Mr. Chairman, we have already extensively debated this clause and the amendments moved, but I believe it is necessary to put a couple of facts in the correct perspective. Firstly, in so far as this Bill is concerned, once it becomes law there is no discretion regarding who will be on the list. Once the persons concerned fall within the category provided for in the Bill with regard to registration it will not be open, as has been suggested in the debate, for the Secretary for Inland Revenue to decide that category A or category B can be left off the list. All he is obliged to do is to obtain the registration form and to place people on the list in terms of this legislation. Therefore the argument that there is a discretion in respect of these matters does not accord with the very wording of the Bill.

A second point is that we drew attention to the fact that there are people who will be placed on the list and who, we believe, will eventually be taxed, people who are not engaged in any gainful activity or in an enterprise run for the purpose of selling goods. I refer to, for example, someone who goes out with his ski-boat, someone going fishing as part of an enterprise, but without selling the fish. That person will also be placed in this category. The answer was that if he does not sell the fish, he will not fall into this category, and also that people who indulge in hobbies will not be classified in this category. The difficulty in that regard …

Order! The hon. member is now repeating points that have all been made already.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the hon. the Minister’s statement and am trying to prove that he is wrong. That is a completely legitimate procedure. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member is merely reiterating what has already been said.

No, Sir. I am going to point out that if one looks at clause 2(1)(e), (f), (g) and (h), the enterprises mentioned there do not involve any selling or disposal at all. Quite clearly, if the hon. the Minister wants his intentions carried out, he should therefore accept the amendments moved.

Finally, I again want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to become involved in the registration of, what I call, the small personal activities of people like shoemakers, milliners and dressmakers. I believe those should be deleted. May I also ask why it is necessary to include people who lecture for some laudable purpose, such as, for example, the preparation for examination for recognized courses at universities or technical colleges and otherwise? Why is it necessary to include those when other professions have been excluded? I have pointed it out to the hon. the Minister, and I want to point it out again, that if one wants to embrace all services and include every service that is rendered, that is one thing. However, the hon. the Minister has not included all services. He specifically excluded a number of services, particularly a number of professional services, and yet he has included others. Either there is a principle involved or it is just ad hoc and at random. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude to these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Yeoville was right when he began by saying that we already have had extensive discussions. The hon. member is undoubtedly anticipating—and not necessarily correctly at all—how this tax or some important aspects of it will be operating in practice. I must ask him to exercise a little patience. When he sees the draft Bill he will be in a very much better position to state what he feels about the merits of this as a tax Bill. At the moment I can only repeat that this Bill is a purely administrative procedure to facilitate the introduction of the coming tax Bill. It is no more than that. The fact that these people are asked to make declarations is merely to enable the Secretary for Inland Revenue to draw up a register, and we will see who will be exempted and who will be excepted. I think it is wrong to jump to conclusions at this stage, as I have already said so many times. I honestly do not think I can carry the matter any further now.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a final appeal to the hon. the Minister. If, as he says, this is purely an administrative matter, will he not consider removing the three professions—that of the optometrist, the optician and the pharmacist—and place them in the same category as the excluded professions?

Order! The hon. member made that point yesterday. I cannot allow him to repeat it today. [Interjections.]

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived and amendments (5) and (6) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. A. B. Widman negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. M. Sutton negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. M. Sutton negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (4) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments (7) to (12) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mrs. H. Suzman negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments (13) to (16) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (17) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

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

Clause 5:

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

The amendment, as originally envisaged by me, read: “relating to the conduct of any business enterprise …” As I am now moving the amendment, however, it shall read: “relating to the conduct of any enterprise …”. The reason for that is that the House has already voted on the issue of “business enterprise”, and therefore I can no longer retain the word “business”. The amendment is a very simple one and is intended to make it clear that the rights of the Secretary, in regard to the obtaining of information, are related solely to the conduct of the business in order to enable the Secretary to determine whether the person is required to furnish a declaration or whether he is obliged to notify the Secretary of any changes in terms of section 4. In other words, we do not want the scope of this inquiry to go beyond that. It must be limited solely to the powers it is essential for the Secretary to have to carry out his functions in terms of this particular Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that this amendment is also unacceptable. The intention here is that the Secretary should have the power to call for information from persons other than those carrying on enterprises, should this be deemed necessary. I would just like to assure the House that there is nothing unusual about this being contained in a law passed for taxation purposes. I do not think I can say more.

Mr. Chairman, I obviously regret the hon. the Minister’s attitude. What we object to are inquisitorial powers which go beyond what is necessary for the purposes of statute. It is quite clear that here the hon. the Minister is adopting, for the Secretary, powers which go beyond the purposes of statute. I think that our attitude throughout has always been clear. We do not like inquisitorial powers generally, and where they are necessary they must be limited to the specific purposes for which they are required. I do not want to use extravagant language, but it is quite clear that here the hon. the Minister is seeking to obtain, for the Secretary, powers which go beyond those required. Therefore I persist with my amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

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

Clause 7:

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

This amendment relates to the access which persons may have to the records which are in custody of the Secretary. The Bill reads at present, and I quote clause 7(1)—

And now I refer to clause 7(1)(b)—

This means, in fact, that these records are available to anybody under any other Act of Parliament. In other words, it can relate to matters which go far beyond revenue collection and which have nothing to do with the hon. the Minister’s department. It can be under any Act of Parliament and therefore relate to any department of State at all. In our view it should be limited; the Acts of Parliament concerned should in fact relate to the assessment and collection of revenue, i.e. matters which concern the Secretary and not other departments. In matters of this kind, where information is collected, that information should be available to the Secretary for Inland Revenue, but there should not be a roving commission entitled under any other Act of Parliament to go into these records on behalf of some other party.

As far as the records, generally, of the Secretary for Inland Revenue are concerned, one has to guard them jealously to ensure that they are only made available for purposes of the assessment and collection of revenue. Exactly the same thing should apply here. I believe that our amendment is well motivated.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister a question with regard to clause 7(1)(a). On behalf of the hon. member for Yeoville, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give the assurance that the activities of vendors will be kept absolutely secret.

Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether the words “or under the authority of any other Act of Parliament” in lines 25 and 26 on page 7 of the Bill are properly understood. Those words mean that the Secretary must be authorized specifically by that other Act to permit some other person to have access to such records. However, I must concede that there is, I think, a weakness in the wording of the Bill in this respect. The words “except in the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties under this Act or under the authority of any other Act of Parliament or by order of a competent court” in lines 23 to 26 on page 7 of the Bill qualify only paragraph (b) of clause 7(1), whereas clearly they should also qualify paragraph (a) of that clause. The other Act we have in mind is the sales tax legislation which is still to be passed. Let me say that I have no objection in principle to the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment. However, in view of the need to put the wording of this particular clause beyond all doubt, I should like to suggest that it be amended in the Other Place, in which case we shall certainly take into account the difficulty expressed by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Minister’s undertaking, which I appreciate, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment as I am quite happy that the hon. the Minister will do what he has said in the Other Place.

May I just add something for the benefit of the hon. member for Lydenburg. We are not merely seeking to protect the ordinary individual.

*Even those people who sell rubbish will also be protected in terms of this Act. The hon. member is quite safe: We shall protect him.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Having moved the third reading of the Bill, there is only one matter I want to refer to. I have noticed that one or two newspapers, in reporting my reply to the second reading debate, are apparently labouring under a misapprehension in regard to something I said. The matter in question concerned the expenses involved in the administration of this new tax. I was asked what it would cost to introduce and administer this tax. I should like to quote what I said (Hansard, 23 February 1978)—

Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain that the cost of R16 million is in respect of the department as it is now. It does not therefore represent expenses involved in the new tax. In the latest budget the expenses are set at a little higher than R16 million. This amount is merely a rough estimate, but as far as we can see at the moment, it seems that the cost of administration of the sales tax in the coming year will amount to a little more than R2 million. That is merely a rough estimate. I just want to re-emphasize that the R16 million has nothing to do with the tax as such.

Mr. Speaker, we regret that we cannot support the Third Reading of this measure. We have tried to a considerable extent during the Committee Stage to remove some of the difficulties which we see in this measure. With one exception, the hon. the Minister has regrettably rejected these amendments which we believed would have improved the Bill to some extent. Unfortunately, the Bill now goes forward in the form in which it does. There is a considerable test which is going to be applied to the hon. the Minister as well as to some of the hon. members on the other side who have spoken. They told us of a whole variety of things that are not going to happen. However, when the day of reckoning comes and the second instalment of this measure comes before this House, if these things that we were told were not going to happen, do happen, there are going to be some red faces in the benches of the NP in this House. There is no doubt about that.

The hon. the Minister should have come here with a package. He should have taken the House into his confidence; he should have taken the country into his confidence and he should have said: “This is what we propose to do.” A variety of questions were asked to try to give him the opportunity of taking the House into his confidence. However, he declined to answer those questions and he has, in fact, not taken the House into his confidence. There is a long string of questions, questions which are of public interest and which he has failed to answer. They remain unanswered at this very moment in time. This is not the way in which to introduce a new system of taxation. Let me give the hon. the Minister an example. There is considerable worry and considerable concern in South Africa as to whether the major portion of sales tax is going to remain after this. The hon. the Minister could very readily have come to us and said: “This is the package. This is what we are going to do. You need not have these fears.” There is an aura of mystery which surrounds the whole matter. The whole concept of the retail turnover tax is being introduced in an aura of mystery and in an atmosphere which makes people afraid of it. It makes them afraid, because they see staring them in the face another R1 000 million per annum which can be extracted from them by way of additional taxation. Yet we are not given any details, but are merely surrounded by an aura of mystery. The hon. the Minister knows that there is an aura of mystery about it. Maybe he wants to operate in an aura of mystery; maybe he wants a cloak around all of this, but it is not in the public interest to have new taxation sought to be introduced in this kind of aura of mystery. I want to ask the hon. the Minister some of the elementary questions which I have put to him before. I ask him in a very reasonable fashion: Will he make available to members of the House the report of the Standing Commission in regard to Taxation Policy which dealt with the turnover tax?

Order! I am not going to allow a discussion on turnover tax. I allowed a lot of latitude to members during the Second Reading debate and they should now confine themselves to the Bill as a legal instrument before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I respect your ruling. Will the hon. the Minister then make available that portion of that committee’s report which deals with the registration? That is what we are dealing with. Will he make it available to us? That portion is relevant to the Bill and therefore we should have it so that we can know what is being dealt with.

There was also a feasibility study which had been conducted by the Secretary for Inland Revenue together with the Department of Customs and I want to know whether he will make that feasibility study available to us so that we can judge the matter in the same manner as he has been benefited by these studies and inquiries. Will he make that available to us? We should see what the tests of the viability study showed in respect of the matter and what the committee found. These matters should not be kept secret. On the contrary. We should govern in South Africa with the greatest degree of openess. The hon. the Minister should take the public into his confidence and tell them what it is all about. That is not being done, however, and everything concerning the matter is being cloaked in mystery, because it is obviously in the design of the hon. the Minister to do so. I do not wish to enlarge upon the other factors which relate to the matter. I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister has a duty to present a package, to be open, to put his cards on the table and to let the House sit in judgment, instead of which he relies on a massive majority to steamroller legislation through the House. That is the truth of it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not want to have any secrets—as the hon. member for Yeoville indicated—and we make no secret of the fact that, like the Official Opposition, we also totally oppose the Bill. The situation here is that once again the cart is being put before the horse. The Government seems to be doing this more and more, as was witnessed by the recent elections which we were fighting about a constitution which we knew very little about. We are discussing a measure today which is being introduced to bring about a sales tax about which we, at this stage, know nothing about. It surely would have been a far more courteous situation as far as the Opposition is concerned if the measures in regard to the registration of vendors had been brought in at the same time or in the same legislation that brought about the sales tax. We would then have had an opportunity of really knowing what we were discussing. As the Bill now stands, we are obviously filled with all sorts of suspicions, suspicions which might or which might not be justifiable. The way in which the measure is presented can only …

Your suspicions might be unjustifiable.

Yes. They might be unjustifiable, but we do not know, because we are not given the opportunity to judge it. I would ask that hon. member whether he has had the opportunity to judge within his caucus. How much information has he been given? [Interjections.] Talking to the actual Bill itself and not to the situation of a final point of sales tax, we find that the hon. the Minister has spread himself exceptionally wide. As I have said earlier, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are going to have to respond to the passage of the Bill; they are going to have to submit documentation to the Secretary for Inland Revenue. In fact, it would appear that South Africa, and in particular the Department of Inland Revenue, is going to be inundated by a mountain of paper. The taxes themselves, Mr. Speaker—and I respect your earlier rulings—might be or might not be a good thing. We on this side have very definite views about this, but I am not entitled to express them today. What I can do, however, is to state categorically that there are going to be many thousands of people who should respond in terms of this Bill, but who would not respond. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that when the Bill finally goes through—and it appears that the Government is going to steam-roller it through—it should get the widest possible publicity in the Press and on television. As I have said, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are going to have to respond by sending in information. The onus is going to be on them to make the actual approach and unless we want to find that the Department of Inland Revenue gets a tremendous income from the fines involved for failing to render this information, I believe we must implore the hon. the Minister to give this legislation the widest possible publicity and so to obviate the position as far as fines is concerned. I want to reiterate that we in these benches totally oppose the Bill before the House.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. members who have just spoken it is amazing to see how suspicious they are and how willing they are to sow suspicion …

We have good reason.

… and how they tend to discuss matters which are not at issue in the debate. It seems that the hon. member for Yeoville in particular simply cannot bring himself to trust the hon. the Minister of Finance when he gives assurance and explanations in public in this House concerning what he has in mind and what he does not have in mind. The hon. the Minister has said repeatedly that the Bill only concerns the registration of certain people and bodies. Now, however, spectres are being conjured up. The world at large is being told that the Minister of Finance is not taking the country or the House into his confidence. I think we should object to hon. members of the Opposition wanting to create the impression that the hon. the Minister is introducing a Bill involving a lot of cloak and dagger, secret issues, secret issues which form no part in the Bill. I ask myself: Why is the hon. the Minister introducing the Bill?

Because he wants to tax us.

We are constantly hearing the complaint that company tax and mining tax are tremendously high, that only a handful of people pay direct tax and that they cannot bear the burden any further. I think this complaint will fall away as soon as this legislation is carried through, because the Bill provides that people must register, so that when the hon. the Minister introduces the sales tax, the burden can be eased for those who have to bear it at the moment. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Yeoville is concerned about whether the Department of Inland Revenue will be able to carry out the provisions of this legislation, and about the expense it will involve. I am amazed that the hon. member did not say to the hon. the Minister in his speech a short time ago that he was pleased that the hon. the Minister had now made known the fact that the department’s additional expense should be a mere R2 million. It is an achievement that the amount is so small. I really think that the hon. member for Yeoville must compliment the hon. the Minister of Finance now and again for doing things in the correct fashion and being thrifty.

This Bill entails tremendous advantages for South Africa. Why have other countries introduced this system? Why did we go out of our way to study similar legislation in other countries in order to determine how it works there? This Bill envisages an even better system than that which exists in other countries. For that reason we on this side of the House support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member for Worcester that we in the SAP explained to the hon. the Minister at Second Reading that we needed more information in regard to this matter. We do not have the information yet. I just want to put one question to the hon. member for Worcester. When one buys a house, one waits for the house to be registered, and after the house has been registered does one only then ask what the purchase price is? I am sure the hon. member for Worcester will ask what the purchase price is before he signs a deed of sale. In this particular case he expects us to register the house and then after that to ask the purchase price. [Interjections.]

In the Second Reading we indicated our attitude and I am certainly not going to traverse the same ground as we did then. This Bill, as we are aware, will cover some 180 000 farmers and traders. I pointed out that according to the American system registration has distinct advantages, because farmers and traders who are unregistered will obviously have to pay this new tax to the manufacturer or wholesaler. If, however, the farmers and traders produce a registration certificate to the manufacturer or wholesaler, they will obviously be exempted from paying this new tax at that point of time, if the system is worked according to the American system.

I can understand that the task of registration must be a nightmare for the Secretary for Inland Revenue and his staff as this operation has to be done in a minimum of time. It is an absolutely monumental task. However, to ensure that this task is not made more difficult, it will depend on the efficiency with which these forms are duly completed and sent in by the farmers and the traders. I assume that the forms will be sent to the farmers and the traders by the Secretary after consulting his existing records, but in addition forms will have to be made available to those people who are not registered with the Secretary for Inland Revenue at present. I should like to repeat the suggestion I made at Second Reading—it has also been made by the hon. member for East London North in this Third Reading debate—and that is that in order that the affected persons can respond urgently, the Press, television and the radio should be asked to help in the campaign. I believe that in addition to the forms being sent out, the matter must be brought pertinently to the attention of the farmers and the traders in order that this matter is completed with the minimum of waste of time.

There is only one question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister is going to introduce the new tax in a couple of weeks’ time, why could he not have held this Bill over until after the new tax has been introduced? The preparatory work on the forms could have carried on in the meantime. The only thing the hon. the Minister would have had to do was to hold over the posting of the forms for a couple of weeks. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister—he must correct me if I am wrong—that that would have been the only procedural delay, because the department could have done all the other preparatory groundwork. They could merely have held over the posting of the forms for a couple of weeks until the new tax has been introduced. If the hon. the Minister had done this, I believe we would have had a far more fruitful discussion and we would have understood his problems far better than we do today. Due to the lack of information we on this side of the House have no alternative and no option but to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have reached a stage when the Opposition must tell us where it stands in regard to the legislation. It was the Opposition itself who told us over the years, when sales tax was introduced, that we should rather have a turnover tax. Hansard is full of it. But now that the hon. the Minister of Finance introduces this administrative measure, they object. I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville: Is he in favour of a turnover tax or not? He is one of the people who asked for it in the past.

Order! Turnover tax is not at issue now.

This legislation is meant exclusively to take administrative measures so as to introduce the tax the Opposition has asked for.

Mr. Speaker, I have great appreciation towards hon. members on this side of the House who have once again tried to bring home some understanding of this simple Bill to the hon. members of the Opposition. I am afraid it is a superhuman task, however.

†The hon. member for Yeoville says there is an aura of mystery about this whole matter, that I am deliberately trying to create an aura of mystery. There is no aura of mystery whatsoever about this simple little Bill. It is a narrow, crisp issue and the hon. member knows it as well as I do. Any average Std. 6 schoolboy could read through this Bill and understand it.

The hon. member for Sunnyside could not understand it.

If there is any aura of mystery about this very simple Bill, then it is purely in the imagination of the hon. member for Yeoville. I have already said he is a master of the art of speculation and the less he has to speculate on, the better he does it and the wilder his speculation becomes. That is exactly what we have seen now for hours on end. The crisp issue here—let us put it on record again—is to make provision for declarations to be given to the Secretary for Inland Revenue so that he can prepare a register of persons who will be involved in the payment of this tax. It is nothing else. Hon. members opposite say I am misleading the country because I have not published the full Bill. We are not in a position to publish the full Bill just at this moment. That is the position.

Do you not know what you are going to do?

Have you left it in Pretoria?

It takes time. Instead of holding up the holding up the whole introduction and the practical implementation, what did the Secretary for Inland Revenue do? He has his feet on the ground; he is a practical official. He studies these things and knows what the practical implications are. He also consults with people who have some understanding of these matters. Thus he consults with Assocom, with the Handelsinstituut, with the FCI, Seifsa and the Agricultural Union, plus dozens of others. And he domes to the conclusion that the sooner we can get this administrative proceeding out of the way, the sooner we can have this Bill which has still to be put before the House and public for comment, the sooner we shall be able to go over to introducing it, as and when we have the final approval for it. How can I be misleading anybody and how can I be withholding any information about the tax when the Bill which states the full facts will be laid before the House and the whole country as soon as we are in a position to do it? Hon. members opposite will then be able to discuss it to their heart’s content. I am prepared to leave it to the good judgment of this House, which I believe is a fair judgment … [Interjections.] Yes, that is why the Opposition are where they are. One cannot speak responsibly to them on serious matters when they sit and giggle like a bunch of schoolchildren. I am quite prepared to leave this matter to the good judgment of this House and to the judgment of the country. This Bill will be found to be a much more considered document than one would think if one listened to some of the insane speeches we have had to listen to in this House over the last day or two, and I say that with respect.

It is very easy for one to say one condemns this Bill because it does not contain all the details of the tax itself. It never purported to do that. When we discuss this matter on the basis of a Bill dealing with the full tax itself, the object of this little Bill will become crystal clear, even to hon. members of the Opposition. [Interjections.]

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—101: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. 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, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, S. F. Kotzé, J. P. A. Reyneke, W. L. van der Merwe and V. A. Volker.

Noes—27: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, until 1976 no White person was a disqualified person in terms of the Group Areas Act with regard to land which was the property of divisional councils in the Cape Province. Consequently, all non-White persons were, of course, disqualified persons in these particular circumstances.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that the Bill does not concern land which falls under the jurisdiction of a divisional council. Those areas derive their group character from other provisions of the Act. The Bill deals almost exclusively with the corporate existence of divisional councils, and in this Third Reading stage of the Bill I want hon. members to confine themselves to that.

Mr. Speaker, I accept that. I was referring to the property of divisional councils. Under these restricted circumstances, when land was the property of a divisional council, persons of all non-White races were at the mercy of a permit system in so far as their activities in connection with that divisional council land was concerned. These conditions even held good within areas which, generally speaking, actually had to be considered non-White areas. I am thinking here of an area like Atlantis, to which the hon. the Minister has already referred. Therefore, during that period, the Group Areas Act, as it stood, served the purpose for which it was originally introduced. However, in 1976 a divisional council ordinance was promulgated, an ordinance which, as it happened, turned the tables considerably. The effect of that ordinance on the Group Areas Act was that this provision now in fact discriminated against White persons rather than non-Whites, as had previously been the position. Suddenly it was the White people who were subject to the inconvenience of a permit system in those circumstances. Suddenly there were White people who had to feel in that regard what it was like to be on the wrong side of discriminatory legislation.

Of course there were complaints, as was to be expected. There was, inter alia, the letter which the hon. the Deputy Minister read to us here, a letter which referred to some problems which White industrialists experienced in doing business and transferring land in Atlantis. Hon. members can think for themselves how many similar problems the Coloureds, Bantu and Indians have had to put up with in this country. This time, however, it was the Whites who complained, and the hon. the Minister is now ready to rectify the matter.

However, what is the hon. the Minister’s solution? In these circumstances the hon. the Minister’s solution simply means that the problems which are resting on the shoulders of the Whites at the moment will be transferred to the shoulders of non-Whites, i.e. Coloureds, Indians and Blacks.

Order! I am very sorry, but there is no such thing in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, it emanates from the amendment proposed by the hon. the Deputy Minister. The onus is in fact being reversed. Whereas Whites are subject to that inconvenience at the moment…

And the others too. You do not understand anything about it.

Yes, other groups; I concede that. The fact remains that the Whites, who were subject to a permit system, are being lifted out of that problem situation and are now being favoured. This shows a cynical approach on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is apparent from the fact that when an unbalanced situation like this one arises in terms of the Group Areas Act, the Whites are very soon satisfied. Their problems are soon solved, while the others simply have to endure them. If this legislation is passed, matters will be just as they were before. Therefore, a non-White person will have to come along hat in hand, just like the Whites are standing hat in hand at the moment as far as that limited element is concerned. This is just another example of how impossible it is to grant equal rights to different race groups when one applies compulsory racial separation. One group or the other must always bear the brunt. One group always has the automatic rights, while the other group is subject to a permit system. This is the position which is being reversed here.

Therefore, if an unbalanced situation arises due to the application of Government policy, as is the case here, does the hon. the Deputy Minister not think that we as Whites should also endure our share of discomfort? If there is legislation like the Group Areas Act, which causes this type of situation to arise, must we not also endure our share of the discomfort? Should we be so quick to iron out the situation for the Whites and simply shift the discomfort to the other groups?

You really do not understand anything about the legislation.

This piece of legislation illustrates the essentially discriminatory nature of the Group Areas Act.

Order! I am not allowing any discussion of the Group Areas Act because it is not in question here.

I conclude, Mr. Speaker. Since this amendment of the Group Areas Act restores the harsh conditions which prevailed before 1976, we cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to the whole House that the hon. member for Bryanston is not here this afternoon. We witnessed an hysterical outburst by the hon. member for Bryanston during the Second Reading and again during the Committee Stage of this Bill. The hon. member for Green Point spread precisely the same poison which the hon. member for Bryanston spread, but in a more calm, composed way. All we heard from that side of the House was “colour, colour, colour”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that the hon. member for Green Point is spreading the same sort of poison in the House?

Order! It is in order in the sense in which the hon. member used the words. However, the hon. member must not discuss the incidental arguments on group areas which were raised here. These are not relevant to the discussion of this Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I agree with that. I merely wanted to point out the tone that was adopted by the hon. members on the opposite side of the House.

I shall return to the Bill as such. It has already been set out in detail during the Second Reading as well as in the Committee Stage, precisely how this Bill will amend the principal Act and what its consequences will be. The hon. the Deputy Minister spelled it out and the hon. member for Bellville also applied himself to analysing it rather than to drawing the colour question into the discussion of the Bill. It is true that one can never consider an act, an ordinance or any statutory measure in vacuo. One can never consider it as something which stands alone. It always forms an integral part of the legislation and the law of a country. Now, it is true that in terms of section 84 of our Constitution, there are certain specific matters which are allocated to the provincial councils and in regard to which they have legislative authority. One of these matters is in fact local authorities which include the smallest area or health committee to the biggest city or divisional council. When the central legislature pilots legislation through Parliament which may possibly cause an overlap with existing ordinances, it is extremely careful not to tamper with the legislative authority of the provincial administrations.

Now, it was discovered, when Act 36 of 1966 was passed, that there were certain things which were already defined in existing ordinances, including in Ordinance No. 51 on Municipalities in the Cape in which a definition of the concept “municipality” and of its corporate existence appeared. Similarly, there was a definition of divisions or divisional councils in an ordinance of 1952. The definition in the 1951 ordinance, however, was such that the provisions of Act 36 of 1966 could not be put into effect, and as a result of that “municipality in the Cape” as such was specifically included in the Act. Due to the way in which “a division” was defined at that stage, it was not necessary to include it in the principal Act as well. In 1976, however, the 1952 ordinance was amended so that corporate existence was redefined and brought into line almost verbation with the definition of “municipality” in the 1951 ordinance. This meant that due to a statutory amendment, the provisions of the Act, as envisaged by the legislator, could no longer be put into effect. Surely then it was quite natural and normal for us to have to do one of two things: Either we would have to amend the ordinance once again or we would have to amend the Act. All that the House is being asked to do is to amend the Act so that the intentions of the legislature can be put into effect. This is, in fact, all that is being asked. When the ordinance was amended in 1976, it was never intended that authority should be removed from one body or person and transferred to another or to another group of persons or to individuals. This was never the intention. Nor, when the ordinance was amended to define corporate existence in a different way, was it the intention to suddenly transfer the property from the divisional council to the individual inhabitants of the divisional council area. To give an example: If the divisional council had to buy or sell a wheelbarrow, the idea was not that the council had to go and consult all the inhabitants. This was never the idea. The whole idea was merely to amend the definition. If anyone can complain that powers are being taken away from it, it is the divisional council. That council had a specific procedure in accordance with which it put certain provisions in the principal Act into effect. However, it is now being deprived of it. That is why the divisional council could come to this House and ask in all fairness: Amend the Act so that you cannot point a finger at me when I tell you that the Public Service is always clumsy and full of red tape. However, these are things which the Opposition is always complaining about. They complain that the Public Service is clumsy. They allege that the machinery of the State works too slowly and ponderously. Now we are asking for the Act to be amended so that it can be more streamlined and so that we can put the provisions of it into effect more easily. However, what does the hon. Opposition do? They shout about the rights which are being taken away from the Coloureds. No rights have ever been taken away from the Coloureds and no new powers are being given to the divisional council either. The legislation is merely aimed at re-establishing the status quo ante, and that is why I am pleased to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Pretoria East maintains that a mistake was made in 1976 with the promulgation of the Divisional Council Ordinance. That ordinance provided, inter alia, that the body corporate of a divisional council shall vest in the inhabitants of that area. This he believed was a mistake. I do not see it in that light, Mr. Speaker. I believe that justice was done in 1976 in this respect. It is for that reason that we are reluctant to try to return to a situation where a disqualified person automatically becomes a member of a particular group. We have now entered the Third Reading stage of this Bill. In terms of the long title of the Bill, the purpose of the measure is to amend the Group Areas Act, 1966, so as to determine who shall be a disqualified person in relation to certain immovable property belonging to the council of a division of the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. During the Third Reading stage of a Bill one no longer looks at the principle of the Bill as such, but at how it will be applied and what will be the effect of its implementation. There can be no argument that, as far as a divisional council is concerned, this Bill brings about a return to the position which obtained before 1976 in respect of what was regarded as its group character. This measure will also determine who shall in practice be regarded as disqualified persons in relation to the property of divisional councils. That is the whole kernel of this particular Bill. There has been tremendous confusion right throughout amongst hon. members.

The hon. the Minister must not take it amiss, but I find some of his arguments not completely logical. In fact, the very things that he quoted as an example of why the Bill is necessary, can be advanced as reasons why we should not have this sort of situation in practice. Wittingly or unwittingly, the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations admitted something during the Committee Stage. He said: “What a pity that you people did not wait till after we had visited Atlantis.” That he said during the Committee Stage. I want to say, in all seriousness, that I agree with him that it is a pity, especially on behalf of hon. members on that side of the House, that they did not wait to see for themselves the actual implementation—I am specifically using the word “actual”—as a result of the change. I was part of the group that visited …

Mr. Chairman, in regard to what happened at Atlantis, I want to ask the hon. member: Is the hon. member suggesting that it happened as a result of the 1976 amendment?

No. I am purely looking at the practical application of the provisions of the Bill, at how it will apply to the local situation, bearing in mind, however, the problem the hon. Deputy Minister experienced as a result of his quotation from a certain letter.

Order! May I point out to the hon. member that the Bill has absolutely nothing to do with Atlantis. Whether Atlantis is developed by the divisional council, by a local authority or by private persons, the group character is determined by other provisions of the Group Areas Act.

I am only referring to Atlantis in so far as the property of the divisional council is concerned. What are the rules determining who the disqualified people will be in relation to the property of the divisional councils of the Cape Province? It so happens that the divisional council of Cape Town owns property in and near that particular area. As a result of this I merely want to make a brief reference to my visit there. It was quite clear that that particular industrial area is an integral part of the whole Atlantis complex. Whatever the character of Atlantis may be, there can be no doubt that the particular industrial area will have exactly the same character. If one visits the area, one sees for oneself that it is not something different, but that the whole complex is an integral development. That is why I think it is such a pity that we should have this kind of legislation which, as a result of determining the corporate body of a divisional council, creates the situation that people are disqualified. The people that will have to have permits to be in the industrial area, which is an integral part of their own city, will be the Coloureds. It would have been far easier to have overcome the difficulty by maintaining the status quo in the area. The letter from which the hon. Deputy Minister read, indicated a difficulty in this regard. By maintaining the status quo he would have required the White entrepreneur to have been the one to be granted a permit. For heavens sake, we need those people and the problem could have been overcome by placing the onus on them to obtain permits.

For these reasons we on this side of the House must oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to try, in all fairness, to reply to the questions which were put to me during the Committee Stage and the Third Reading, to the best of my ability. If there is a difference in principle, as the hon. member for Durban Central put it, I understand it completely and I grant the other fellow the right to have his own opinion on the matter. However, I ask the same kind of concession for myself. Unfortunately I cannot reply to the arguments of the hon. member for Green Point in detail because—apparently as a result of circumstances beyond his control—he is not present in the House. I accept this fully and do not want to be unfair to him by reacting now to some of his arguments in the way I would have done if he had been here. For the record, I should like to take a closer look at one of his arguments. Unfortunately, what is going to happen as a result of the changes is something which does not seem to be fully understood by the hon. member. The hon. member alleges that permits will now be required again, and I now want to bring it to his attention and to the attention of the House that, since 1976—with the confusion which arose then—there has been no change concerning the acquisition of a permit. This is why I cannot understand what the arguments of the Opposition are all about. Does the hon. member for Durban Central, a senior member of the House who has made a study of these matters, now want to tell me that he cannot understand this? I can understand that a new member—I am not saying this in a derogatory way of superciliously—could find it impossible to understand all the details of the legislation, but the hon. member for Durban Central ought to understand it.

Does the hon. member not know that since 1976 until today there has been no change in the procedure when someone obtains land in any divisional council area which passes from a White to a Coloured or vice versa? That state of affairs has not changed at all. A permit has always been required. The only difference was that the body corporate could not obtain such a permit, because there was a lack of clarity in the legislation concerning what the body corporate was and how to go about keeping count in order to determine a body corporate. The hon. member for Green Point is a junior member, and I am pleased that he is interested in this matter. I want to tell him, however, so that he can read it with attention, that this amendment makes no change whatsoever in the requirements of the original legislation. Therefore, when land-ownership changes from one population group to another, a permit is still required, although transactions made with the body corporate as one of the parties of the transaction have come to a standstill.

This amending Bill makes it possible for those transactions to continue once again without the difficulties which they caused the Registrar of Deeds and other people.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is aware of the fact that land has changed ownership since 1976?

That is quite correct. Land-ownership has of course changed, as happens in any other area in South Africa which is not a divisional council area. It happened by means of the very simple issuing of a permit. It is as simple as that. The issuing of permits continued, but in cases where the divisional councils were involved in the matter as one of the parties, a question mark hung over the transactions.

I conclude by saying that I am glad of the interest which was shown in the legislation. I just want to repeat, so that hon. members can take note of it, that we must be careful not to play one colour group off against another because it will not do any of us any good. We have here legislation which we can disagree on, but which requires that we work at it so that it can be applied in the best interests of everyone. Even if we should differ on the principle, we can nevertheless help one another to rub down the rough spots in existing legislation so that it can be applied in the best interests of everyone. Sir, surely you are aware of the fact that the Group Areas Act is looked at regularly and with sympathy, with a view to the latest declaration of open industrial areas. I want to make an appeal to hon. members, particularly to the hon. member for Bryanston in his absence, to try in the name of Heaven to keep colour out of the arguments when we are talking about matters which have merit and which should be judged on merit alone, irrespective of the colour side of it.

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

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refresh the minds of hon. members in the House as to what has happened in regard to this legislation so far. When the Second Reading was taken some time ago, this party supported it for the reason that we felt that the hon. the Minister was placed in an extremely difficult position indeed in Soweto where a council was in the process of being put together, partly by way of election and partly by way of what would become by-elections if the hon. the Minister was given the power sought by this Bill. We felt that it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to have that power so as at least give him a chance, which he will not have until this legislation is passed, to declare vacancies and to arrange for by-elections to be held in the area of Soweto. We adopted the attitude that it was vitally important for the very concept of democratic government. If it is going to work at all, the new Minister should be given the chance to get together with the people in that area and to perhaps be able to persuade them of his sincerity and genuine intention of making a real attempt to get together on a democratic basis with the people of Soweto. For that reason we supported the Second Reading of the Bill.

Apart from the title of the Bill, there is only one clause which is of any consequence. We felt that the hon. the Minister had not quite achieved what he set out to achieve in the wording of the Bill as it is. I put an amendment on the Order Paper which seeks to make it clearer. It is printed on the Order Paper and I should now like to motivate it. On page 3, in lines 10 and 11, we want to omit the words “or if a vacancy occurs in a community council” after the words “the required number of persons is not elected”. After that the clause should continue as it is. Together with this amendment I also want to insert a paragraph (b) in subsection (2) which will read as follows—

The reason is that the hon. the Minister will have the power to designate members to fill vacancies. We feel that he should be required to declare a vacancy and to arrange for a by-election, failing which he would then have no further alternative but to designate a member to fill the vacancy. However, we wanted it established quite clearly in the clause that the hon. the Minister should, firstly, be required to declare a vacancy for the purpose of a by-election should a vacancy occur. The next step would then be to fill a vacancy by designation. As a consequence of that the existing paragraph in the Bill should become paragraph (a). I should like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to the matter and to indicate to us how he feels about the amendments. I hope he will be sympathetic and accept them. Mr. Chairman, I now move—

1. (1) In the English text, on page 3, in line 9, after “person” to insert “is elected”;
2. (2) on page 3, in lines 10 and 11, to omit “or if a vacancy occurs in a community council,”;
3. (3) on page 3, after line 18, to insert:
   1. (b) If a vacancy occurs in a community council, such vacancy shall, unless the term of the community council expires before such vacancy can be filled, be filled within six months of its occurring, by an election.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River outlined the attitude his party took during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I should simply like to remind the Committee that we on these benches in fact opposed the Second Reading of the Bill. We gave as our main reason the fact that we were against the whole principle of community councils and the manner in which they had been set up, and so on. We did not think that this amending Bill made any difference to the existing Act.

As the hon. member for Mooi River has stated, this is a very simple little Bill containing only one operative clause to try to cope—this the hon. member did not say, but which I shall add for him—with the extraordinary situation which arose as a result of the general elections for a community council for Soweto which took place some two weeks ago. It has to do with the 19 vacancies which still remained in the community council after that election had taken place. The clause, as the hon. member correctly says, gives the Minister the permissive right to designate members of the council to make up the shortfall—to make up to the shortfall, to be more accurate—whereas previously he had a duty to make up to the shortfall. The hon. member for Mooi River wishes to take away that compulsory duty and simply leave to the Minister the other right which is contained in the Bill, namely the right to declare by-elections in order to fill the vacancies. In so far as the hon. member for Mooi River’s amendment does away with any suggestion of an imposition of members on the council by the Minister—which, I might say, was one of our objections, but by no means the main objection when we opposed the principal Act last year—we shall not of course oppose this amendment. However, at the same time I have to say that even if the hon. the Minister decides to accept this amendment we shall still vote against the clause.

Because you do not know your own mind!

Oh no! We know our own minds very well indeed. I think the hon. the Minister ought to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River, because that would demonstrate his faith in the efficacy of the community council system. If he believes it is going to work he must, surely, believe that the by-elections will take place in the normal way and that he will then have a council with which he can deal. He should not mete out to himself any mandatory power to designate members of the council, because that is a clear indication that he does not believe that there is a voluntary acceptance of this system.

The reason why we would still not accept this clause in the event of the hon. the Minister’s accepting the amendment, is that we believe that accepting a system of by-elections for the community council seems to us to give a spurious plausibility to the system as a whole. It is a system which not only we reject—and that is what our duty is in this House, to accept or reject according to the manner in which we judge the merits of the measure placed before us—clearly this community council system has been rejected also by the people to whom it applies, i.e. by the people of Soweto.

How can you make that statement?

“How can I make that statement?” asks the hon. member for Von Brandis. The very fact that there are 19 vacancies out of 31, that only two of the seats were opposed, and there there was a percentage poll of less than 5%, and that there were 11 unopposed seats, should surely be an indication to the hon. member that the system has been rejected.

You know there were technical reasons for that.

Not only technical reasons at all. Will hon. members tell me what technical reasons there were for a less than 5% poll?

It was raining!

It was raining! That is really a technical reason. I do not remember whether it was raining or not on 30th November, but I am quite sure that the hon. member for Von Brandis would have been very depressed indeed if there had been only a 3% poll in the constituency of Von Brandis.

That is what The Star said would happen on that day, but it did not.

What it would have shown was that there was something wrong, if not with the system, then at least with the members, and maybe that would have been the case.

As I say, we are not prepared to accept this. We shall be very surprised indeed, perhaps pleasantly surprised to the hon. the Minister’s surprise if the by-elections which he is no doubt going to declare, are going to prove to be any more successful than the general elections for the Soweto Community Council was. It is our contention in these benches that there is no point in having a little Bill which tampers with the self-starter of a mechanism which is faulty from beginning to end. We believe that the whole mechanism ought to be scrapped and that the hon. the Minister ought to sit down—he is a new Minister in this portfolio and he comes with bright ideas and high ideals, and he has had thrust upon him a system from his predecessor which is clearly a failure, and I think he ought to have the courage to admit that—and scrap the whole system and to work out a whole new system of local government for the urban Africans. I hope I do not have to call them “the urban plurals”. Anyway, I am referring to the urban Africans. I hope the hon. member for Von Brandis wants to know what we suggest instead. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit it, I am quite sure that the hon. member for Hillbrow will be able to give him an excellent blueprint of the sort of system of local government which we advocate for urban Africans. For those reasons we have to reject this clause. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened with absolute astonishment to the hon. member for Houghton.

No. You were not surprised at all!

Really, Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the Bill now before the House, it is obvious that it is not the principle of community councils which is now under discussion. That is not relevant at all. The party of the hon. member for Houghton, however, intends to reject this clause in the Committee Stage.

Of course!

Did I hear the hon. member correctly? Are they going to reject it?

Yes!

They are going to vote against it.

Of course!

All right then. But what is the object of the hon. Minister with this clause? Let us see what is stated in the principal Act. I refer to the Community Councils Act, No. 125 of 1977. Actually we are now amending section 3(2) and deleting section 3(3). And how does section 3(2) read in the principal Act? I quote—

The Minister therefore has no choice. He has to designate members. The Bill seeks further to delete section 3(3) of the principal Act. Let us now see how this subsection reads in the principal Act—

In other words, we are here dealing with a situation in which, if a sufficient number of members have not been elected, the Minister, is required, in terms of the principal Act, to designate so many members as may be necessary to attain the required number. In terms of the principal Act, we therefore have the situation where the Minister is compelled to designate members if a sufficient number of members have not been elected. The hon. Minister’s object with this amendment is to create more freedom of movement, a wider margin, the opportunity to put the democratic process into operation. The hon. the Minister therefore does not want to act undemo-cratically. He does not want to designate people for the community councils. He wants them to be elected. That is the aspect which the hon. member for Houghton and her party are now opposing. Because they are opposing this proposal, it is completely logical and self-evident that they want to see that the Minister should be forced to designate people to the community councils. In other words, the PFP is not in favour of the democratic process. For that reason they are opposing the proposal which is now before us. They cannot vote against this clause on the ground that they do not agree with the principal Act. Surely the principal Act is not before this House now. The question before the House is to put a democratic process into operation, and because they oppose that question, they are condoning the provisions of the existing Act. In other words, people must continue to be appointed unilaterally. If they do that, then surely they are not defending the democratic process, and that is exactly what they kick up such a great fuss about every day. Those hon. members are forever telling us that we must not decide for the Black people. Every day we hear that being told to this side of the House. They are forever accusing us of deciding for the Black people in this country. We hear that every day from the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Pinelands who are now sitting there, listening to me so piously. Every day we are told: “You people must consult. You people must decide together with these people.” Here we actually have a measure before the House in terms of which the Minister wants to give the Black people a chance to decide for themselves. Now those hon. members want to prevent us from doing that. They are saying to us: “You must decide for the Black people.” That is the effect of their standpoint. Those hon. members cannot get away from that. Their statements in this House are on record. They are accusing the Government of deciding for the Black people, but the Government in fact wants to give the Black people the opportunity to decide for themselves. For that reason, Sir, I cannot do otherwise than to support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. member for Lydenburg, the hon. member for Houghton stated our case very clearly. She stated very clearly why we could not support this clause. She pointed out that it went to the very root of a system which was not acceptable to the people there. With great respect to my friends to my immediate left, I want to say that if they had been sensitive to the feelings of the people in Soweto, they too would not have supported this measure in the first place.

The hon. member for Lydenburg had made mention of the fact that we are not supporting the democratic process. If he had listened properly to the hon. member for Houghton, he would in fact have heard her say that we are supporting the amendment proposed by the NRP because it does improve the Bill. The very principle which he said we were not accepting, we are in fact accepting. The only reason why we are accepting the amendment, is to make the best of a bad job within the scope of what we have at the moment. We stand for the democratic process.

But you are voting against it!

We are voting against it, but, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will not allow me to embark upon a dissertation of what we believe is the ideal form of local government for Soweto. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister knows our feelings on this matter, and the hon. member for Lydenburg also knows what our blueprint is for local government. As I have said, within the scope of what we have before us, we agree with the amendment entirely. The amendment quite simply deals with the question of whether there will be by-elections, as opposed to designations. We accept as a democratic principle for any elected public body that the people should not be nominated, but that they should be elected by the people. That is a process in which we believe, and in this particular instance it is more important than ever before for the hon. the Minister not to use the powers of designation he has, because he is imposing upon them a system of local government which they do not want. To then have designated members who do not have the respect of their fellow citizens living in the area itself is to impose an unnecessary burden on them. At least, if they can be elected, it is far better for that to happen then that they should be designated. But if, within the process of what we are discussing here today, the hon. the Minister wants to give this any kind of a chance, he has to give the Soweto communal council some teeth. He must not limit their powers to advisory powers; he must give them executive functions. If he gives them executive functions they may have some semblance of a chance. They do not have that chance as this provision is now framed.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, that I accept, but in the Second Reading debate, I think, the hon. the Minister made mention of the fact that there were 16 people who were nominated but disqualified. We have not had a chance to examine the regulations, but the hon. the Minister did mention certain things about the regulations, wondering whether they were not perhaps too stringent…

Order! The regulations are not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, if the regulations did make the position easier, elections could be held within the confines of what we call a bad Bill. If there is any kind of improvement to the legislation, we shall support the amendment, but we shall vote most solidly against the clause because that is the wish of the people of Soweto.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say immediately that I am very eager to accommodate the hon. member for Mooi River if I can, but I do not think that we understand each other very well. The present position, before the amendment Bill is accepted, means that the Minister has no choice and that he must fill vacancies by way of appointment. The amendment Bill before the House at present offers the Minister a choice. It gives him the discretion either to call by-elections or to make appointments. If I interpret this correctly, the amendment by the hon. member for Mooi River means that he wants to bind the Minister in this respect that the Minister must first try by-elections before he makes appointments.

Just for a by-election.

Just for a by-election? I have one problem however. I should like to accommodate the hon. member, but I do not want to adopt a final standpoint on the amendment now. I should like him to elaborate further on the matter. I shall accept the first part of his amendment. It concerns grammatical improvements. There is, however, a problem which I have to solve. Assume that one finds oneself in a position where, as a result of certain circumstances, a number of members in a particular community council resign at short notice, and that in fact so many have resigned that there is no quorum left. By-elections are then necessary, but in the meantime there are urgent matters which have to be disposed of immediately. As the Bill stands now, it affords the Minister an opportunity of appointing people for a certain period—for as long as he may decide. In other words, the Minister would then be able to say that he was appointing only three persons to form a quorum for a period of three months so that the council could proceed with its work. He can then immediately call by-elections for all the vacancies. This amendment is, however, intended to deprive the Minister of that authority so that he will no longer be able to do it. That is the problem which I have with the hon. member’s amendment. I have to ensure that the councils remain effective and that they are able to function. If the hon. member is therefore able to overcome this problem, then I am prepared to listen to his amendment. As the amendment now reads, the Minister would not be able to act in such a case and the council would also by no means be able to function until such time as the vacancies have been filled by means of by-elections. Only if no candidates are then nominated, are appointments then possible. A period of two or three months can however elapse before that can happen. In the meantime the council may be faced with serious matters, especially after certain powers have been conferred upon them, powers which I envisage transferring to them. For a certain period there will therefore be a hiatus, a gap which I must be able to bridge. For those reasons I am not inclined at the present moment to agree to the amendment. I should, however, like to listen further to what the hon. member has to say.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. Minister whether the present position is that in terms of the regulations, if there is a vacancy, the hon. Minister has to call a by-election in terms of such regulations? Surely he does not have a choice at present. If a vacancy arises at present, he must in terms of the regulations—not in terms of the Act—call a by-election.

No. You are wrong.

Only then can he appoint persons. We then want those regulations, which are now binding upon him, in the Act in connection with ordinary vacancies which may arise. That would however be contrary to the regulations as they now read.

Mr. Chairman, let me say immediately that the Minister may change the regulations. What I am now trying to incorporate in the Bill, is to give the Minister the necessary discretion and freedom of movement to ensure that the councils function effectively. If the regulations are in conflict with this principle, they will be amended and brought into line with the Act as it is now being amended.

That is not the case at present?

No, that is not the case. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment by the hon. member for Mooi River. It puts the Minister under too much restraint and it may bring about that he will not have sufficient freedom of movement. I should however like to hear more from the hon. member about the matter.

I just want to return to the Official Opposition. They reject the measure, of course. The hon. member for Hillbrow has adopted a very interesting standpoint. In connection with democracy, the law in a democracy, etc., he has said: “We stand for it, but we shall vote against it.” That is now the latest. To me it sounds too much like a man who has put his foot in it and is now battling to get his foot clean again. When I look at him I get the impression that he is wiping his foot on the grass. What are the facts in this connection? We are dealing here with an amendment to give the Minister the discretion to arrange by-elections.

†Let me tell the hon. member what I have in mind. He says the community councils must be given teeth. Let me tell him what I intend doing in this respect. Within a stipulated period of time after the coming into being of the Community Council of Soweto, it shall be accorded full autonomy in local affairs. Does that satisfy the hon. member?

That sounds very encouraging.

Well, that is what I have in mind.

Where is it in the Bill?

I have full authority to incorporate that whenever it suits me. But, Mr. Chairman, I am now going too far for a Committee Stage. I can see you are glancing at me already. But that is what I have in mind. However, the hon. members on the opposite side will never publicize that fact outside. On the contrary, they will keep on saying the opposite. Therefore I just want to say that I assume that the Official Opposition will vote against the Bill because, in the nature of things, they want to make political capital out of it and do not wish to serve the community.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that the hon. the Minister really cannot expect us to vote on thoughts which are in his mind, like chairman Mao. How are we to know? If he wants us to accept what he is suggesting, let him put it down on paper and bring it to the House. Then we can vote on it. For us to anticipate that the hon. the Minister is having dreams of glory and therefore to vote for another Bill altogether is just expecting too much of the House I am afraid. That is the answer to that one.

Nevertheless, I am glad to hear that the hon. the Minister is at least thinking of these things. He seems to be moving in the right direction and that is very good. I must, however, ask him to explain to us why it is that he needs these powers to designate members even though he is now also making provision for by-elections. He says that people may resign as a result of which there may not be a quorum. That is what I understood his main reason to be. Will he tell me whether he knows of one local authority or White city council where this has happened? Does he know of a single White city council where so many members have died, resigned or fallen by the wayside that there has not been a quorum …

Yes, I can name several.

… as a result of which the Minister or the Administrator has to go along and designate members to the council so that it can continue with its work?

I know of some.

Give me an example.

Stanger. [Interjections.]

I ask the hon. the Minister whether there is a White city council where the sort of contingency mentioned by him has occurred. I just do not believe this to be the case.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for his approach to the amendment. I can understand the problem that he has. There is no doubt that it can very easily happen that a particular political pressure group inside the council may for a particular reason or by way of a protest, or to force the hon. the Minister’s hand, or for any other reason, resign from the body and thereby reduce the number of members below the number that is required for a quorum.

Then it is a wash-out and you must accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty in saying that one must just accept it like that. The fact is that there is a body which has to administer certain functions. The alternative to that is that the hon. the Minister himself, the West Rand Administration Board or somebody will have to take over the functions of that council. I really believe that it is desirable …

Is it desirable for the Durban city council?

I believe it is desirable in the situation we face, which is a historical situation. We cannot get away from that. That is the position there right now and I believe we should assist wherever we can. Even if the hon. the Minister accepts this amendment, he still has a residual right of designation should by-elections fail to produce the number of members that he wants. I want to stress that where we mention “vacancy” it is intended to deal with a casual vacancy occurring and not a vacancy brought about by deliberate action by a group of people acting together for a deliberate purpose.

How would you define such a situation?

Say, for instance, a member of the council is run over by a bus.

How would you define such a vacancy?

I think the term “casual vacancy” is an understood term, a vacancy resulting from the resignation of a member, or by a death, or something like that. In that case the hon. the Minister would be bound by the terms of this amendment to declare a by-election and allow the vacancy to be filled in the normal way. Only in the event of there being no nominations, or anything of that nature, would he be able to designate. He would always have the residual power of designation.

I can understand the problem …

[Inaudible.]

I understand the problem of the hon. member for Houghton. There will undoubtedly still be—and this amendment was not designed to remove that from the hon. the Minister—the residual power to designate simply because no nominations have come forward for a by-election duly declared. Let us get that clear. If the hon. member for Houghton and her party wish to vote against it we understand their reasons. That is fine. However, I have a problem with the question of a quorum. I do agree that the hon. the Minister has a point there. He would like to have the power to be able to designate the members up to the number required for a quorum. He is going to face that situation, or may face it, because of the possibility of deliberate action by a group of people acting in concert. The action that they are taking is designed to frustrate the function of the council and the intention of the hon. the Minister. We on our side are quite prepared to agree if the hon. the Minister wishes to retain the power to designate up to the number of members required for a quorum. After that by-election shall be declared. That might be a way in which we can get round this. I am merely putting that forward as a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I do not think that we are going to be able to solve this question in this House. If the hon. the Minister is agreeable that we can look at it from that point of view, it may be necessary for this amendment to be withdrawn. We are therefore not committed to an “aye” or “nay”. The question can be debated in another place. However, I will welcome the hon. the Minister’s reaction.

Mr. Chairman, I object very strongly to the question which the hon. member for Houghton put towards the end of her speech when she asked the hon. the Minister whether he knew of any White local authorities that had been affected in the same way. Is she not thereby implying that another measure is being adopted here which discriminates against the Black man? That is the implication of her question. I can tell the hon. member now that during the past five years it has happened to at least two local authorities in my constituency that the Administrator had to intervene and designate three members to administer those municipalities because all the other members of the municipalities—and those were White municipalities—had resigned for reasons of their own. It is therefore no strange phenomenon, because these things happen even in White municipalities.

One says so with great respect, but that hon. member is able to suck poison from a Bible text. I think she should stop it. They are objecting to this legislation because it pulls the rug from under their feet. They can now no longer go to the Black people and cast suspicion on the community councils by saying that these people have not been elected. The opportunity is there now for them to be tested. They can now no longer sow suspicion among the Black people by saying that these people have not been elected, that they are puppets—that is what they call them—of the Government. That is the key to their whole attitude and that key has now been revealed by the question which the hon. member asked towards the end. I strongly object when suspicion is cast on this legislation in that way.

Mr. Chairman I want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that I appreciate his standpoint on this matter. I shall go into the situation. The problem which I am experiencing in this connection, has to do with a quorum and with the need, if powers have already been transferred to the body, for those powers to be exercised. In other words, if a vacuum arises as the result of the fact that there is no quorum, our not being able to act may prove harmful. If the hon. member is prepared to withdraw the amendment, I shall re-examine the matter and see whether I can accommodate him in this connection in the Other Place. I do not wish to commit myself, but I shall take a close look at the situation.

Mr. Chairman, the problem which the hon. the Minister experiences in this regard may, from our point of view, be met if we added at the end of my amendment after the words “by an election”, the words “provided that the Minister may, at any time, appoint sufficient members of the council to maintain a quorum”. When drafting the legislation it might be necessary to use other wording. I think, however, there should be a proviso retaining in his hands the right to maintain the quorum and, after that, to take any of these measures. I want to point out specifically that our intention is to provide machinery for casual vacancies. We are trying to ensure that by-elections shall be the normal course of activity and that when a casual vacancy exists, a by-election shall be held as a matter of course. Only after that has happened, the hon. the Minister should have in his hands the right to designate a member. With that understanding and with the permission of the House I would like to withdraw the amendment that appears in my name on the Order Paper.

Is the hon. member withdrawing all three of his amendments?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would undertake to consider the whole of the amendment to clause 1 in the Other Place? I think they are, in fact, consequential and if the hon. the Minister undertakes to look at the last portion of what I have proposed, he will be in honour bound to include also the first portion.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise one other aspect with the hon. the Minister. I would like to know how the measure is going to be put into practical effect if it is to be passed, as I assume it is going to be. I understand two elections were held: one at Chiawelo and one in Orlando East. Nine seats were unopposed, which gives a total of 11. I am assuming that the quorum is 15 out of 30 …

It is 16.

If it is 16, five people are required to be nominated in order to have a quorum so that the council can function. If the hon. the Minister nominates five people in order to get a quorum and the community council functions—the community council has a life of three years or five years, I am not sure what it is—will there not be some kind of hiatus then for the balance of the entire period of having nominated councillors and elected councillors? Does the hon. the Minister not think that the status of the nominated councillors is going to be of such a nature that they will feel the difference between them and the elected councillors? Does the hon. Minister think that it will go towards making good council and good government?

Mr. Chairman, I despair of the Official Opposition. I said expressly during my Second Reading speech that my main objective with this legislation was to call and conduct by-elections in all 19 wards. I said that was my aim, and that I was going to do it. All I want here, is the authority to be able to do so. In terms of the present legislation I cannot do it. The hon. member for Mooi River and I have agreed that in the Other Place I shall look at his amendment again and that I shall accommodate him there if I can. I had hardly finished uttering these words when the hon. member for Hillbrow was on his feet, trying to suck poison and alleging that I was going to abuse the authority by only appointing five people in Soweto in order to get a quorum, and that I was not going to call elections for the rest. I think the hon. member is utterly mean to suggest such a thing.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that the hon. member is utterly mean.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I shall not say that the hon. member is mean, but he is really very dense. I want to react further by saying that in spite of the Official Opposition, I stand by the undertaking which I have given in the House, namely that when the legislation has been passed, I shall call elections in all 19 wards in Soweto as soon as possible. I have already made an appeal two, three times and I repeat the appeal, that people should come forward and make themselves eligible for election in order that I may obtain a fully elected council in Soweto. More than that I cannot say.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House arises out of a decision by the Committee of Heads of Education that the year level which a pupil taking the special course for mentally retarded pupils in a special school or a special class achieves in the various subjects should be indicated on certificates with effect from 1 January 1978.

In section 1 of the Act a “school” is defined as an educational institution for Whites, or that part of such an institution, where full-time education, including preprimary education, is provided up to a standard not higher than Std. 10 and which is maintained, managed and controlled or subsidized by the Department of National Education, or a provincial administration or the administration of the territory of South West Africa.

The concept “standard”, as in the definition I have just quoted, is therefore inadequate, since the year levels for the vocationally orientated subjects and orientation will be divided into a first, second, third, and fourth year level. It is proposed that the words “or a level not higher than the fifth year level” be inserted so that educational institutions in which full-time education is provided in year levels, will be included in the definition of a school.

A further reason why the amendment of the definition of a school is necessary, is the fact that teachers who are employed on a full-time permanent basis to teach in special schools may be under the impression that they need not register with the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites. However, the intention was that these teachers should register with the Teachers’ Council, and in order to eliminate any misunderstanding which may arise, it is proposed that the definition of a school be amended.

I also want to draw the attention of hon. members to the words “or in the service” which I propose to have inserted in the further definition of “school”. This is necessary because White teachers to whom reference is made in section 1(xiv)(b) of the Act are not, strictly speaking, on the establishment of the Department of Bantu Education. Those teachers are on the establishment of Government schools, or are carried by Government schools as being additional to those establishments. The insertion of the words “or in the service” in clause 1(b) of the Bill is essential in order to provide that these White teachers, like their colleagues, have to register with the Teachers’ Council. That, Mr. Speaker, is all that the Bill envisages.

Mr. Speaker, this is a technical Bill by which to effect an adjustment so that special schools may now also be included in the definition of a school. We on this side of the House support the amendment both as regards the aim of enabling the teachers in special schools to join the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites, and to provide for those who are employed by the Department of Bantu Education and other depart ments. However, we support it on the express understanding that by doing so we do not endorse the principle of a teachers’ council for Whites: As we have already said on a previous occasion, we should have liked to see the council giving access to teachers serving the other national groups just as it is being made accessible to the teachers in special schools.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North is supporting this Bill on behalf of his party, but it is a pity that he wants to use this occasion to drag politics into this discussion. This Bill—I want to express the hope that he has in fact read it—amends the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act. I do not believe it is appropriate that he should want to involve other national groups in his argument.

The S.A. Teachers’ Council is now taking shape and we are very grateful for that. This Bill defines the term “school” more precisely to include special schools as well.

It is probably necessary to dwell for just a moment on the subject of these schools. I just want to refer briefly to certain specific facets of the special school. On a previous occasion I referred to the new differentiated education as a milestone, something positive and praiseworthy in our education. There is the ordinary course, the practical course and special education. I have on occasion singled out the practical course as the jewel of our educational system. If that is so, then surely special education is the diamond of our educational system, because we are dealing here with the training and education of the child with a subnormal intelligence, in other words, the child who is incapable of making scholastic progress in the ordinary or even in the practical courses. When such a child can be identified at the primary education stage, he receives special education in classes at the primary school. On reaching the age of 12 years or older these pupils are usually transferred to special schools. They can then remain in these schools until they reach the age of 20 years or have completed the course or until they are able to adapt themselves to the outside world after having reached the age of 16 years.

The syllabi and curricula must not be seen as part of the ordinary curricula. They are independent and unattached to any other course. The first year of this course is a basic year of training. The second year we can identify as the exploratory year at that school. Then we get at least three years in which the pupil can specialize in one or more of the subject groups in accordance with his interests and taking into account his intellectual capacity. These pupils are also given sound vocational guidance. There is a great deal of liaison with trade and industry. They know exactly what this course involves. These schools are not unknown to trade and industry but are already well known. There is a wide variety of employment opportunities in which the children may be accommodated. At special schools the concept “standard” is not used but instead the concept “year level”. That is what this amendment involves. Pupils are promoted annually in every subject from one year level to the next year level. In some subjects a pupil is able to progress more rapidly than in another, and this could mean that he could reach a higher year level more rapidly in some subjects than in others. The result may be that such a pupil may achieve year level five in one subject whereas he is still at year level three in another subject. Except for the compulsory scholastic subjects, viz. the first language, the second language, Mathematics, History-Geography and Science, which includes hygiene, there are also the vocationally oriented subjects which may be selected by the pupils on the basis of their talents and abilities, and are divided into the following subject groups: The metal industry, motor vehicle repair work, the construction industry, trade and other services for the boys, and then for the girls, domestic science subject groups, assembling work, commerce and other services. On the basis of the pupil’s interests, talents and abilities, such a boy or girl selects one or more subjects from these subject groups which I have just mentioned. The minimum achievement level for the vocationally oriented subjects is 50%, and for the scholastic subjects, 33⅓%. Subsequently, after these levels have been achieved, a certificate endorsed as special education will be issued.

As I said at the outset, year levels are used, and the certificate is issued in year levels with the support of trade and industry. I should also like to pay tribute to the teachers who make themselves available for education in these schools. In the nature of the circumstances, the method is of course more difficult and requires more patience, more love and more dedication on the part of the teacher. These teachers have to be richly blessed in this regard and that is why it goes without saying that this amendment is being effected to allow them, too, to qualify for registration with the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites. That is why we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member for Gezina furnished an explanation of the system of the year levels. I think that hon. members who were perhaps not here to listen to him should take the trouble to read what he said, because it is important that we should know exactly what these things are all about.

I was somewhat surprised at the words of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He said that his party did not support the principle of the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites. I am really amazed, because in May 1976, when the legislation was introduced, the PRP did support the principle. I just find it strange, and I think we should know exactly where they stand in this specific respect. The aim of this legislation is to enable as many teachers as possible to become members of the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites. This being so, attention is also being given to special education. As far as we are concerned, we support the principle because we are in favour of the existence of a teachers’ council. We are also in favour of all teachers, including all those in the teaching profession, being afforded the opportunity—in fact being compelled—to become members of the S.A. Teachers’ Council for Whites. After all, this is the body which looks after their status.

In conclusion, I should just like to put it to the hon. the Minister that we support the Bill. However, we feel that when he next submits legislation of a like nature, he should really give attention to an anomaly which has now arisen due to the fact that in some provinces, up to 50% of the teaching staff cannot be compelled to register as members of the Council in terms of the Act. I refer for example to married women teachers who occupy de facto permanent posts but who, for purely technical reasons, are regarded as temporary members of staff. As a result there is no obligation on married women teachers to register as members of the Teachers’ Council.

I believe that the hon. the Minister should take cognizance of this. The situation now arises, therefore, in which there are three categories of teachers. In the first place, there are those who are provisionally registered because they are not fully trained for their profession. In the second place, there are those who are in fact obliged to register, and in the third place, there is the large group who are not members and who are not subject to discipline. I therefore feel that the hon. the Minister should give attention specifically to this matter in the future. Just as in the case of special education and Bantu education we ought also to ensure in this instance that everyone who is a member of the teaching profession is registered as a member of the Teachers’ Council. If this does not occur, disciplinary measures and other action against them will be of no value. However, we support the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, there is not much left for me to say except to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members opposite for their support of the Bill. It is true that it is merely a technical Bill. The aim is solely to bring the definition of a school into line with the new course of development adopted in education, a very good course, viz. to refer to year levels in special schools instead of referring to standards as in the past. I should like to thank the hon. member for Gezina in particular for the facts on special schools which he gave the House. I also want to congratulate him on the sound way in which he did so. I greatly appreciate it. It is clear that he is a person who has the interests of education at heart. He himself was a member of the teaching profession for many years and did outstanding work there. These are things which were also clear from his speech.

I should like to agree with the hon. member for Gezina and in particular, pay tribute to teachers in special schools. In special schools we are dealing with children with an IQ of between 50 and 80. If hon. members could see what outstanding work is done in those schools and what praiseworthy results are achieved with those children and how those children are later placed in employment situations in which they serve society, the country and the nation—and do so, furthermore, in very praiseworthy fashion—they would realize that teachers employed in special schools are doing an outstanding job. We are deeply indebted to them. In my study I have a rug which reminds me every day that people who do not have all the talents in the world are still capable of doing things which other people, who may be far better endowed with talents, are not capable of doing. This is an important fact of life to be realized.

Sir, I just want to come back to one point. I do so reluctantly, because one is not willing to drag politics into a debate of this nature. However, the hon. member for Johannesburg North acted in such a way that I should be neglecting my duty if I were not to react. I want to refer to the debate conducted in this House when the original Bill was read for the third time. On that occasion the Progressive Party supported the Bill.

You know we stand for mixed professional organizations.

In my opinion, therefore, the hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke completely out of turn. It would not surprise me if the teachers of this country were to take it seriously amiss of the hon. member that he dared say, in this highest chamber of this country, that he did not support the principle of the Teachers’ Council which has been established. To me this is a very grave matter. I shall not deal with him any further this afternoon because this is neither the time nor the place to do so, but if that is the standpoint of the Official Opposition I have not the slightest doubt that that hon. member has made bad friends with the members of the teaching profession. I do not think that hon. member is doing his party any good. Nor do I think that the hon. member is doing this House any good by coming forward with so irresponsible a statement. [Interjections.] Yes, that was an extremely irresponsible statement. The hon. member did not realize what he was saying. The hon. member said that he did not support the principle of a teachers’ council for Whites.

As an exclusive body.

The hon. member said that he did not support its establishment. He said that, although his party had in fact fully supported it on a previous occasion. I should like to refer to the Third Reading debate on the original Bill. [Interjections.] If that party is not even in a position to know what its own point of view and policy is in respect of the teachers in this country, they are truly an even more rotten party that I had imagined. Concerning this same subject I said the following on 26 May 1976 (Hansard, Vol. 62, col. 7669)—

I then concluded by saying (col. 7670)—

I made an appeal to the hon. members not to level destructive criticism at the White Teachers’ Council, but that is precisely what the hon. member did here this afternoon. I should have been neglecting my duty if I had not pointed that out to the hon. member.

To the hon. member for Durban Central I want to say that the married woman, if she is permanently appointed, will in fact have to register. If she is appointed temporarily and then rests for three months, she need not register. We discussed this point at length, and we are of the opinion that it would be best if we were to give the council an opportunity to become established. If it subsequently became apparent that there was a deficiency with regard to the married woman in education, then we could take another look at the specific needs in this regard. I am grateful that the hon. member raised that point. To everyone who supported the Bill I want to express my sincere thanks and appreciation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the Second Reading debate, the hon. member for Johannesburg North made it clear that we support this Bill. We shall support the Third Reading as well. I think I must put the record straight, however, by stating that in the course of the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. the Minister himself drew attention to the fact that some members of this party, when it was still the PRP in this House last year, supported the institution of this council. In a remark made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North we showed that we took exception to this.

I think the hon. the Minister is an experienced politician, as he has demonstrated again this afternoon. However, he was much more of a politician this afternoon than an educationalist.

He is a better educationalist than you were a clergyman.

This party has made it clear, and will make it clear again, that we believe that education must be understood in the classic sense of the word. We believe that education should be made available to all, and we believe that simply by virtue of the fact that there are people involved in education, those people ought to be together. The hon. member for Durban Central knows very well that there is a very long and continuous debate going on in his own province amongst the teachers of that province, many of whom are very deeply concerned—I know because I attended their conference at their invitation—about there being a council which is restricted to White teachers. That is our position, which we have made very clear, and the hon. the Minister knows that as well. We reiterate that we support the Third Reading of this Bill, but we make it absolutely clear that the ideal situation, as far as we are concerned, is that the teachers involved in the teaching profession belong together. That hon. Minister, however, despite his dexterity in sport, seems to believe that teachers should be separated on the grounds of race. We, however, do not support that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to put the record straight on this particular matter. As regards the question of this council being an exclusive body for Whites only, I want to say that, if hon. members go back through the records, they will find that it was I who, on behalf of the old UP, at the time moved the amendment to delete the words “for Whites”. This is a sensitive matter and the issue at stake here is whether one is in principle against the S.A. Teachers’ Council. It is in respect of this that we have to know where we stand and that I quite clearly gained the impression that there was a change on the part of the …

It was to be an exclusive body.

The question is not whether it was an exclusive body, as far as we are concerned, we spearheaded the attack at the time to try to prevent it from being an exclusive body.

One must be very careful here because at this particular stage the S.A. Teachers’ Council is something that has just started. We should not attack the principle of having such a council. The council should be given an opportunity to evolve, it should be allowed to develop.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that on this occasion there should be talk of people of various races, colours or whatever having to serve on the Teachers’ Council. The issue here is the S.A. Teachers’ Council, and the hon. the Minister rose merely to say that the PFP had supported the legislation to establish an S.A. Teachers’ Council. That is all he said. He did not elaborate on conditions created. All he wanted to do was to state clearly that the PFP had initially supported the establishment of an S.A. Teachers’ Council—that is what is at issue here—but that they apparently no longer supported it.

We on this side of the House just want to stress that we support the Third Reading of this Bill and that we welcome the fact that provision is now also being made for the teachers in respect of the year levels at special schools because those teachers perform a very major task in our education. They perform an even bigger task than the teachers at the normal level. I have the privilege to be chairman of the advisory council of a large special school and I can therefore attest to the fact that those teachers work very hard. Consequently I am pleased that they, too, are being afforded the opportunity to join the Teachers’ Council.

Mr. Speaker …

Order! I just want to point out that I have permitted hon. members on both sides to set the record straight. However this has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. member must therefore confine himself strictly to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall abide by your ruling. When I supported the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that although we supported the principle of the Teachers’ Council, we should have liked to see the door also being opened to the teachers of the other groups, in the same way as the teachers from special schools are being admitted to the ranks of the council. Those were my precise words. Those words were then twisted and it was implied that we were against a Teachers’ Council as such. That is what happened.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for Pinelands for having now rectified the position. Initially the hon. member for Johannesburg North by no means rectified his own party’s position. We in this House, who have been debating this issue for many hours now, have for a long time been acquainted with the standpoint of the Official Opposition in this regard. They have always advocated a mixed council. However, that is not the reason for my quarrel with the hon. Opposition. My quarrel with the Opposition this afternoon is solely in respect of what was said by their spokesman on education affairs, the hon. member for Johannesburg North. He stood up here and, if my ears did not deceive me—and the hon. member for Durban Central heard the same as I heard—he said, according to what I wrote down here, that he did not support the principle of the establishment of an teachers’ council for Whites. If he says that, Mr. Speaker, then I say that he is making a serious mistake. The teachers will work his case for him. We shall also see what Hansard says. The hon. member for Pinelands rectified his party’s position. We accept that they advocate a mixed council, but they never specifically adopted the standpoint of principle that a teachers’ council for Whites should not be established. That is what the hon. member for Johannesburg North intimated here this afternoon, and it was a serious blunder.

However, let us leave it at that. I think it is as well that we should clear the air. The issue of a teachers’ council for Whites is a matter of the utmost importance, Mr. Speaker. At the moment more than 40 000 teachers have already registered with this Teachers’ Council. The hon. member for Hercules has just said that the teachers have been working to establish such a teachers’ council for more than 20 years. Such a council has now been established, and everyone with the necessary responsibility must now assist in enabling the Teachers’ Council to perform its functions in such a way as to be in the interests of our children and in the interests of our country. That is why it is necessary that this matter be discussed with circumspection, or else the board would be undermined and that would be very wrong, and even disastrous. Who would be harmed if that were to happen? The nation’s children are involved and that is why it is necessary that this matter be rectified.

This is all I want to say in this connection, except that I want to break a lance for the Teachers’ Council. It is a council which was established by this House. What are the functions of such a council? It must be, of service to the teaching profession, so that that profession may be clothed with the necessary status and so that that profession may take its rightful place in the national structure of the Republic of South Africa. I know that the chairman of the Teachers’ Council, Mr. Terblanche, and the management that backs him up, are working very hard to make a success of this matter. We wish them every success in their efforts to make this council one of the fine councils in this country and we trust that it will be equivalent to the Medical Council, the Nursing Council and other similar professional councils. Then the teaching profession in South Africa will come into its own and will enjoy its rightful status. I also want to express the hope that the Official Opposition, too, through their education spokesman, will support this sound standpoint.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill originated with the Committee of Heads of Education, which decided that the year level attained in the various subjects by a pupil taking the special course for mentally handicapped pupils in a special school should, with effect from 1 January 1978, be indicated on certificates. The year levels for the vocationally-oriented subjects and orientation will be distinguished by a first, second, third, fourth and fifth year level.

As hon. members know, the term “school” is defined in section 1 of the existing Act as any institution or that part of such an institution at which education, including pre-primary education, is provided up to a standard not higher than standard 10, and which is maintained, managed and controlled or subsidized by the department or a provincial administration. Whereas education will now be provided in year levels at special schools, the amendment of the definition of “school” which I have just mentioned is necessary to provide that such an educational institution, or part thereof, will also be included in that definition. For this reason the insertion of the words “or a level not higher than the fifth year level” is being proposed.

The amendment of section 4 of the Act has become necessary in view of the provisions of section 18 of the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act, No. 116 of 1976, which provides that the Teachers’ Council may furnish the Committee of Heads of Education with advice in connection with the requirements for the training of persons to teach at a school and the requirements for admission to a course for such training.

In terms of section 4(3)(a) of the National Education Policy Act the National Education Council advises the Minister, inter alia, on the general policy that should be pursued in connection with teacher training in so far as the professional aspects of such training are concerned. In view of the power which has already been conferred upon the Teachers’ Council, and to which I have referred, it is deemed necessary for the Teachers’ Council to be granted representation on the National Education Council, thus enabling it to participate meaningfully in the function of the latter council as far as the training of teachers i concerned.

That is all that this technical Bill entails.

Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent the amendments which are being proposed here are consequential upon the previous legislation which has just been read a Third Time. For the same reasons then advanced, the Official Opposition also has no objection to these proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the legislation because it is a step forward in the sphere of education and because it is aimed at granting particular recognition to a certain category of pupils in our schools. I am thinking in this connection of that group of pupils who are receiving special education. Since the disappearance of the former trade schools a great deficiency has developed in this regard because there was in many respects no place for the child with a low academic ability, but who in a technical sphere could hold his own perfectly well in the labour market. I have said that, with the disappearance of trade schools, a deficiency developed with regard to the training and education of children with a subnormal intellectual ability. To meet the needs of these children, special schools were established. This is known as the third phase of differentiated education. Special schools make provision for mentally handicapped pupils who, in the opinion of the Department of Education, are able to benefit from a suitable course of training.

In the first two years of the course provision is made for orientation in practical subjects to prepare the child for training in specific vocationally-orientated subjects. The hon. member for Gezina, in the Second Reading debate on the previous legislation, explained how the course for the two years is made up. During the first year the pupils receive basic training. The second year serves as an exploratory year in which the direction in which the pupil concerned can be trained in his third, fourth and fifth years is more specifically established. The direction for which the child has an aptitude receives more attention and he is then trained according to his specific ability.

The amendment in the legislation seeks to grant recognition to the qualifications of the pupil and to define these in terms of a year level instead of a standard. In the nature of things it is not possible, in the case of this type of training, to define them by way of a standard. Qualifications obtained by pupils may be indicated on an appropriate certificate. This will give employers an accurate indication of the qualifications of such a person. The present system makes it impossible to indicate what can be expected from a person who applies for a job and at present, too, there is tremendous confusion in respect of the definition of his qualifications. Employers are consequently very hesitant to employ pupils from special schools. Many of these pupils struggle to find employment precisely because it is not possible to furnish employers with a certificate in which the qualifications of the pupil are defined. This amendment Bill is rectifying that position. It will eliminate the stigma which attaches to the pupils of a special school. Experience has shown that the parents of pupils offer tremendous resistance to the admission of their children to special schools until they realize the value of the training which their children receive in those schools. The dispensation which will be ushered in by this Bill should also cause such parents to view the matter in a completely different light and should break down the prejudice completely. It can only be to the benefit of the pupil.

Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 4 of the National Education Policy Act by increasing the number of members of the S.A. Teachers’ Council in order to provide that a member of the Teachers’ Council for Whites, as established by section 2 of the South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act, may be appointed. This is a measure which we support whole-heartedly because the Teachers’ Council is very closely associated with the Education Council.

We on this side of the House are pleased to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Middelburg spent most of his time on clause 1. He mentioned a number of important things in respect of special schools, which I believe the public should know about. I would like to devote some time to the provisions of clause 2, which concerns the composition of the National Educational Council. The last time we amended the National Education Policy Act was in 1974 when we amended the composition of the council fairly drastically. At that time several amendments were moved in an effort to get the maximum representation of teachers and teachers’ associations on that body. This was done, of course, prior to 1976, the year in which the S.A. Teachers’ Council was established.

While we are not against the representation of the S.A. Teachers’ Council on the National Education Council, I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that the fact must be accepted that simply to give representation to the Teachers’ Council will not overcome the inherent difficulty which exists as a result of the fact that the Teachers’ Council and the National Education Council have overlapping functions. The hon. the Minister referred to this aspect as well. These are functions which, on the one hand, make representation of the Teachers’ Council on the National Education Council absolutely necessary—something which is intended by the provisions of clause 2—and, on the other hand, are functions which, now that the Teachers’ Council has been established, the National Education Council could easily be relieved of. It is, for example, the function of the National Education Council to advise the hon. the Minister in regard to policy that should be pursued in connection with education in schools and teachers’ training, in so far as the professional aspects and the guiding principles of such training are concerned. However, we find that it is also expected from the Teachers’ Council to give advice in respect of teachers’ training.

Here we have therefore a specific example of two bodies, one of them being of an advisory nature, giving advice concerning the same matter. What we are trying to do with this legislation is to give representation to the Teachers’ Council to be able to say that we have overcome this problem. However, one way or another, one should know what sort of advice is being given. It is also necessary to prevent conflict between the two bodies. I want to prove that, in spite even of this representation we are giving here, there is a real danger that these two bodies can have conflicting views concerning the same function. I believe that a tremendous responsibility will rest on the shoulder of the representatives of the Teachers’ Council. That member who is to be elected in terms of the proposed legislation will carry a tremendous responsibility to see to it that the National Education Council does not in practice usurp the position of the Teachers’ Council. Of the two bodies, the latter, namely the S.A. Teachers’ Council, is more important as far as teachers are concerned. It is not only in respect of teachers’ training that the representative of the Teachers’ Council will have an important task to fulfil, but it should also be borne in mind that the representative of the Teachers’ Council represents a body whose object is—and I quote (South African Teachers’ Council for Whites Act, No. 116 of 1976, section 3)—

At the same time he will be representing that council on a body, the National Education Council, which has as one of its functions—and I quote from section 4(3)(c) of the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967—

Therefore, the object of the S.A. Teachers’ Council and the very reason for its existence is also a function of the National Education Council. Again, there is overlapping and there can be conflicting advice and action. The man in the middle, to put it like that, the man who is to represent teachers, can be regarded as the real watchdog. I am referring to the representative of the Teachers’ Council. He will at least know what the right hand intends doing and what the left hand is advising the hon. the Minister should happen, because that is what will happen in practice. Should the endeavours of the one be counteracted by the other, the National Education Council has very little to lose. This brings me to my point. If, for instance, the advice of the National Education Council is not accepted, they have nothing to lose. However, the Teachers’ Council has everything to lose. It stands to lose the very reason for its existence unless great care is taken and the person, for whom we are making provision in the Bill, prevents something like this from happening, which he will be in the best position to do so. That person will be the representative of the S.A. Teachers’ Council on the National Education Council. We therefore in fact expect a great deal from him.

*Everything indicates, therefore, that under the circumstances it is essential that at least one representative of the S.A. Teachers’ Council should be able to act as this watchdog. Therefore we support this Bill. We should like a state of affairs where there is no overlapping of powers and objectives between the two bodies. The interests of the Education Council would be better served if the hon. the Minister would consider completely relieving the National Education Council of those powers which, as I have indicated, are a duplication of the powers and objectives of the Teachers’ Council. In fact, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider seriously in future whether the National Education Council, as it is constituted now—even with the improvements we are effecting—and with the functions it already has, in any way serves the purpose which it was originally intended to serve. I believe it would be more meaningful if we had an education council—and I am only putting this to the hon. the Minister as a plan for the future—which reflected the plural co-operation of the South African population and the powers of which could be extended so that it could act as a co-ordinating body for the promotion of education for all races. Even if it meant that it would have to be a multiracial body or a multinational body, in the terminology of the policy of the hon. the Minister’s party, I believe it is a direction in which we should be moving. We are trying to do something about the matter here, but it is not going to eliminate completely the potential conflict which can arise between two bodies with the same functions. I think the hon. the Minister should pay attention to that. Otherwise, as I have indicated, we are expecting a very great deal of that one person who will have to perform this task.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg North for the support of his party for the legislation. I want to give him the assurance that we appreciate it very much indeed. In the second place I want to thank the hon. member for Middelburg for his excellent contribution. It does one’s heart good to find that in the discussion of this Bill—which is of a very technical nature—speeches were made on special schools by this side of the House which testified to devotion, dedication and interest and which indicated that these people had made a thorough study of the matter and had therefore spoken with authority about this legislation. I appreciate that very much and I thank them very much for having done so. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Middelburg said, i.e. that this legislation will break down the prejudice against special schools. It was a very important statement which the hon. member made. In this regard I should just like to point out to hon. members that on 5 October 1977, when the system of year levels in special schools was proposed—hon. members must bear in mind that we are dealing here with children with an intelligent quotient of between 50 and 80—and when this system was explained to industrialists and businessmen, this matter was discussed for one whole day, after which the following opinions were formulated: There is a large variety of avenues of employment in commerce and industry into which pupils from the special schools, if they have the necessary qualification, can be channelled. The representatives of commerce and industry are of the opinion that the year level instead of a standard is acceptable and that information on this system should be published in document form to explain it to the industrialists so that they can understand it properly. It was further decided at those discussions that the participants were satisfied that the educational authorities had established a fine dispensation for this group of pupils and they expressed their gratitude. In this regard I just want to explain to hon. members that when such a child—with very little talent as far as his intellectual faculties are concerned—has completed the year levels, he receives a certificate in which the Director of Education certifies that the pupil concerned has attained, say, the fifth year level in metalwork, welding, the fourth year level in sheetmetal work and the fifth year level in fitting and turning. In the scholastic subjects, for example, he has attained the fifth year level in mathematics. In the second language he has attained the third year level and in history and geography, the second year level, etc. An employer can then see at once that intellectually the prospective employee does have a problem, but that when it comes to welding, he is a person who can do good work. Consequently we are in this way, by means of special schools and the introduction of this wonderful system of year levels, meeting the needs of this type of child. I want to say something here today—the hon. member for Gezina also mentioned it—something which I believe and which it is a pleasure for me to say here. I went abroad to examine the educational systems in other countries of the world. It is a pleasure for me to be able to say that I honestly believe that the differentiated education system of national education in the Republic of South Africa is without equal in the Western world. We have a wonderful system. There is no doubt at all about that. The year levels for which additional provision is now being made, is another contribution to our system. Therefore I say that I am very indebted to the hon. member. I also thank him for the opportunity he created for me to associate myself with him.

Last but not least, I want to point out that I think that the hon. member for Durban Central, who has acted as spokesman on education for many years, enhanced his status here in this House. When I think of the responsible way in which he has been making his contribution in this House these days lately I find it pleasant. I am referring for example to the hon. member’s request that we should be careful—in cases where the functions of the Education Council and the Teachers’ Council overlap—not to place too great a burden on the shoulders of the member who represents the Teachers’ Council in the Education Council because it can be harmful to education. That was a justified statement which the hon. member made. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. member that we have already given attention to this matter. In the first place, of course, I find no fault with there being two councils which both have the function and the object of enhancing the status of the teaching profession. The hon. member will also agree with this. On the question of the need for functions of the two councils to be of such a nature that they should complement one another and not act in conflict with one another, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member.

The Education Council, of which Prof. Gerrit Viljoen has been appointed chairman, will to an increasing extent set itself the task, inter alia, of bringing about greater coordination in the education of Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. I want to use a big word now. Mr. Speaker, you know me to be a person who can become very enthusiastic about a cause. If we can succeed, with a sound policy, in bringing about greater coordination in education in our country, it will be the golden key, in the first place to Africa, and in the second place to good relations between Whites and non-Whites in the Republic of South Africa. For that reason Prof. Gerrit Viljoen, as chairman of the Education Council, has an extremely important task to fulfil. Now hon. members will understand why it is so essential that the Teachers’ Council should in fact have representation on the Education Council in order to effect the necessary continuity and contact between, in the first place, the Teachers’ Council, which is the professional body acting on behalf of the teachers, and the Education Council, the great task of which I think should be to effect, to an ever increasing extent, the necessary co-ordination between the education of the various groups. If this can be done, national education in the Republic of South Africa will have taken another wonderful step forward. I must say that national education is, in the times in which we are living, making a very fine contribution in South Africa. Therefore the hon. member for Durban Central made a substantial contribution here in this House this afternoon, something for which I thank him sincerely.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The number of aliens who are found guilty in our courts on charges of contravening our foreign exchange control regulations is on the increase. To send foreign currency out of the country without the approval of the Treasury is viewed in a serious light and is tantamount to economic sabotage. It is in the interest of South Africa that these economic saboteurs shall not be allowed to remain in South Africa if they are not prepared to plough back into the country the benefits they reap therefrom.

To date these offenders were dealt with under section 45 of the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act, 1972, by the Minister of the Interior ordering their removal from the Republic as being in the public interest. In terms of this provision the reason for removal is not made known to the person concerned. In terms of the proposed new provision such a person will in future be informed of the reason for his removal. It is for this reason that it is provided for in the Bill that as in the case of other serious crimes, for instance murder, etc., the Minister of the Interior may order the removal from South Africa of persons, not being South African citizens by birth or descent, who are found guilty of contravening the foreign exchange control regulations. Each case will be treated on its own merits and special attention will be given to the circumstances of the offence as is required by the proposed new section.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is both helpful and essential, in fact, to consider the legislation before us in the light of the existing laws and the existing principles which underlie them. The South African Citizenship Act, 1949, in section 19 makes provision for the deprivation of citizenship. In particular it makes provision for the deprivation of citizenship of persons who were not born South Africans, that is to say citizens by registration or by naturalization. For the purposes of this debate there are two main grounds for this action to be taken, and I should like to mention these briefly for the benefit of the House. The first is contained in subsection (3)(b) of section 19 of the South African Citizenship Act. In terms of this provision a naturalized citizen may be deprived of his citizenship if he “in the Union has been convicted of high treason, crimen laesae majestatis, sedition or public violence”. These are all most serious crimes. The second ground for such deprivation of citizenship is to be found in subsection (3)(d) of section 19 of the same Act. It provides that a person may be deprived of his citizenship if he has “within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate of registration or naturalization, been sentenced in any country to a period of imprisonment of not less than 12 months or to a fine of not less than R200”. This provision relates to ordinary crimes of a multifarious nature. I would say that, presumably, once such a step has been taken, other laws come into play and deportation and the like may well be applied to such a person who is no longer a South African citizen.

I should like to look for a moment at the Act which it is today intended to amend. Section 43 of the existing Act, the Admission of Persons to the Republic Regulation Act of 1972, deals with the removal, from the Republic, of certain persons sentenced to imprisonment for certain offences and similarly provides for the removal of citizens who were not born in South Africa, in particular naturalized citizens, who are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for offences such as high treason, sedition, murder, robbery, theft, forgery and so on down a long list of crimes extending as far as offences under the Immorality Act, as set out in Schedule 1 of the Act.

As it stands, section 44, to which it is intended to add an appendage, deals with a different category of persons altogether. It allows for the removal of persons who are convicted of offences committed at a time before they acquired domicile in South Africa. In the normal course of events section 44, as it stands at present, would not be used against naturalized South Africans who, in 99 cases out of a 100, would have acquired domicile at the time the offence was committed. So it is that sections 43 and 44 both provide some small measure of protection—if it can be called that—against removal. In the first case, both conviction and a prison sentence are necessary. This involves major offences such as treason, murder and the like. In the second case, as envisaged in section 44, the person to be removed must have been convicted of an offence committed at a time prior to his obtaining domicile in South Africa. Naturalized citizens are, therefore, excluded in nearly all cases where this particular example applies.

I should now like to come to the amendment Bill before us, and in particular to the most important clause of the Bill, viz. clause 1, which seeks to insert a new section after section 44, which I have just mentioned. Briefly, it provides that any person who is not a South African by birth or by descent, and who is convicted of any currency or exchange control offence, may be removed from the Republic. I realize that, when in present times we talk about exchange control offences, money leaving the country and currency offences, this could give rise to an emotive debate. Particularly in these times of economic and political uncertainty, the whole community has a vested interest in the financial stability of South Africa, and I believe that people who transgress the restrictions which have been imposed over the years, and which are not unreasonable, in their own small way prejudice the financial well-being of all of South Africa. Only the other day, the hon. the Minister of Police, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Hillbrow, revealed that in 1977 some 390 persons were convicted of currency offences involving R10 554 212. This is, of course, no small some of money. I believe—and I am sure it will be conceded—that this is probably just the tip of the iceberg as far as currency smuggling and exchange control offences are concerned. Clearly there is a case to be made out for the tightening up of law enforcement in this respect. People who try to smuggle unauthorized money out of this country to the detriment of those of us who have committed our faith and our fortunes to the well-being of South Africa should be punished. That is, without question, correct. In fact, if properly motivated increases in the penalties that already exist for these offences were to be suggested by the Government, I have no doubt that support for such a suggestion would be found on this side of the House.

Having stated our general attitude towards such matters, I must none the less inform the hon. the Minister and the House that we are unhappy about this particular Bill.

Firstly, the key amendment does not even make it necessary for the person concerned, upon being convicted, to have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment. In other words, even lesser offences fall within the scope of the amendment and, consequently, within the scope of the discretion of the executive. Secondly, unlike the existing section 44, this amendment does not relate only to people who have not yet acquired domicile but in fact stretches the net far wider and in effect applies to everyone, with or without domicile, who is not a South African by birth or descent and in particular to naturalized citizens. In other words, by the letter of the law, if not by the spirit, currency offenders have even less chance of remaining in South Africa than offenders of a potentially more serious nature.

Thirdly, I come to the whole question of citizenship and removal. It is an established principle in this Act, in the Citizenship Act and in the law of South Africa that naturalized citizens who transgress the law may in fact be deprived of their citizenship and deported from the country upon conviction and sometimes upon being imprisoned. This principle in itself is not necessarily a correct principle, although I realize, Mr. Speaker, that that aspect cannot be debated today. What can be discussed is the question of the extension of that principle in the manner in which we find it in the Bill. There are at this moment over 250 000 people in South Africa who live here permanently and who, despite the fact that they qualify for South African citizenship, have not and probably will not apply for such citizenship. In fact, taking into account the figure I have just given and noting the annual immigration figure of, I believe, over 20 000 people, it is for me very sad to note that only 1 955 people last year applied for South African citizenship. I think it is a figure to be deplored. Bearing that in mind, I ask whether it is correct that naturalized South Africans cannot even attain unassailable citizenship and tenure in our country. I do not think it is a correct principle at all. I think it is a retarding factor in applications coming forward for citizenship. I believe that, once a man has renounced his citizenship by birth of another country and become a South African, he should be subject to the same stringencies of the law as everyone else in the country. If he is bad, he must be punished and, I believe, severely if necessary. However, once we have accepted someone as a citizen, warts and all he is a South African asset and at times of misdemeanour he is our problem. The additional penalty of removal, despite the nature of the offence, is to my mind a penalty which carries retribution too far. Clauses 2 and 3 make provision for the removal in certain circumstances of the families of such persons as well, innocent or otherwise. If the person concerned originally emigrated from a country such as the United Kingdom, his British citizenship is easily regained. People from other countries, however, may not be as fortunate. The bringing into effect of this provision could well render persons stateless, with all that that entails, when it is applied.

All in all, our attitude is that we are in favour of acting strongly against persons who are guilty of currency offences. However, we think that South Africans born and naturalized should be treated the same and therefore we cannot support the additional penalties being imposed over and above those which already apply to all of us, the additional penalties being enacted here. We shall therefore not be able to support the hon. the Minister in this Bill at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to refer to a survey which appeared in the Weekend Argus edition of 31 December 1977. The headline read as follows—

This survey then read, inter alia, as follows—

Hon. members of the Official Opposition are always obsessed with the so-called “rule of law” according to their own interpretation of that concept. They forever want to subject everything under the sun to the decisions of our law courts. Let us therefore see the serious light in which our courts consider exchange smuggling. In the case against Raymond Kets to which I have already referred, Mr. Justice Diemont expressed himself as follows—

There we have a clear ruling by a law-court. Similar verdicts were also returned when two other people were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for their part in the exchange fraud concerned. The members of the Official Opposition are, however, apparently not prepared to accept this judgment of the court. Apparently they do not agree with it.

That is not the point.

It is not a case of that not being the point; it is the point. If one accepts the judge’s evaluation, then surely one should be supporting the hon. the Minister in putting forward this Bill.

That does not follow.

Mr. Speaker, I shall indicate to hon. members why it does follow in a moment. On 22 December 1977 the hon. the Minister of Finance issued a Press statement. In the statement he announced that Mr. Justice Anton Mostert had been appointed as a one-man commission with the following terms of reference—and I quote from the Press statement—

1. (a) ondersoek in te stel na wanpraktyke wat die omseiling en ontduiking van die Republiek se deviesebeheermaatreëls behels;
2. (b) ondersoek in te stel na metodes van bekamping van sodanige wanpraktyke; en
3. (c) verslag uit te bring aangaande enige deviesebeheer-, belasting- en ander implikasies wat mag voortspruit uit die ondersoeke in (a) en (b) genoem en aanbevelings daaromtrent te doen.

I want to demonstrate that it is against this background that the legislation which is before the House at the present moment should be considered and evaluated. The Bill does not contain any new principle. Indeed, the hon. member for Sandton conceded that. The principles concerned are contained in sections 43, 44 and 45 of the Act to which he referred. In other words, it is only a further implementation of generally accepted principles.

The Bill before the House applies in the first place to persons who are not South African citizens. I want to contend that no responsible Government of a self-respecting sovereign State can tolerate or allow that State to be sabotaged by foreigners in the financial or any other field. There can be no justification whatsoever for allowing such foreigners to abuse the country’s hospitality for such an evil purpose.

The legislation also applies to people—that is the category of persons that the hon. member for Sandton was concerned with—who are South African citizens on other grounds than those of birth or descent. It would be unforgivable if we were to close our eyes to the fact that a purposeful onslaught is being made on our country in every field, in the financial-economic field as well, in order to undermine and subvert the country’s stability. In the light of this it would be more than naïve if the proposed measure were to be limited to foreigners only and were not also made applicable to certain South African citizens.

On the one hand, the legislation applies to persons whom the Minister deems to be undesirable inhabitants of the Republic, due to the circumstances of the offence concerned. In other words, the mere contravention of the relevant exchange control measures does not expose a person ipso facto and inevitably, to steps in terms of the proposed measures. Action will only be taken against him if the hon. the Minister, in the light of the circumstances of the specific case, deems the person concerned to be an undesirable person to be an inhabitant of the Republic of South Africa.

On the other hand, the legislation applies to persons who are found guilty by a competent court of law of a contravention of a measure of exchange control. In other words, action will not only be at the discretion of the hon. the Minister, but will be limited to persons who have been properly convicted in a competent court of the contravention of a law with regard to exchange control which was agreed to and passed by Parliament. Therefore, we do not have a case here of it being left solely to the administrative discretion of the hon. the Minister to decide which persons are going to be deprived of their South African citizenship. It only applies to persons who have exposed themselves to such action by contravening a specific law. In this regard we are therefore dealing with lawbreakers and not with innocent persons as the hon. member for Sandton tried to imply.

Why is it not sufficient that naturalized South Africans be subject to the same laws which apply to any other South African? Why is it necessary to have a double penalty?

It has nothing to do with a “double penalty”. It has to do with the need for one to be realistic and to look at the facts of the matter under discussion. If one does that, it becomes clear that circumstances and the reality of the situation require that one should also be able to act against those persons who have obtained South African citizenship through naturalization if they contravene the legislation concerned. We are not here in the House to play games. We are governing the country at an extremely difficult stage in its existence. Therefore it does not benefit us to wage little academic arguments here about “double penalties” and that type of nonsense. We must see to it that powers are placed in the hands of the hon. the Minister and that legislative measures are adopted which enable him to act in such a way that the interests of South Africa will be served. That is what it is all about, and we cannot omit to adopt measures which are vital for the efficient government of the country for the sake of the over-sensitivity of the hon. member for Sandton and other hon. members of his party. Therefore I say to the hon. member that we are not dealing with academic considerations such as “double penalties” here, but that we are dealing with efficient steps against people who sabotage South Africa economically by smuggling currency.

If one considers the merits of the Bill, one is somewhat surprised that the Official Opposition is opposing the measure. If, however, one looks at their record, it does not really surprise one, because they have always, at all times, acted as spokesmen for those who are hostile to the Republic of South Africa. If one looks at their record, one asks oneself: Why should it be different in this case? One should have known that the hon. members of the PFP would also come here in this case with all this glib talk of “double penalties”. Sir, I submit that the hon. members of the Official Opposition have been unmasked in this case as well because they are not prepared to support a measure which they should know themselves is essential for the maintenance of the economic and financial stability of the country, and then to crown it all they try and justify their attitude with academic arguments as the hon. member for Sandton tried to do.

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

Order! May the hon. member put a question?

Sir, I have already given the hon. member an opportunity to put a question and then it was nonsense. He will only ask another nonsensical question. [Interjections.] I cannot help but ask myself whether all the hon. members sitting there associate themselves with this unpatriotic action by their party. [Interjections.] I wonder whether the hon. member for Yeoville agrees with his party’s standpoint on the Bill. I find it very interesting that he does not react. He is pretending not to hear and this only confirms my impression.

I support the Bill without the slightest hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that when I read this legislation for the first time, it seemed to me, too, that this was legislation which we would have to oppose. At that stage it seemed to me that a principle was involved here which one could not support, viz. the principle that a distinction was being drawn between South African citizens, a distinction which could give rise to accusations that we have first- and second-class citizens in South Africa.

However, after having considered the matter more rationally and having suppressed the emotion that is present where an issue like South African citizenship is concerned, I came to the conclusion that the Bill should be supported, especially since it broadens the present legislation, and that the whole issue should be judged on its merits. That, then, is the standpoint of this party.

The hon. member for Sandton made it clear that the principle involved here is not a new one. It is merely an extension of an old principle to cover activities with regard to contraventions of exchange control. One can accept that under these circumstances heavier penalties have to be imposed on citizens who were not born in South Africa.

Why?

I shall come to that. The hon. members of the PFP do not deny that the principle involved here is an old principle.

It was passed before our time.

Apart from the historical background and the fact that the principle involved here is an old one, there are other reasons as well why provision should be made for these specific cases.

[Inaudible.]

I do not know why the hon. Chief Whip is so curious. He will hear everything. I am only going to speak for five minutes, because I have an easy case to defend.

We have to accept that citizenship of any country is a privilege which is granted. No person on earth can take his belongings and go to a foreign country, in which he was not born or from whence he did not originate, and claim citizenship of that country. What does happen, is that he is given the opportunity to earn his citizenship in that country. It is therefore a right to have the privilege of earning one’s citizenship, but to me citizenship remains a privilege and something that may be withdrawn. I believe any reasonable person must accept that.

The crux of the matter that must be taken into account, is that the circumstances of a person who is guilty of an offence relating to exchange control measures have to be of such a nature that the Minister feels compelled to take action. [Interjections.] I admit that the discretion of the Minister is involved in this to a certain extent. The point on which I differ from the hon. members of the Official Opposition who are now trying to interrupt me all the time, is that the issue here is not that of the innocent old grandmother who illegally sends R10 or R20 to her granddaughter overseas. There is no question of someone who is guilty of such a technical offence now becoming an outcast. It is very clear that the circumstances have to be of such a nature that they force the hon. the Minister to take action. Therefore it deals here with the offender who does it on such a scale that one can only come to the conclusion that it may be compared to a form of sabotage.

†Mr. Speaker, let there be no misunderstanding. I am not accusing other people of being unpatriotic, or anything of that nature. If anybody wants to oppose this legislation, they can do so by all means. I am trying to convey my own rational and unemotional point of view. We must not forget the fact that in the day and age in which we live, a country can economically be sabotaged by people who contravenes the laws relating to exchange control. We may find that this method is used increasingly by would-be saboteurs of a particular country, and if it is done on a large scale, it is very dangerous.

Punish them properly.

I do not want to react to that, but the hon. Chief Whip keeps on interjecting. The hon. member for Sandton introduced the sort of emotional feeling that we must accept the naturalized citizens warts and all. What do we do if we accept such a person warts and all and we find that the warts are turning into a cancer? [Interjections.] The argument is advanced that one cannot—and this is the issue I have to reconcile myself to—deport a South African citizen who is a citizen by birth or descent and who is also guilty of this type of thing and that, because one cannot act more effectively against that person, one must treat everybody else in exactly the same way. This is something I cannot accept because one’s argument then is based only on the emotional question of a person’s South African citizenship. However, that does not mean that at least legal provision should not be made for those South Africans who have acquired citizenship by naturalization. I cannot see any reason why one should allow such people to sabotage the economy while they do enjoy the hospitality of their adopted country, reap the economic benefits from it and share in its wealth. That is to me the overriding issue. It is something we cannot allow.

Another reason why I believe a measure of this nature should be on the Statute Book—it has nothing to do with tradition or the fact that it was on the Statute Book before—is that it will serve as a deterrent. I know there are people who will always regard severe legislation as being purely punitive in nature and without value as a deterrent. The protagonists of such an attitude can always quote the death penalty as an example and say that it has not stopped people from committing murder. I, of course, beg to differ as I believe that legislation which provides for a severe penalty forces the would-be criminal to think twice, because one wants to prevent that person from committing the act in the first place. If one has severe legislation and the threat of a penalty like this, one will in fact force him to think again and so one may prevent the act being committed. In that way one would do one’s country a service.

*Mr. Speaker, we accept that there are going to be stringent measures in this Bill. As I see it, it is intended in the first place as a deterrent and as such it is essential, for otherwise one is only going to place oneself in a more vulnerable position.

Mr. Speaker, it does not often happen that I stand up in this House and tell the hon. member for Durban Central that I agree with him. Perhaps it would be a good thing if the hon. member were to think rationally more often, because he told us that, after he began to think rationally, he came to the conclusion that he had to reverse his original prima facie opinion of this Bill and had to agree with it.

However, what I find completely inexplicable, is the standpoint which the Official Opposition has taken on this matter. I am referring to the standpoint which the hon. member for Sandton adopted. The hon. member began by talking about the increase in recent times in the number of offences in connection with foreign exchange control regulations, but later on his standpoint was that he completely rejected the existing principle contained in the Act on the deporting of naturalized citizens of South Africa. He wants to eliminate this principle completely in spite of the fact that the Bill merely seeks to include an offence, viz. the contravention of exchange control regulations, in a whole series of existing offences for which the existing Act makes provision. That is all this Bill seeks to do. Instead of this being done by way of an addition to the existing section 43, the hon. the Minister has inserted a new clause, and for a very understandable reason. We are dealing here with an extremely delicate, dangerous and serious type of offence, an offence which will overturn one of the pillars which this country and its existence is founded on, viz. the economic soundness of this country, if we do not take action against it.

I imagine there are two types of people who are guilty of a contravention of exchange control regulations. On the one hand there are those who smuggle money out of the country for their own gain, and on the other hand there are those people who get cold feet and see that they take their assets, possessions and money out of the country in advance. We cannot allow this. I want to say a few things about the seriousness of this type of situation. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has already referred to it. What is the person who is guilty of this offence actually doing? The unauthorized taking out of money has an adverse effect on the balance of payments, and a sound balance of payments is an absolute prerequisite for healthy economic growth in our country. Surely no one will be able to find fault with this. The stronger our balance of payments is, the more generous we can be in regard to imports to South Africa. Once again, this concerns our economic condition in general, because the sooner we can strengthen our balance of payments, the sooner we can stimulate our economy on a wide front. The stimulation of our economy in turn creates more employment opportunities for our people, promotes development and raises standards of living.

I want to refer to another matter. The stronger our economy, the better we are able to fulfil our political responsibility. I want to submit that this is a very important consideration. If South Africa does not have the ability to compete for a place in the world in the political sphere, other countries and powers will despise us, trample on us and try to overthrow us in the political and in other spheres. If our economy is strong, we can also compete for a political place for ourselves in the world. The fact is that we are also involved in a struggle for survival. Pressure is being exerted on us and we must resist that pressure. Pressure is, inter alia, being exerted on us so that our economic ability will collapse. The enemies of the Republic want to bring this country to its knees and they want to do it, inter alia, by isolating South Africa economically, by means of boycotts, etc. Therefore, the person who smuggles money out of the country and is guilty of contravening exchange control regulations, is committing economic sabotage. Sabotage and high treason in our country are punishable by death. I think that this offence is on exactly the same level. Anyone who smuggles money out of the country, is actually stealing our money. Foreign exchange is being limited, and the imports of the country are being limited to the same extent.

Then there is also another aspect. The bookkeeping of this country is being thrown into confusion by people who contravene the regulations in connection with exchange control. It means that the Reserve Bank cannot give a correct rendition of the inflow and outflow of capital in South Africa.

If this is the case, and if this emphasizes the seriousness of this matter, surely it is clear why the hon. the Minister introduced this amending Bill. However, the hon. member for Sandton is now referring to the existing section 43 of the Act. He alleges that we are drawing a distinction now. There is only one difference between the existing section 43 and the new clause which we are inserting. It is that, as far as the new clause is concerned, it requires someone to be convicted, while the existing section 43 requires that person to be sentenced to imprisonment.

There is another difference as well.

The hon. member for Constantia says there is another difference as well. Section 43 of the principal Act—Act No. 59 of 1972—determines—

1. (a) for any offence mentioned in Schedule 1; …

Well, Schedule 1 specifies a whole series of offences. It includes practically all offences in terms of common law, some of which are very serious offences. It begins with high treason and also includes sedition, public violence, murder, etc. Then it also includes offences against the person such as assault, theft, robbery, etc. It is interesting to note that a crime like sodomy is also included in this series of offences in terms of which a person may be deported upon conviction. However, sodomy is not a crime against a person, but against public morals. The legislature thought fit, however, to include an offence of this nature in offences as a result of which anyone who is convicted and sentenced—a mere sentence of imprisonment, although the period of time is not provided—may be deported.

As the hon. member for Mossel Bay correctly pointed out, there is a further qualifying provision in the existing Act, viz. that the person concerned is considered an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic by the Minister in the circumstances in which he committed the crime. There are other crimes for which specific provision is made in section 43 of the existing Act. For example, I am referring to section 43(b), which reads—

This offence also exposes one to deportation. Section 43(c) reads—

And section 43(d) reads—

Therefore, any person who smuggles diamonds, is also in danger of being deported, provided that, by reason of the circumstances of the offence, the Minister deems him to be an undesirable inhabitant of the Republic.

The hon. member for Sandton, however, submitted that section 43 of the Act deals with “major offences” as he termed it. I have already pointed out that sodomy is one of these offences. I do not know if the hon. member therefore wants to allege that contravention of the regulations in connection with exchange control is a lesser offence than sodomy, for example. If this is the hon. member’s standpoint, I must state very clearly that I differ with him.

The hon. member for Sandton also referred to section 44 of the principal Act. He implied that section 44 contained precisely the same provision as section 43, with this difference—according to him the only difference—that it is not required in terms of section 44 that the person concerned should already be a citizen of South Africa. Section 44 deals with people who are already in the country, but who are not yet naturalized. There is, however, a further difference. I want to read section 44 to the hon. member—

I wish to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that this does not even contain a requirement that a term of imprisonment should be imposed on the person concerned. All that is important, is that he must be convicted of an offence.

It does not involve citizens.

Yes, I know. That is why I say there is a bigger difference. However, the hon. member argues against the fact that the principle is being retained in this clause—a clause which is based on an existing principle in the Act, viz. that it involves people who are not South African citizens by birth or descent. This refers to people who are not South African citizens by birth or descent. This refers to people who are not yet naturalized or not yet citizens, whether by registration or naturalization. The hon. member argues that we must do away with this principle because it is ostensibly inappropriate in a modern State. As far as I am concerned, it is a principle which is upheld in every modern State I know of. For instance, I can refer the hon. member to the British Nationality Act of 1948. I shall quote section 20(3) of that Act to him. It concerns “Deprivation of Citizenship”—

This is all that is required to kick somebody out of the country and deprive him of his citizenship.

We find this principle in New Zealand, in Pakistan and even in America. It is a principle which holds good in every civilized country of the world. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has already pointed out that a person who obtains citizenship, obtains something which was something precious to the old citizens of the country. The old citizen of the country maintains the right to remove the new citizen from the country if, in the opinion of the old citizen, he is not following the right path. This is something which he cannot do to his fellow old citizens because they do not have another refuge. That is the difference. It is definitely not a double penalty, as the hon. member for Sandton termed it. It is a question of common sense and it is being done by people who have the right to do so. It is also based on a sound principle.

I am sorry to have to say that the hon. member for Sandton did not draw a sufficient distinction between the existing provisions of section 43 and section 44 of the principal Act. Therefore, if we argue that we are maintaining the existing principles in this Bill and that we are merely doing away with the requirement for imprisonment when it concerns cases of the contravention of exchange control, I contend that we have not yet committed an offence. I want the hon. member to realize that there is a good reason for this step. There is a good reason why we do not require mere imprisonment in this case. If the hon. member has been watching the Press, he would have noticed—and he referred to the figures himself—how many people have been convicted of offences of the regulations in connection with the exchange control in the past year. I think that the hon. member also referred to the amounts concerned. It was more than R10 million. The hon. member for Mossel Bay also referred to some similar cases, cases in which people were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. However, there were also cases where summary fines were simply imposed on people, fines which ranged from R6 000 to R18 000. If, by imposing those tremendous fines, the courts had indeed implied that this type of crime was considered in a serious light, why should we hesitate to treat a criminal of this type in the same way as any other person who is convicted of a crime which is already contained in the schedule to the principal Act. For these reasons which I have advanced here, I support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate which has been conducted so far one gets the impression that some hon. members come to this House with speeches prepared in advance and do not listen to the arguments of those who precede them. I believe that a great deal of this debate could have been avoided if we had insisted on debating those issues which are really at issue. Let us make it quite clear where we stand on this issue. We agree that in the circumstances prevailing in South Africa today, it is right to impose heavy penalties for currency offences. I hope that is entirely clear. There need be no further debate about that. We agree with the hon. member for Mossel Bay and we agree with the hon. member for Koedoespoort. In that case why do they spend so much time on it? We agree with the hon. member for Durban Central. We are all agreed that currency offences are a serious matter in South Africa in the present economic climate.

Come to the point!

I shall come to the point. We support heavy penalties. We support this Bill, provided that it does not do one single thing, and that single thing relates to the question of citizenship. It does not relate to the principle which we are discussing in the Bill of imposing heavy penalties for currency offences. I hope everybody in the House is entirely clear on this. Hon. members opposite and we on this side have no dispute on this issue at all. We support it entirely.

Let me now come to the point. I have said the point is a matter relating to South African citizenship which is affected by this Bill. The original Act which we are amending today makes provision that people who are born in South Africa, people who are South African by birth or descent, and people who are domiciled in South Africa, shall be exempt from deportation. I am stating the principle broadly. With that one can also readily agree. That is in respect of a number of serious offences. The new Bill adds currency offences to these offences. We still agree; we think that is right. We shall support it. However, what it does do is that while people who are born in South Africa and people who are of South African descent continue to be exempt from deportation, people who are domiciled in South Africa are no longer exempted from deportation. We can narrow the issue of difference even more. We would agree that certain people who are only domiciled in South Africa could also be deported, but the concept of domicile as it appears in the original Act obviously includes people who are naturalized. It does not mention them specifically, but one cannot be naturalized unless one is domiciled. Therefore people who are naturalized South Africans and have acquired South African nationality by a positive action were exempt. Because domiciled people are excluded in terms of the provisions of the Bill it means that naturalized South Africans are also excluded. It may be inadvertent. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister actually intended deliberately to exclude naturalized South Africans.

Yes.

You did intend it? We hold the view that South Africans, whether by birth, by descent—which are really matters outside their own control—are no better South Africans than people who come here and by a deliberate act assume the nationality of South Africa. We believe that a person who, by personal choice, deliberately assumes nationality, knowing the pluses and minuses, has perhaps a higher claim to the rights of nationality in South Africa than those people who inadvertently were born here, simply perhaps because of the carelessness of their fathers. I believe that to make this distinction between South Africans by birth or descent on the one hand and South Africans naturalized on the other hand is to create two classes of South Africans. I believe that when a South African becomes naturalized he accepts the liabilities and the advantages of being a South African. The liabilities may be whatever they are. The advantages are that South Africa will protect him through thick and thin as a citizen of South Africa and I believe he continues to be entitled to that protection in the same way as any other South African by birth or descent. This is a very important point. I believe that we devalue the quality of South African citizenship if we say to certain people, because they might originate from another country, that they are not entitled to these same protections. This is the point at issue. This is what we are arguing about. It is a complete waste of time, energy and emotion for hon. members on that side of the House, or on this side, to argue that we are against the punishment of currency offences.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why, if he has only this one particular objection to the Bill, he does not support the Second Reading and try to amend it in the Committee Stage?

If the hon. member will look at the Order Paper he will find that we intend moving an amendment to that effect. If we can get that amendment accepted, we shall certainly vote for the Bill. This is the crux of the matter as far as we are concerned. We shall support the Bill if the hon. the Minister will agree that naturalized South Africans can be exempted in the same way as South Africans by birth or descent. We shall support the Bill on that condition. The hon. member for Mossel Bay at least has my answer.

I have your answer, but I do not necessarily agree.

He has a clear, unequivocal answer. I am indebted to the hon. member for Mossel Bay for his questions, because it has succeeded in putting our own position clearly and beyond any question at all. We stand absolutely behind the intent of this Bill which is to prevent currency smuggling and currency offences. We do not stand for the deprivation of citizenship of South African citizens who have acquired this by a deliberate act and who have been accepted by South Africa. This is the issue as far as we are concerned. The issue is not whether we are for or against punishment for currency offences against the economy of this country. I cannot make it clearer than that, and if the debate can be confined to that issue, I believe we would save a lot of time in this House.