legal advice has further confirmed that the Act does not make provision for the writing off of irrecoverable loan debts either.

It is happening more and more that the recipients of loans fail to repay their loan debts to the fund and that it becomes impossible for universities to recover the amounts owing, mainly due to the fact that the recipients of loans and their sureties cannot be traced. In such cases, the universities often have to incur costs in employing tracing agents in an effort to recover the debt, all to no avail. A real need has therefore developed for provision to be made in law to allow for a legal provision to the writing-off of irrecoverable loan debts if they cannot reasonably be recovered. It is also considered essential that there should be a specific provision in the Act to make possible the payment of compensation to universities for unavoidable expenses, and also, as an incentive measure, to be able to arrange the partial remission of the loan obligations of deserving students.

In order to make legal provision for this need, the Minister is being empowered in terms of clause 2 of the Bill to make regulations regarding the writing-off of bad debts, the payment of compensation to universities and other institutions, and the partial remission of the loan obligations of deserving students.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill gives the hon. the Minister of National Education the Authority to make regulations in connection with the remission of loan debts, the payment of administration costs, and the writing-off of bad debts. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, he does not have this authority in terms of the existing legislation. These new powers are essential for the extension of his authority to control the matter in a business-like manner. My party therefore has no objection to the provisions of this Bill, and we support it.

Mr. Speaker, in passing, I should like to say that it is really a great honour and privilege to me, after a period of absence, again to sit in this House this afternoon and to be able to take part in the debate. In these particular circumstances I am pleased that the hon. member for Johannesburg North has intimated on behalf of his party that they will support the main principles of the Bill. I appreciate that. The hon. Minister has really set out in detail the shortcomings which existed in the principal Act, and he has also very clearly explained the Amendment Bill to us, but I should nevertheless like to refer to a few facets of the Bill.

As I see it, the Bill is directed at three very important matters. In the first place it is intended to extend the objectives of the fund, even though this may be purely technical. In the second place, it aims at the extension of the powers of the Minister to make regulations and thirdly—and this, I think, is the most important one—the reaffirmation of the principle that the Minister is allowed a certain measure of discretion. I say this is one of the most important provisions of the Amendment Bill, because my argument is that the Minister, who really acts here as the administrator of this fund, cannot act effectively unless he has discretion. Although the principal Act lays down that this is actually the function of the Secretary, there is a further provision in the principal Act that the Minister shall prescribe how the Secretary shall administer the Act. This principle of the retention of discretion is to me a very important facet of this proposed legislation, because it can have an effect, and in fact does have an effect, on the private sector as well.

Because the principal Act retains this principle too and has made provision for it, and we now have the privilege of again re-affirming it in the Amendment Bill, I just want to point out how this was effected in the principle Act. It did not specify for example the amount of a bursary or loan. Nor did it specify the duration of the period of study. The Act left these minor details to the administration in the discretion of the Minister. A similar procedure is laid down in the amendment Bill. Clause 2, which now confers on the Minister the actual powers which he requires, does not specify what the extent of the administration costs must be, nor how much of the moneys may be remitted. It also does not specify the amount of the administration costs. These minor details are left to the discretion of the Minister. Therefore I now maintain that the re-affirmation of this principle of discretion given to the Minister in regard to the study fund, is one of the most important and essential aspects of the legislation.

In support of this statement I should like to refer to another Act and to a very well-known author, the celebrated R. J. M. Jones, who, my hon. colleagues will agree, is probably one of the greatest authorities in the field of conveyancing. He said in connection with the Deeds Registration Act—and I translate— “Die Wet is ’n kodifikasie van die praktyk, maar, let wel, nie ’n volledige kodifikasie van elke faset nie. Daarvoor is ons dankbaar, want dit is mos onmoontlik om vir alle prosedures wetgewing te passeer”. I think if one takes this into account, we can be grateful and can expect—and it is good to know—that hon. members support the legislation in all its implications, because this legislation not only stresses the problems which the hon. Minister has had in connection with the administration of the fund in terms of the principal Act, but also the problems which trustees and administrators in the private sector experience daily when they have to handle study funds.

Hon. members may now ask me what gives rise to these problems and circumstances and what makes it so difficult for the administrator in the private sector, and ultimately also for the administrator in terms of this legislation. I think I may be able to qualify that on the basis of two very well-known examples. I should like first to point out however that the problems which arise out of these circumstances normally arise long after a trust fund or a study fund has been established. They arise, for example, as a result of changed national circumstances, changed world conditions, the decline in the purchasing power of money, a lengthy recession, serious unemployment, and many other similar matters. The provision in terms of which the administrator, who in this case is the hon. Minister, retains his discretion—this is indeed reaffirmed in the legislation before the House— must be regarded as extremely important, and therefore we are delighted that this has been retained and re-affirmed.

I want to qualify the statement on the basis of two very well-known examples. In the first case we had that great South African benefactor, a person who granted an enormous amount of money in the form of a bursary fund. In his wisdom he stipulated that the recipient of the bursary should utilize the money before the last day of his eighteenth year. This stipulation may have had merit on the day it was laid down. I do not think we can doubt that. But this benefactor could not foresee that, years after his death, circumstances in this country would necessitate an essential system of military service. Nor, therefore, did he foresee that in this country there would be many young men who would regard it as their first priority to do military service for their country as soon as possible after completion of their school career.

The result of this has been that those young men simply no longer qualify for this bursary, because they are older than 18 years when they complete their period of military service. If this benefactor had allowed a measure of discretion when he established the trust fund, the present problem could have been eliminated. I also qualify my statement by quoting a second well-known example. Another South African benefactor also left a large amount of money which had to be utilized for overseas study bursaries. He stipulated that a study bursary should amount to £300—today, of course, R600—per capita. At that time, this stipulation probably had merit. But hon. members will all agree with me that today, in modern circumstances, this amount is totally inadequate for a study bursary. In this case, too, a measure of discretion for the administrator in the handling of the fund, could have eliminated those problems. In view of all these examples, I believe, we can request the hon. House—and I believe we also know it—to support the proposed legislation in all its implications. Perhaps I can also express the hope that the legislators of the future—and also the future benefactors in South Africa—will at all times keep in mind this very important principle of discretion when they establish study funds.

Mr. Speaker, I think the colleagues of the hon. member for Newton Park are delighted that after such a long absence he is again back in the House to support them. He has referred to military service. I shall presently have something to say about that. However, I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that we of the NRP support this Bill. We especially welcome the fact that the limitation that it might only be applied for certain purposes, is now being removed. The limitations, especially, were one of the problems experienced in connection with the National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund. It was the donors in particular who imposed serious limitations on the fund. It had the effect that funds which could be applied for open distribution, were very limited. As the Bill is intended to legalize and rectify what has been done unlawfully by those who control the fund, we have no objection to this. The fund has always been utilized for a very good purpose. In the past it has happened that amounts remitted came to R23 000 and even R24 000 per annum, and as the hon. Minister has indicated, this did not really take place strictly in accordance with law.

There is however one aspect relating to servicemen which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. Provision is made in the Bill for the remission of loans. There are many bursaries which are awarded to promising young people, but such bursaries are normally subject to the conditions laid down by the donors. The donors, of course, donate the money to the bursary fund, and from that the students then receive their bursaries. Often one of the conditions is that the student must enter into a contract with the donor in terms of which he will enter the service of the donor and work for him for a certain period after the completion of his studies. There are servicemen who do military service for two years, but I am referring to those who first obtain academic qualifications at a university before they commence their military service. I am therefore referring to a different category from that mentioned by the hon. member for Newton Park. He has referred to the man who first does his military service and later goes to university. Say for example that someone has qualified as a doctor and after completion of his studies he performs military service. While doing his military service, however, he works as a doctor in the Defence Force. In reality, therefore, he is working for the State. Although it will not, of course, be possible to make legal provision for anything like this, I feel that I must bring to the notice of the people who manage the fund that the possibility of remission through the performance of service is something which should be taken into account. I have in mind in particular service performed by servicemen in the profession for which they qualified at the university and for which they received a bursary. With these few words I declare our support of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me in the first place to thank the hon. members who have so readily supported the Bill. I can give them the assurance that I sincerely appreciate it In the first place, my thanks to the hon. member for Johannesburg North, who has said that he regards the Bill as essential and that for that reason the PFP supports it.

Our good friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, chose the Second Reading debate on this Bill as the time for his maiden speech after a long absence. [Interjections.] Yes, perhaps I should say “his return speech”. Like a good sportsman and a good educationalist, the hon. member has “hooked” on this occasion this afternoon. We know him as one of our Springbok hookers and as someone who has made his mark in that field as well. I think he made an excellent speech. I can say that he has scored a try here and went ahead and converted it himself as well. Congratulations, and thank you very much. I wish him all of the best for the future.

The hon. member for Newton Park has referred to the discretion which is now conferred upon the Minister. It is true, as he has stated, that a very real need has arisen for such a discretion. I wish to point out that the conferring of this discretion will undoubtedly benefit the fund. In particular, it will result in those students who have the greatest need of the fund, benefiting thereby. It is therefore really essential. I wish to congratulate and thank him once again.

The hon. member for Durban Central said that he welcomed this Bill and pointed out the limitations imposed by donors. The hon. member is quite correct. It is so. He has also raised a very important point. He said that we should bring it to the notice of those who administer the fund in order that the service rendered by servicemen may be taken into account in connection with the conditions attached to bursaries and loans. This is a very positive contribution which the hon. member has made here. I shall see to it that this is brought to the notice of those administering the fund, in order that the necessary steps may be taken to afford recognition to our servicemen, in respect of their bursaries and loans, for the service they have rendered. I thank him and his party, too, for their support and for the positive contribution which they have made in this connection. With that I have finalized the matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although the Bill is very short and clear, I shall make a few elucidatory remarks. In terms of the existing provisions of the law the Minister is required to designate the members for a community council if for any reason no members are elected for a community council or if fewer members than the required number are elected for such a council at a properly conducted election. He is therefore required to designate as many members as may be necessary to attain the necessary number. It is deemed desirable, when such circumstances or a vacancy arise in the community council, merely to empower the Minister to appoint members for a period which he determines or to determine that one or more vacancies exist which may be filled by means of an election.

Since it is intended to afford the voters the opportunity of electing members for a community council under such circumstances, I am confident that this Bill will not only be acceptable, but that the House will also consider it in the interests of the Black people of Soweto to support all three stages of the Bill so that the by-elections may be proclaimed and conducted. In that way the Minister will be able to have an elected council established in Soweto as quickly as possible and in the interests of all, a council with which I should like to hold discussions in an attempt to eliminate problems in that city. Everyone concerned can only benefit by such action.

Mr. Speaker, I wish we could share the optimism of the hon. the Minister in regard to the community councils. I do not know what makes him think that by-elections will have any hope of being successful when the general election held in Soweto last Saturday was such a complete fiasco. Really, Sir, the hon. the Minister must come out of his dream-world and face the realities of the situation in Soweto. The hon. the Minister has introduced this Bill here today only to deal with the extraordinary position which has arisen as a result of the general elections that were held last Saturday.

Now say something positive first.

Well, I am going to state some facts first and then we shall see what can be done about the position. I may say that I have some very positive suggestions to make and I hope the hon. the Minister will accept them in the spirit in which they are offered on behalf of the members in these benches.

First of all, I think the House should remember that of the 30 wards which were to be contested in Soweto, elections were held in only two wards, with an average poll of 5%, while nine wards were unopposed …

As you were.

Yes, as I was and as a number of other members were. But I have of course served my constituency for quite a considerable time and the manner of election to this Parliament has long been accepted by the White electorate—that is rather a different situation from the Soweto situation. I might also point out that none of the aspirant candidates in white elections were locked up under section 10 of the Internal Security Act. That also may have had something to do with the fact that I was returned unopposed in Houghton, as were some other members in their constituencies.

As I have said, in nine of the wards the candidates were unopposed, which left 19 wards with no candidates at all. That was either because nobody had been nominated or because among those who had been nominated several were disqualified for various reasons. Obviously, they did not conform with the qualifications required. This is an extraordinary situation, except that it is not unexpected—I have to add that. The hon. the Minister will be aware that many people, including myself and other members in these benches, warned last year when the Community Councils Bill was introduced in the House, that the community councils would not get off the ground for the simple reason that they were not accepted by the Black people of Soweto. It is no good trying to force elections down their throats when they are simply not prepared to accept them.

The community councils got off the ground in many other places.

Well, they got off the ground in only one place I know of, and that is the Vaal-Vereeniging triangle.

In many other places as well.

Certainly, Soweto, which is after all the largest Black city in Africa south of the Sahara, is the area we look to and the area in which we hope to get some form of dialogue going, so as to have things return to normal.

Please help me to do that.

Various reasons have, of course, been advanced for the fiasco in Soweto. We had the chairman of the West Rand Administration Board—by the way, are those boards now called “plural boards”, or what are they called?

They are called “administration boards”.

Without the word “Bantu”?

Yes, without “Bantu”.

So it is simply the “West Rand Administration Board”?

That is correct. That is why it is also known as the WRAB.

Yes, but if one looks at the letterhead, one sees that it is still called a “Bantu Administration Board”.

The word “Bantu” will be left out in future.

That is fine. Well, Sir, the chairman of the West Rand Administration Board, Mr. Manie Mulder, put the fiasco down to four factors. He said it was because of intimidation; because of the Press encouraging people not to vote by expressing the hope that the election would not take place on a proper basis; because of the rain—which certainly may have kept some of the voters away; and, finally, because of the fact that the elections were being held in two wards only. The hon. the Minister himself made the astonishing statement that he regarded the people returned to be fully representative of the residents of Soweto.

Of those two wards.

Yes, of those two wards. Honestly! Let us take Orlando East where out of a possible 3 500 voters 134 people voted. That is less than 4%. In fact, it is 3,8%. How can the hon. the Minister in all honesty bluff himself that those people can now be considered as representative of the people in those wards? Using Houghton as an example, which was very kind of him, he went on to say that, if Houghton were to be won on a 3% poll, one would not hear complaints. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if I had been elected in Houghton on a 3% poll, I would have resigned forthwith.

You received no votes whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister knows that in an unopposed seat one estimates that one would have received approximately 65% to 70% of the votes cast. Let us therefore not get our lines crossed on that one. I can assure the hon. the Minister and, I am sure, any other reasonable member, that if he were elected on a 3% poll, he would not possibly have considered himself a representative of the people of that area. The candidate would know that there was complete apathy in regard to the election and I, for one, would have resigned forthwith if I had been elected on a 3% poll.

The head of the Department of Political Science at the Rand Afrikaans University, Dr. Koetze, certainly disagrees with the hon. the Minister. He is reported as having said that he doubted whether the community council would get off the ground. It seemed to him that the people of Soweto still regarded the Committee of Ten as their leaders.

And you acknowledge it?

I certainly do. Of course I do.

You do?

Oh yes, I do. Absolutely. The Committee of Ten was elected by large groups of people … [Interjections.] … in Soweto. They were elected by associations such as parent-teachers’ associations, student bodies and so on, and they undoubtedly have the confidence of the people of Soweto. One of the positive suggestions I want to make to the hon. the Minister this afternoon is that he talks to those people. It is no use bluffing himself that the two chaps elected in the two wards are representative of the people of Soweto. He will never get the co-operation of the people of Soweto unless he sits around a table and discusses with members of the Committee of Ten what should be done. The hon. the Minister would be amazed at how moderate these people are. I have talked to them and they are moderate people. [Interjections.]

Let them stand for election.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that it is very hard to stand for election when one is locked up in Modderbee. I went to see these people in Modderbee and they are extremely moderate. I knew them before they went to Modderbee and they were moderate then. [Interjections.] I tell the hon. the Minister and I tell this House that if he keeps them locked up in Modderbee much longer there will not be a moderate black leader left in South Africa.

I have not locked up one of them.

That hon. Minister has not but his colleague has. He must use all his influence with his colleague to get those people released, while they still remain moderate.

Order! The hon. member must not go too wide on that point. It is not relevant.

Very well. However, I have made a suggestion and I just hope the hon. the Minister will take some heed of it. I hope the hon. the Minister realizes that the community council election fiasco which this Bill is trying to remedy, is even worse than the situation that existed in regard to the Urban Bantu Councils.

Order! The Bill gives the hon. the Minister the power to declare elections for vacancies instead of filling such vacancies himself. That, as far as I see, is the only principle in the Bill. It does not in any way affect the principle of the councils as such, how these councils are elected, etc., nor the reasons for the non-election of members. The hon. member may proceed, but I will watch her.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I was really trying to say is that there are vacancies in these councils and that the original Community Councils Act made no provision for by-elections. The hon. the Minister had to designate persons to fill the vacancies that there were. Now there have been elections and, as I have said, only two wards were opposed whereas nine members were returned unopposed. Two members were elected and nine were returned unopposed, which left 19 vacancies. In terms of the existing Act the hon. the Minister had to designate people to fill up to that number of vacancies. Now he is taking powers to permit him to fill up to that number of vacancies or to make provision for by-elections. It is because of what happened at the Community Council elections that the hon. the Minister has introduced the Bill before the House. I would like to ask why does the hon. the Minister still retain any powers at all in designating members to fill the vacancies? The other day the hon. the Minister took us to task when he said that we were paternalistic and that we did not believe that Black people were capable of running their own affairs, etc. In this Bill the hon. the Minister still retains unto himself the right, if he wishes to, to ensure that all 19 vacancies can, in fact, be filled by members designated by him. We want to know the rationale for that. As I have said, I have very little hope that the measure is in any way going to assist the situation, because what it is doing in effect, is to tinker with a faulty mechanism. That is the trouble. It is tinkering with the faulty mechanism which was created by the principal Act, which I cannot discuss in any detail here this afternoon. I can assure the hon. the Minister, however, that this is not the way to go about it. There is no point in trying to repair what I believe is irreparable. I also believe that many people who know the circumstances in Soweto will agree with me on this score.

For those reasons we do not believe that the measure is going to serve any purpose. The hon. the Minister knows that we voted against the original Community Councils Act and we can therefore see no reason to support a Bill which now tries to remedy something which is fundamentally defective and which cannot work. For those reasons we shall oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it did not surprise us in the least that the hon. member for Houghton took up this standpoint on behalf of her party. If one wants to know why they took up this standpoint on the legislation, one should perhaps just consider what the hon. member for Bryanston said at a meeting in Springs on Monday night, where the by-election is being held. He made the following remark: “The present socio economic system is the seed for communism. What difference is there between terrorist violence and violence based on institutionalized apartheid?” [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member wants to discuss that statement in the House now, I must also allow other hon. members to react to it. For that reason I cannot allow the hon. member to do so.

I leave the matter at that, Sir. The background motivation for the Opposition’s opposition to the legislation forms the foundation of their opposition to any attempt by the Government to communicate with the Black people in Soweto. The hon. member for Houghton referred to the “election fiasco” which took place in Soweto on Saturday. The hon. member also referred to the hon. the Minister’s intention to create another opportunity for people to be elected in the 19 seats which were not contested, as another fiasco. The hon. member also wanted to know how on earth the hon. the Minister can maintain that in the two seats in which members were elected, they are representative. I should now like to ask a few questions. What should the hon. the Minister do in these circumstances as far as the Urban Bantu Council in Soweto is concerned?

Scrap it!

Must we accept irrevocably that it is not necessary to try and call elections in the 19 districts, where elections could not take place due to technical reasons? Must we accept in future that the only people who are and can be leaders and who ought to be elected to the Urban Bantu Council in terms of the provisions of the draft legislation before the House, are the Committee of Ten? Surely this is madness. The legislation now makes it possible for people to be elected in 19 districts and we must accept that there are leaders in a variety of fields in Soweto. There are leaders in the economic field, the educational field and many other leaders who can come into the picture and be elected to the Urban Bantu Council in terms of the provision of this legislation. I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton the following important question: Since we are dealing with potential by-elections in 19 of the districts, does the hon. member accept that there is not a single leader in Soweto at the moment who can be elected in terms of the provisions of the legislation?

They are sitting in gaol!

The Opposition is faced with the great dilemma that when we move a measure like this one, their outspoken standpoint determines that they are the only ones who know the Black people, those which can be elected to the community council too. According to them, the PFP alone knows who the true leaders should be. We have an absolutely positive measure here which creates an opportunity for the election of people as members of the community councils. It is absolutely essential. There is no doubt that at this stage of the history of South Africa, Soweto is a potential point of explosion and that this Bill which provides for the voters to elect people in the 19 vacant districts, can make an immeasurable contribution towards better communication between the Government and the community councils. Without bringing the Community Councils Act into the picture, I should like to say that there is a need which we cannot deny, a need which will also be found amongst the 19 people who have to be elected to the vacant districts and the few which have already been elected, to communicate with the Government at the highest level. The hon. the Minister has already said that the Bill will enable him to communicate with people whom he would like to have elected as leaders. The hon. member for Houghton asked why the Minister still maintains the right to appoint people. I want to ask her with tears in my eyes: If the Government should be faced with a dilemma that, due to specific circumstances, people are not elected in certain districts even after we have passed this Bill, what on earth should we do? Should we then close down our channels of communication completely, or must we show the common sense which the Government wants to use and say that we shall appoint people in certain positions? Does she think for a single moment that a person who has been appointed cannot represent other people? Surely this is too stupid to be true. Throughout our whole society there are people on all councils which are appointed to speak on behalf of other people. This will also be the case when the hon. the Minister uses his discretion to appoint people in terms of this provision. These appointed people will be able to plead for the rights of the people of Soweto.

I find it extremely ironical that the PFP, the great prophets for the rights of the Black men, should, on an occasion like this, be antagonistic towards the Government’s attempt to open channels of communication by electing people. I am struck dumb by the fact that they presume to say exactly what the Black people in Soweto want. I do not think we on this side of the House have the right in this debate to say who the people are who are the true leaders. However, we are at least obliged to give the inhabitants of Soweto the choice. The hon. member for Houghton talks so scornfully about the election which took place on Saturday. Does she not think that there is a possibility that the poor polling percentage and the lack of interest amongst the Black people of Soweto, may be attributed to a sustained intimidation campaign? Furthermore I want to ask her whether she does not think that all the poison, hate and venom which has been spewed out by the PFP against the community councils which were established last year, contributed towards tarnishing the image of those councils?

Order! The hon. member may not discuss the community councils as such now.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling, but I nevertheless want to point out to the hon. member for Houghton that she and her party should really be ashamed of themselves today. The Government comes here with an absolutely positive measure to try and open a channel of communication with the Black people in a dilemma of a situation which we have not underestimated. The greatest task that we in South Africa have at the moment is to communicate with the Black people. As far as communication is concerned our greatest problem is Soweto and the most crucial question at the moment is the question of the community councils. The hon. the Minister said that he wants to communicate directly with this council. I want to tell hon. members of the PFP and other people who may perhaps be thinking of opposing this measure, that if they think they have done the Black community of Soweto a service today, that they have promoted the concept of communication between Black and White in South Africa and that they have granted recognition to the right of Black people to be able to say themselves who should represent them in these 19 districts, no matter how serious the problem is, they are making the mistake of their lives and it is scandalous of them.

Mr. Speaker, for the record I want to say that when the Community Councils Act was introduced in the House we opposed it for certain reasons which I do not want to repeat.

I think we face a very real historical situation. As the representative of the Government, the hon. the Minister faces a delicate situation in Soweto and if that situation is not immediately resolved, or if an attempt is not made to resolve it immediately, the whole cause of democratic expression can suffer very significantly indeed. I believe it is imperative that the hon. the Minister be given the opportunity to create a council in Soweto which will be representative. As I understand it, the situation in which he finds himself at the moment, without this amendment, is that he is not in a position to hold by-elections in those areas for which candidates were not forthcoming. If it is going to happen at all that communication is to be set up between the representatives of the people of Soweto and the hon. the Minister, somehow or other an elected body has to be found which will represent the feelings and the opinions of those people. Whether this will be achieved or not, is something which, I think, time will show.

It was shown on Saturday.

It was shown on Saturday that people in Soweto are under very considerable pressure indeed, not only from the student movement there, but also from the Inkatha movement which has declared itself against elections being held in Soweto. The point I am trying to make is that as long as that Government is the ruling power in South Africa, and if we are to achieve something which is going to bring forth a body which will be representative of the people of Soweto, this is the channel through which it has to be done or else the hon. the Minister will, on another occasion, be forced to admit that it cannot be done, and therefore either this legislation will have to be amended or another body will have to be created on another basis, a body which will give representation to the people of Soweto. I believe that the situation which we face, in which the very cause of democracy itself is at stake, is so serious that if the credibility of this system we call democracy is going to be maintained, the hon. the Minister should have the right to be able to declare vacancies in those areas and to call for by-elections. He must attempt to win the support and the good feeling of the people of Soweto to such an extent that he can get a representative board. I therefore believe, under those circumstances, that this measure is one which deserves the support of the House, and we shall support it. However, I want to make it quite clear that I believe that this Bill is not actually achieving what we would like to see achieved, and I am not sure it is achieving what the hon. the Minister intends it to achieve.

I shall put an amendment on the Order Paper which will have the effect of making it quite clear that in the event of a casual vacancy occurring after a council has been constituted, whether it is by 11 elected members or by 19 designated members, or however it might happen to be, the Minister should declare a vacancy and hold a by-election and only in the event of a nomination not coming forward may the Minister fill that vacancy by designation. I believe it is absolutely imperative that a council should be created for Soweto and if it is not possible to create it by election and it has to be created by designation, it may still be within the power of the hon. the Minister to create a feeling of confidence between that council and the Government, which I would say is a matter of the utmost priority. It is absolutely vital and imperative. It may be that as a result of having created a designated council and having obtained the confidence of those people an election can be held on a full basis on a future occasion. I would be very loath to be party in this House to preventing the hon. the Minister from at least having that chance. We shall support the Second Reading of the Bill. *

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the amendments which are being introduced. I think he really knocked the Official Opposition for a six today. If he had not come forward with this legislation, but had used his powers to appoint candidates in the 19 wards where no candidates had been nominated or elected, I should have liked to have heard the outcry from the Official Opposition. In that case they would have said that these were people appointed by the Minister and the Government.

Puppets.

Yes, puppets. That is correct. It is the democratic right of the people of Soweto to elect their own people. It is a pity—and I must emphasise that I regret it very much—that the election did not produce the results that we would have liked to see. But it is the free, democratic right of the inhabitants of Soweto to have their own people elected. I, as an individual—in fact I believe many of us—am opposed to our appointing people to these councils. But in the light of the recent propaganda campaign conducted against the election, it is not surprising that such poor results were achieved. I should like to make an appeal to the inhabitants of Soweto today—where we are affording them another opportunity of electing in accordance with their fully democratic right their own people who can represent their interests on this Community Council—to make use of the free choice in nominating people, regardless of whom they may be. The hon. member for Houghton told us that she had visited certain people in Modderbee prison. She described them as “moderate”. Now I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton: Are Mandela, Sobukwe and Woods also people of that kind? Are they also “moderates”?

Order! The hon. member should discuss community council by-elections and the principle of by-elections.

Very well, Sir. Then may I ask: Are the candidates incarcerated in Modderbee prison? No, Mr. Speaker. There are good people who have the interests of Soweto at heart. There are capable people in every ethnic group in every ward in Soweto to represent their people. However, there are agitators who come in to bedevil—if I may use that word—those people and to prevent them from taking part in the election of community councils. Foreign influences were employed to—one can almost say—intimidate those people into not taking part in the election. But the hon. the Minister is again affording those people the opportunity of making progress. He is doing so a second time as we are sincere as regards the legislation which has already been passed and as regards the Bill now before this House. The hon. the Minister is doing so as we are honest in our intentions with the inhabitants of Soweto. That is why I made a plea to the electorate of Soweto a moment ago not to pay attention for heaven’s sake to the dirty propaganda of the Official Opposition, but rather to participate in the election. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “dirty”. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I have no other descriptive word to use in its stead. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that last remark of his as well. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, then I withdraw that as well. Polling was very poor in Soweto last Saturday. I just want to express a single thought in this regard. I know we give the Black people the opportunity to cast their votes on a Saturday. We give that opportunity to thousands of Black people who are very far from home. It is a difficult matter, however. I may be putting the cat amongst the pidgeons now, but I feel that we should rather reserve a day other than a Saturday for the purpose of elections. Saturday is actually the day on which the Black people play their sports. They also have other business they want to attend to on a Saturday. For that reason I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to have the elections take place on another day, or perhaps on more than one day, if possible. I want to thank the hon. the Minister very much once again for having knocked the Official Opposition for a six.

Mr. Speaker, all of us can recall the destructive criticism of the Official Opposition on many occasions in the past when a Minister had exercised his power to make appointments. Here we are dealing with a situation where the hon. the Minister has the power to make appointments. The hon. the Minister wants to do the democratic thing, however, and wants to give the electorate the opportunity to elect their own representatives. And now the Official Opposition is finding fault with that. The Official Opposition is obsessed by past events. To me they seem to take great delight in what happened last Saturday, because they keep on referring to Saturday. In other words, they are delighted about the failure of the attempt that was made to obtain the co-operation of the Black people. [Interjections.] Moreover, it would appear that they would like to see the hon. the Minister using his power to make appointments, to nominate people, so that they may continue their old cry of “Government stooges”. They want that to happen so that they may tell the electorate that the appointed people are not their true leaders and representatives, but people appointed by the Government.

My party and I support this legislation. We see it as a channel that is being created for negotiation with the true leaders, and whatever happens—if the by-election possibly failed as well—it will be to our credit as Whites that we have done our best to give those people the opportunity to nominate their own representatives, their own candidates. Therefore we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Stilfontein I should like to say that if the only issue before the House were the principle as to whether a person should be nominated or elected to a council, we would certainly not have had any difficulty because we always fight for the democratic right of people to be elected in contrast to their being delegated. What, however, is happening in this case? The hon. the Minister is, in terms of the principal Act, empowered to designate somebody to fill a vacancy, but in terms of the amendment he himself will be empowered to declare a vacancy and to hold an election. This goes to the very roots of the success of the council itself. I want to tell the hon. member for Innesdal that if, instead of attacking the hon. member for Houghton, they had listened to the speech she made on 23 June 1977 in this House, the hon. the Minister and members on that side would not have been in the dilemma in which they find themselves now. Their only reason for introducing the amendment is to get them out of the dilemma they have created because the very essence of what we are discussing, and of what is proposed today, is in itself an admission of the Government’s failure to supply a form of local government acceptable to the people of Soweto or other urban areas.

Order! That matter cannot be discussed in a debate on this Bill. The Bill only deals with the machinery.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I want to submit that if the relevant clause is not agreed to, with the result that the hon. the Minister would be unable to hold by-elections, there would not be a council. What I am saying, therefore, goes to the very root of the legislation. I want to remind the House that the principal Act was based on consultation. At the time of the introduction of the principal Act, the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduced the original Bill said that the Bill was founded on consultation. According to Hansard, 1977, col. 11221, he said—

He then went further into the question of consultation.

Order! The hon. member is circumventing my ruling. I want to point out once again that the Bill only deals with the machinery devised for filling vacancies on the council. The hon. member should only discuss the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to submit that if the hon. the Minister wished to obtain the powers for which he is asking now—in other words, if he wants to be empowered to hold by-elections—he should have consulted the people. The hon. member for Innesdal has asked what we recommend. I want to tell him that what we recommend is something very simple. We do not believe that the failure, evidenced by the fact that only 6% of the people of Soweto cast their votes, should be ascribed to the rain or to agitators’ activities, as has been suggested. We submit that the whole system was not accepted. It is once again a case of the Government saying, “We lay the table and you must come to eat; if you do not, you go hungry.” The menu, however, is not acceptable to the people of Soweto although they are hungry. We should therefore supply a menu which is acceptable to them. If the hon. the Minister wishes to consult, the only way he can do so is by holding a referendum. I therefore call upon the hon. the Minister to hold such a referendum in Soweto and other areas. He must find out whether the people want to have those vacancies filled in the manner proposed.

Order! If the hon. member does not abide by my ruling, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat. He may only discuss the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, may I then reply to the hon. member for Innesdal? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Innesdal asked us what we suggest. We suggest very clearly indeed that we already have a form of local government which is acceptable, a form of local government which could give Soweto and other areas the opportunity of having a council under the auspices of a provincial administration. It will have its own income and its own land. There are certain provisions regarding town-planning …

Order! Those aspects were at issue when the principal Act was discussed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to submit finally that within the confines of what we are doing today, we are wasting the time of this House. [Interjections.] We are wasting the time of the people in the areas where the by-elections are to be held because we have no guarantee that the people want these by-elections, that they will nominate candidates and that they will come to the polls. The proof of the pudding lies in past experience of what has happened, and unless we supply some form of government, we are wasting the time of the House. For those reasons we cannot possibly support what is being proposed here today.

Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition literally makes one despair. The existing Act empowers the Minister to fill all of the 19 vacancies by way of appointment tomorrow, to consult the people concerned the day after tomorrow and simply to proceed and to accept them as the legitimate council for Soweto for the next term. The Minister has that power at the moment. I do not want to exercise that power, however, because I prefer an elected council. It is in the interests of democracy for it to be such. I really thought that if the Official Opposition were to consider the matter on merit, they would see the advantages of such a state of affairs, that they would spot the positive concept it contained and consequently support the measure. But their attitude really amazes one. It makes one fear that the Official Opposition has only one thing in mind, and that is that whatever the Government proposes, it is wrong as far as they are concerned and is to be opposed. [Interjections.] I should still like to see their accepting something which we propose. There has been talk of an effective Opposition.

Have you seen the Order Paper today?

An effective Opposition ought to act differently. Let me say at once, however, what the position is. The hon. member asked me why the Minister still retained the right to make appointments and to determine a period. We are doing this as these councils still are in their initial stages, in the experimental stage of their development. Initially there will inevitably be problems and one must watch the situation. Supposing the next election were to produce no candidates.

Then we go right back to the original.

Yes, that is the choice of that hon. member. The people who did come forward, who were nominated and made themselves available for election, must be rejected by me and be left in the lurch, according to that hon. member. The 11 members legitimately elected—two elected in the same manner as the hon. member for Sea Point and nine elected in the same manner as the hon. member for Houghton—must then be left in the lurch by me. If I am to reject those 11 members, then surely I should reject the Opposition members as well. So what are they doing here? Now I am to reject the 11 elected members and accept the 10 self-appointed members who are being detained. That is the argument of the Opposition. I am dropping this aspect now. I do not want to be delayed by that any longer.

I should like to have elected members, but the right of appointment must initially be retained by the Minister. However, I want to say at once that I shall make use of that as little as possible during my term of office. I can imagine circumstances arising, however, when the Minister will have to have this power. Various circumstances may develop. I can imagine one member of the council suddenly resigning. If there were a matter to be disposed of expeditiously and one wanted to have a full council to do so, but it was another nine months to the next general election, one would appoint a person for that period of nine months. What would be wrong with appointing one man to a council consisting of 30 members so as to enable the council to proceed with its business? In my opinion this is the kind of problem which may arise. For that reason the Minister must retain this power. However, I give the undertaking now and here in this House to make as little use as possible of that power of appointment. That is my undertaking to this House.

In the second instance the hon. member dealt with appointments. The legislation empowers the Minister to appoint the whole Committee of Ten should he wish to do so. Would she approve of that?

We reject the whole thing.

Wait a minute. The hon. member must not run away now.

We reject the whole concept of community councils.

Supposing I were to appoint every single member of the Committee of Ten in order to fill existing vacancies, would she approve of that? Will she answer my question? I am getting no answer. The hon. members on the opposite side are not looking for a solution—they are looking for a problem. There are people who have a solution to every problem, but there are also people who have a problem for every solution, and that is the difficulty I have with the hon. members on the opposite side.

I should like to come to my other reason. The hon. members on the other side maintain that the people of Soweto have totally rejected the whole concept of community councils. The fact of the matter is that 16 other members were nominated, but unfortunately had to be disqualified for technical reasons. Let me add at once that I have already investigated the matter and have given instructions that the regulations in terms of which most of them were disqualified, be amended as the regulations are too strict in my opinion. For example, the regulations provide that none of the 10 supporters of a candidate may owe a cent on nomination day. I think this is too strict. This is more strict than the regulations which apply to Whites. I am going to amend those regulations so that the Blacks will not be disqualified for those reasons. However there is no appreciation for that from the opposite side. I have taken this matter upon me and I am very sincerely seeking a solution to a very difficult problem. The problem is difficult enough in itself. Allow me to say that I think I have the support of the whole of South Africa—Black and White—in my endeavours to solve this problem, barring the support of the hon. members on the opposite side. They do not want a solution there; they want problems there. I think I have the support of the whole of South Africa in my endeavours, barring that of the Official Opposition because it would not suit them if we were to succeed. We must fail to have them succeed. This is my problem.

There is one more point which I cannot fail to mention. In his speech the hon. member for Innesdal asked whether there were no leaders other than the 10, in Soweto, who could be elected. To that the hon. member for Houghton replied by way of interjection: “They are all in gaol”. I want the Blacks of Soweto to take cognizance of that, apart from the 10 in gaol, or 44, whatever the case may be …

That is more like it.

Very well, apart from the 44 in gaol, there are, according to the hon. member for Houghton, no leaders left in Soweto. All the Blacks in Soweto should take cognizance of the fact that there is, according to the hon. member for Houghton, not one single leader left in Soweto at the moment.

The Progs want to be their leaders.

Mr. Speaker, what do we want to achieve with this Bill? We should like to establish a body elected by the inhabitants of Soweto with which we can have direct liaison. I shall go and meet them personally and consult them directly. I wish to speak to them and to listen to them. I want to hear about their problems and try to the best of my ability to remove those problems to their own advantage and to ours, in the interests of South Africa—world-wide. That is my intention. That is what I should like to do. I want to learn about existing bottlenecks. I also want to transfer powers to them, as I have stated in public. All these things I should like to do. Do we have the assurance that the people of Soweto will participate? Considering the spirit in which this Bill has been presented and in the spirit in which I have just said that I do not wish to use the powers that I have, but that I want to have elections, I still have enough confidence in the Black people of Soweto to believe that they will accept it in this spirit. I trust that they will accept it in a better spirit than the Official Opposition. I trust that they will come forward and make themselves available for by-elections, that the by-elections will be successful and that we shall very soon have a council with which I shall be able to negotiate.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.