Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are no doubt aware, section 34 of the National Welfare Act, 1965, provides that no person may be registered as a social worker if he has been trained at an institution where any person who is not a registered social worker is taking part in a full-time capacity in the training of persons in any aspect of social work as defined in that Act.

The object of the relative provision is undoubtedly to ensure that social workers receive training from properly qualified persons only, thereby guaranteeing, as it were, that the standard of training of our social workers will be adequate at all times.

But, as hon. members will have observed, the section in question places the onus to ensure that he receives his training from properly qualified persons only, on the student himself. In practice it virtually boils down to this, namely that the student must at all times make sure for himself that his professor or lecturer is properly qualified to give instruction as contemplated by the section I have referred to.

This, to my mind, is placing an exceptionally heavy burden on very young shoulders, especially if one takes into consideration that students have no say in the appointment of academic personnel. To make matters worse, students may after a course of study lasting three or four years, find that all their efforts have been in vain as registration as a social worker must be withheld if it appears that an unqualified person had any part in their training.

Registration as a social worker is not without its advantages, and welfare organizations whose subsidies depend on the employment of registered social workers cannot, of course, be blamed if they are not prepared to employ persons who do not qualify for registration.

There are cases where people are adversely affected by the provisions in question and the present position is causing hardship to young people who have done their share to obtain the necessary qualifications and now find that they do not qualify for registration. I do not intend going further into the matter except to say that I regard it my duty and my privilege to assist the students concerned to overcome the difficulties which are not of their making.

I wish to place on record, however, that I have no hesitation in saying that there can be no question at all that the Social Work Commission, which is in terms of the National Welfare Act entrusted with the registration of social workers, has at all times acted properly and correctly in this matter. I do not think any reasonable man could on the facts before the commission have come to a different conclusion. But of course there is no point in penalizing the students in question even though the commission could not have acted otherwise.

The legislation now before the hon. House must therefore not be seen as an attempt of making undone what the commission has done in the bona fide and just execution of its duties. It is purely and simply a matter of rectifying legislation which from its very inception, probably unwittingly, placed too heavy a burden on young people who in any event could in practice do very little to ensure that the letter and spirit of the law would in all circumstances be applied.

By repealing section 34 of the Act as provided in clause 1, we are removing the obstacle at present preventing the registration of a number of students. But the matter cannot, of course, be left there if we are to ensure that the proper quality of instruction is to be maintained at all times.

Section 37, as amended by clause 2 and read with section 41(2)(c), sees to that and places the burden where it rightly belongs, namely with the lecturer, etc.

In all the circumstances, I thank hon. members in anticipation for their support.

Mr. Speaker, from the nature of the matter it is with pleasure that we give our full support to this amending Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister drew attention to the fact that certain very serious problems are being experienced at the moment with regard to the registration of the training staff and students of universities. The measure in question is therefore necessary in order to eliminate the existing problems temporarily. In view of this we support the Second Reading of this amending Bill.

That is your best speech so far this session!

The hon. the Minister should also try it from time to time.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will also, for the reasons outlined by the hon. the Deputy Minister, give this measure our wholehearted support. We do see the obvious need for assistance to the students concerned and feel that the removal of these obstacles is therefore warranted. We note too that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that the standards of instruction must be maintained at all costs. We hopefully look forward to that being achieved.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was replying briefly to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. I should like to go into it a little more fully. I think it is necessary to tell the House and the general public what attention was given to this legislation before it was presented to this House. Under normal circumstances, one would have welcomed any step to refer contentious legislation to a Select Committee of this House. However, in this particular case there are circumstances and factors which hon. members must take into consideration before they cast their votes in favour of a motion such as the one which the hon. member for Bryanston has introduced.

The National Welfare Board, which functions in terms of specific legislation, thought fit to establish various commissions in order to carry out its work. These commissions have done thorough work. The hon. the Minister has already pointed out that we are indebted to all the people who served on these commissions. Emanating from the activities of these commissions, various work groups began to work in special directions from time to time. This may perhaps not be known to everyone, and I therefore want to emphasize it this afternoon. For instance, in the case of the Social and Associated Workers Bill, there was, a long while ago, even before the relevant commission was appointed, a work group within the National Welfare Board which was involved with the whole problem of social work and the workers who carry out that work. When it became clear that it was necessary within the National Welfare Board and the department, to give positive attention to the review of our welfare laws, two commissions were appointed with the approval of the Welfare Board. When the hon. member for Bryanston spoke about long drawn-out procedures, I sympathized with him. I myself feel that when one is involved with urgent work, it should be expedited as much as possible. But, Sir, when a delay of this kind is laid at the Government’s door, then I think the mistake is being laid at the wrong door. What happened here? Two commissions were appointed. The one commission was appointed on 16 August 1974. That commission published a thick report. I think it is necessary to take note of who the members of that commission were. One of the members was Prof. Van Rooyen, a man who was particularly well-qualified for this special directive.

Another member was Prof. Cillie, who apart from having a degree in accounting, also has a doctorate in law. These members were assisted by a person with thorough secretarial experience. The procedure which this commission adopted resulted in the commission not confining itself to the investigation of an existing Act. Anyone who reads the report will realize that, from the date of its appointment in 1974, the commission held 15 public meetings at which people could give evidence. Fifteen public investigations were held in all the major centres of South Africa Some of these meetings lasted for several days. This was not concealed; it was advertised properly in the Press. Allow me to say in this regard that although criticism is often levelled at the Press, one often has reason to be grateful to the Press for the publicity which they give to specific matters. In the case of this Bill, a great deal of publicity was given to it I am not objecting to the fact that negative publicity was also given to it, because from the advantages and disadvantages which were pointed out, good things may come. As was indicated in the report, this commission held no less than 40 meetings in order to hear and consider all the evidence. With the permission of the members, the chairman of the commission went on an overseas trip to investigate thoroughly in America and Canada where a great deal of progress has already been made with this type of work what the best for South African conditions would be.

The other commission, which was appointed in January 1975, also consisting of members with the highest degree of skill and integrity, did their homework just as thoroughly and studied overseas documents in order to place the best legislation on the Statute Book for the South African circumstances.

Finally, I ask: When we are dealing with welfare work in South Africa, from whom can we obtain the best advice? I think we all agree—this was also said by the hon. member and the hon. member for Bryanston—that we can obtain the best advice from those of our people who are actively involved in the field of working to promote the welfare of people. This work is being done by the commissions with the knowledge, at all times, of everyone interested in welfare work amongst all the people of South Africa. Mention is also made in this report of the hundreds of documents which were presented and of the tens of thousands of people and bodies that gave evidence. In the light of that, one receives the impression of the tremendous extent of the work which was done here. These people, who are involved in the practical sphere of welfare work, church leaders and leaders in other spheres, did not hesitate to come to the two commissions and give their evidence. That is why I ask in all fairness: What more could a Select Committee of Parliament do? With the greatest respect towards colleagues on both sides of the House, I ask what more could be done than has already been done by these people, people who are specialists in their field. And yet we did more.

This legislation was published for general perusal in July last year. It had not yet been finally formulated and we said as much. In fact, the hon. the Minister indicated during his Second Reading speech that the final word on this legislation and legislation which will be before us in future, has not yet been said. The flexibility is being retained in this legislation to allow those knowledgeable people, who will form the councils, to make changes by means of regulations and further expansion as we may deem fit from experience.

It is also obvious that full recognition was given to all people who are interested from the fact that—and I say this in all modesty— since this legislation has been published, I as Deputy Minister have personally conducted many interviews with people and bodies and answered many letters in the process of consultation. But not I alone. The former hon. Minister as well as the present hon. Minister have given attention to this. I also want to say with the greatest possible emphasis that the attention which the department gave to this— to give people with the most divergent opinions the opportunity to speak and to listen to them carefully—is something which deserves the gratitude of all the members of the House.

Having said all this, I also want to make a request today to all people who have shown interest over the years. This legislation is the framework within which welfare work can be done. Although someone may say that this is being said in a sermonizing way, I nevertheless say it without any hesitation, and anyone may hold it against me. For all of us, who open our sessions with a prayer, it still remains part of the directive, not from people, but from the Gospel, that doing welfare work out of love for mankind is part of the great commandment. It is to create the framework within which that work may be done—not distributing alms, but creating happy communities for all people—that this legislation is being established.

The final word is not being written in cold letters here. The content which will be given to this legislation, will be given by those people who have been doing welfare work in South Africa over the years—both within and without of church context—and are still inspired today, in spite of smaller shortcomings, to do their share within the framework of the legislation so that happy communities may be created for the various population groups in South Africa—locally and throughout the entire country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston in respect of this Bill. Let me say straight away to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I believe that in some of the remarks he has made today he actually lent support to our own point of view. Amongst other things, he said that, ever since the publishing of this Bill last year, he has received countless letters, that many representations were made to him and that he has seen countless people from all over the country. The hon. the Minister made the same point in his introductory speech. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider what this indicates if not a tremendous concern from every part of South Africa in respect of this Bill and two other Bills that will be coming before the House. As a result of that, representations have been made and continue to be made. Last Monday, the very day on which this legislation was being looked at for the first time in the House, the hon. the Minister introduced amendments. There was not even time to put them on the Order Paper. I think that that also serves to suggest that we need to look at this Bill again before it is passed by the House. That is why we believe it is important to give support to the amendment that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee before the Second Reading is taken. One of the three Bills was actually withdrawn from the Order Paper on that very day. That indicates just how much concern there is and why right at the very last moment changes are still being made—major changes, according to the hon. the Minister. That being the case, I believe it is absolutely essential that it be referred to a Select Committee.

This legislation should, by definition, be non-controversial, non-contentious. I accept that, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, the whole question of social welfare is enshrined in the caring and love for one’s neighbour. Therefore there should be no contentious element in this. We say that one must avoid any such contentious element, which still does exist. We have talked to people and they have talked to us—we made advances to no one—and they have said that even right now they have reservations about at least two of the three Bills. Therefore, we say it would be showing wisdom on our part to refer this to a Select Committee rather than to continue with it and create controversy about legislation which ought to be equipping people all over the country to do their work more expeditiously. That is our major point.

Did you see anyone of the people concerned after the interviews?

Yes, we did. What is more, they came to us; we did not go to them. I shall come back to that in a moment.

How many?

I shall come to that in a moment, because I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Since this particular Bill was published last July—I cannot, obviously, speak about the other Bills before the House, although one simply has to keep them in the back of one’s mind because they all hang together—how many representations have been received from all over the country and who were those who made representations, wrote letters or asked to see the hon. the Minister, his predecessor or the hon. the Deputy Minister? Furthermore, what was the nature of the representations? What were the people concerned really asking for, or asking about? What were they objecting to? Our experience is that, although in certain instances requests were met and amendments were contemplated and actually made, in some measure—I am chosing my words carefully—they did not receive what they had hoped to receive. Obviously one cannot please everyone. The hon. the Minister made the point himself. There will always be some dissatisfaction, and we believe that there is enough dissatisfaction to warrant this Bill being looked at again by a Select Committee. We can come together and discuss the matter in quietness and try to improve the whole Bill as best as possible before bringing it back to the House.

What about the improvements?

I will come to the improvements in a moment. I want to look at just one comment, the comment of Dr. Erika Theron. Obviously the hon. the Minister will be able to tell me whether she is right. I do not know. I merely read her comments because I believe she knows what she is talking about in most instances. She specifically refers to the National Welfare Council and says—

If this is the case, if this is true then one asks: How much attention was given to the representation that were in fact made? That is our concern. The hon. member for Bellville has asked what the major problem here is. I would say that one of the major problems is that as we read these Bills—this Bill as well—we see here a further movement away from private initiative to State control.

Nonsense.

I say that advisedly despite the hon. the Minister’s words in his introductory speech where he said that there was very good co-operation until now between the State, private initiative and the churches. He said that as far as he was concerned he wanted that to continue and he believed that as long as the will was there from each of the groups concerned, so it would continue, particularly from his own side. I accept his word, but one need not only to accept his word. One has to look and see what the Bill provides. If one looks at clause 2(2)(b) one notices that the South African Welfare Advisory Council as it stands now— I appreciate that amendments will be moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister—it is clear that it is the State President who will appoint the members of that council. Secondly, we notice that in clause 2(5) it is the State President who will designate one of the members of the council as president, and that the members of the council shall elect one of its members as deputy president. If we turn to the constitution of the regional welfare boards, clause 7(3) provides that the Minister shall designate one of the members as chairman of a board. When one looks at clause 12, one sees the incredible powers that are given to the hon. the Minister in this connection. It would seem to me that the emphasis is far more on the State rather than private initiative. He makes the point…

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about “incredible” powers given to the Minister. May I ask him whether he can point out the difference in this respect between this Bill and the existing Act?

No, I cannot. Not right now.

You cannot?

All I am saying is that in terms of the legislation which is before us now, the Minister is given greater powers in terms of clauses 12, 13, 14 and 15. I will try to motivate that when I get to those clauses. I want to suggest here today that what we have here is a movement away from private initiative to State control. This is symptomatic of so much of what the Nationalist Government stands for. There is what I can only describe as a mania for control, a genius for the overkill, sometimes with the best of motivations. This Government believes that it has some kind of divine plan, and woe betide those who dare not or who do not conform to this plan. It reminds me of a cartoon that I saw recently where St. Peter was looking and talking to God. He says to God: “I notice that you are looking somewhat worried and concerned today.” God’s response to St. Peter was: “You know, for the life of me, I cannot find my copy of the divine plan. ” I wish the hon. the Minister and his colleague were in the same situation. [Interjections.] I know you do not like it Nevertheless, it is true. That is how it comes across to us. You have a divine plan and you are going to do everything you can to make sure that it is imposed upon everyone else. The Government does not believe in enabling legislation; it does not provide the machinery only. No. It decides upon a take-over bid. Almost every time it is requested to do anything, it takes the whole thing over; it does not enable, but restricts and confines. There seems to be—I say this specifically to the hon. member for Von Brandis—an almost pathological need for tidiness in the finest detail so that every single person is exactly in step with Nationalist ideology. It is a Nationalist temperament and it seems to come into every piece of legislation that is introduced, even into non-controversial legislation such as this.

Are you aware of the fact that the protests that we have received mostly accuse us of not spelling out every little thing they want spelt out in the regulations?

Yes. I am aware of that, and I think the reason is that they are terrified that there might be regulations about which they know nothing and which give the Minister even more power. I think they have a right to be afraid.

Should the regulations be framed by the body?

Yes. It should be framed by the body.

That is what the Bill says.

No. It does not say that The Minister is given the power. That is the whole problem. The hon. the Minister has taken away the power from the Secretary. The power is now his. I believe that one of the reasons why there are so many stresses and strains in the NP is because a generation gap is manifesting itself. There are so many of them who cannot stand this kind of control and these are now beginning to say: “Los ons uit” What I am saying, in effect, is that the NP is like an octopus with its tentacles going everywhere to make sure that everyone is in its embrace. Orwell’s 1984 has been brought forward to 1978.

Motivate your objections to the legislation.

It is on every page, and if that hon. member does not understand it, then he has not even begun to understand his own problem. He can examine it for himself. The essence of social welfare is its voluntary character. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister agree with me?

You are just repeating what your backroom boys wrote for you.

If that hon. member could read my handwriting, he would see it being written out here. It begins with the initiative of a single individual, at times. Sometimes it starts with a small group of people, in a humble way, and sometimes with a large group. Its hallmark is not regimentation, but flexibility. The hon. member for Bellville has said that one has to have co-ordination and planning. He is absolutely right I agree with that. Planning is, however, not restriction; it is freeing people to do the best that they can in their particular situation. Planning is not binding or controlling them, and that is exactly my problem with this measure.

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

No. I have answered enough questions. Our aim should be efficiency, but not at the expense of killing the spirit.

I should also like to refer to the question of the co-operation of the churches. Is it not true that at least some of the churches have asked for a specific clause to be inserted in every one of these three pieces of legislation, including this one, because they do not want to be circumscribed and controlled by a regional board or by a national board, because they think the essence of the work of the Church is that it must control itself? Have they not asked—the hon. the Minister must tell me if this is correct—that the provisions of this legislation shall not apply in respect of the activities of any bona fide religious body or organization? Has the hon. the Minister taken that into account? Very real concern was shown by a number of churches in regard to clause 14(3)(b) who say that it may well be that if they do their work and are registered, they may then be told that it is not necessary, or that it overlaps or that they are not doing it in the way the Government wants them to do it. This provision once again gives the initiative and the control to the Minister and not to the people.

I now should like to come to the S.A. Welfare Advisory Council. We know this council is no longer an advisory body. However, if one looks at the functions of this council as set out in clause 3 one finds that the council is very largely advisory. Clause 3(1)(c) provides that the council shall be to advise the Government in relation to—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister could tell us exactly what this means.

You are seeing spectres again!

No, I am just asking. The whole idea is to get clarification on this.

Clause 3(1)(g) provides that the council shall be to advise the Government in relation to—

Why the Government? Why not the Minister or the Secretary of the department?

Do you want it to be “Secretary” instead of “Government”?

No. All I want to know is why the word “Government” is used here. We are dealing with matters of social welfare, although I admit that the Government can learn a great deal about social welfare. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I have noticed that there is no provision that this council, which I think is going to grow and change in definition and structure despite what the hon. the Minister and his colleague may have had in mind, should make a report to Parliament at any time. It may be that a report is unnecessary. I should like to hear how the hon. the Minister feels about this. If we are going to have a national body and it is going to have certain powers and functions, it might well be that it ought to make a report to Parliament rather than to the Government.

When dealing with clause 3 in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that there may be hon. members in the House who would want to know whether it would be possible for this national body to be multiracial, or to be representative of all the different groups in the country. He went on to say that due to the very nature of the case, it is not possible to come down to particulars at this time, but that there would not be anything in the way or preventing this body from being fully representative. This is a very important point. Why should it be necessary for the hon. the Minister to tell us when he introduces a Bill of this magnitude that they have not really gone into the question of whether or not the body is going to be representative of all groups? It seems to me that the hon. the Minister must make up his mind. Either the council is going to represent everyone in South Africa, or it is not. Will the hon. the Minister stop stalling—and give us the reasons why he cannot tell the House: “Yes, the council is going to be fully representative”, or “No, it is not going to be fully representative”? It is not good enough to say that there is no stone in the way. We want to know whether this is going to be fully representative or not, because it ties up with what he has said about the regional councils a little later.

Perhaps our greatest problem with this Bill is in regard to the regional welfare boards. There are obvious advantages—I want to make that very clear immediately. Involvement of persons or groups at a local level is always highly desirable. However, when one thinks of the disadvantages as at present, one finds that they are far more than the advantages. For example, I refer again to subsections (1) and (3)(d) of clause 14, in terms of which a regional board is given very wide powers indeed. I quote from clause 14(3)(d)—

It seems to me that those are very wide powers indeed and I do not think they should stay in the Bill.

The second point I want to raise concerning this heading, is that in subsections (1) and (2) of clause 15, whilst provision is made for an appeal committee to be set up by the hon. the Minister, no provision is made for an appeal to the courts. I think an aggrieved social welfare body may well lose that case, the appeal, and that that might be the end as far as it is concerned. Should there therefore not be a provision for an appeal to be made to the courts itself? I want to know from the hon. the Minister, with his own background and profession, why he could not see his way clear to make provision for that in the Bill.

The third point I want to raise is that the ultimate discretion rests with the Minister. There is nothing personal here—I am not talking about Mr. De Klerk, but about the Minister, be it the present one or future ones. There will be a number of people who will still be holding that portfolio. I just think the hon. the Minister is given too much power in this Bill. The lack of co-ordination rather than provision therefor is what stands out for us. There does not seem to be any real tie-up between the national body on the one hand and the regional body on the other hand.

Why should there be?

Of course there should be, because there are a number of national bodies, social welfare organizations, which have representation in every region. It therefore makes good sense that there should be co-ordination. Am I right? The hon. member has said so himself in his speech. Co-ordination is paramount, and one must have it. Those were the words of the hon. member.

At regional level.

Why only at regional level? We are a country. Why should we then have a national board at all?

As an advisory board.

But the word “advisory” is being deleted by the hon. the Minister.

Look at the amendment.

I have looked at the amendment. It seems to me that if one really wants co-ordination, there must be a direct link between the regional boards on the one hand and the national board on the other hand, unless, of course, one is moving very swiftly towards the whole federal concept, in which case I accept that the NP is making some improvement.

What about the lack of co-ordination between one regional board and another? Once again a national social welfare body could have one response from a regional board in one particular area and an entirely different response from one in another area. There does not seem to be any link or co-ordination between this Bill and the fundraising aspect in the other Bill. There seems to be a total lack of co-ordination, and that is what concerns us.

The reregistration of existing welfare organizations is going to take an enormous amount of time and a great deal of resource and money will have to go into it. Is that really necessary? I do not think so.

I now want to raise my final point, and that is the composition of the regional boards. The hon. the Minister has left us in no doubt about this aspect. He said there did not seem to be any good reason at all in having all the various race groups represented on the regional boards. However, when he was pushed by interjections, once again the old bogey of identity came out. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has just told us that the whole question of social welfare is an expression of love for one’s neighbour. We all know that one does not distinguish between one’s neighbour on grounds of race. The point is that your neighbour is the person in need closest to you. Am I correct in saying this? Why then must we now have this duplication? The hon. member for Bellville kept on talking about the need for co-ordination, and I think he is right. Why then split these bodies in one region and have a Coloured regional board, and Indian regional board and a White regional board? Why not have an English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking—and all the rest—while you are about it?

You are talking nonsense.

It is absolute nonsense. The hon. member is quite right. It is total nonsense to do it this way. If one studies the figures very carefully one will find that there are very, very few social workers who are not White. The figures which I have for 1976—I am open to correction—show that there were over 3 000 White social workers, 83 Indian, 233 Coloured and 302 Black, making a total of 618 non-Whites. In other words, there are more than five times the number of White social workers than there are of the Black, Indian and Coloureds combined. Now we are going to have separate regional bodies. We are going to have a concentration of expertise and skills in certain boards and almost a total lack of them in others. Erika Theron makes the point again, in the same editorial to which I referred earlier, viz. that if you are going to have a regional board in Cape Town and you do not have the Coloured people serving directly on that board, it is an absolute tragedy. Those are the words she used. It is stupid. I appeal to this hon. Minister that he must change this. You cannot set up a structure based on social welfare and caring for people on the grounds of race. Even the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has made it possible now, under much protest, to have local clubs which are open to people of all races. Are we going to have a primacy of sport in this country, because sport is so important to us, that there can be racial representation of all sorts on a sports body but not on bodies concerning social welfare? There can be no defence for this. None at all. This is a racially stratified thing, and in this day and age it is outmoded and outdated. There can be no justification for it whatsoever. I would say to the hon. the Minister, if he does nothing else, if he does not agree with us on any other point, he must think again on this issue. I appeal to him and to his colleague, and through them to their department. This is the only way you can do it in South Africa when you are talking about the needs of people. I have never heard of anything so silly at this stage in our existence and in our history. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Plural Relations’ identity does not have to be defended by keeping people in separate groups. I am sure hon. members opposite are not so scared. If one’s identity means anything at all, it does not have to be defended. It is there to be celebrated. It is not to be defended and held back, even in social welfare.

I want to say, in conclusion, that this Bill emphasizes State control to the detriment of social welfare itself. It does not talk about co-ordination, but rather of control. That is what it is all about. Secondly, it gives far too much power in the hands of too few. Thirdly, no one in this day and in the time in which we are living can defend this whole idea of creating small uniracial groups on a regional basis, because the plight involving social welfare—whether it be family planning, alcoholism, gambling, poverty or anything else—knows no race. That is what we ought to be doing, viz. bringing the expertise, no matter who they are, together in order that they can do the job in the best possible way to the best advantage of all South Africans.

Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member for Pineland’s reference to NP ideology—which according to him, is reaching out its tentacles like an octopus to embrace every facet of our community— which he observes so clearly in this Bill, the hon. member once again demonstrated his passionate embitterment, and his hatred of the Government and the existing order. He could not even restrain himself from making serious political charges, even in regard to such an uncontentious, fairly simple Bill.

My conclusion is that the hon. member does not understand the soul of this nation, and indeed will never do so. That is why he will persevere with the cynical, angry political mentality which he again revealed here today.

Despite the remarks of the hon. member for Pinelands I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister, who is still young and inexperienced, on the excellent way in which he elucidated this Bill by means of his Second Reading speech. I think he did this so efficiently that there is hardly any need for further discussion, despite the standpoint which the hon. member for Pinelands adopted a moment ago. There is scarcely any lack of clarity in this measure which the hon. the Minister did not adequately deal with in his Second Reading speech. The desirability and the essentiality of welfare services are not in dispute. Therefore, when one wants to pay tribute to the many organizations and the men and women who have rendered these services in a very commendable way over the decades, it would truly occupy volumes and take many hours. I feel that the welfare profession and the services which emanate from it, have produced many Florence Nightingales in the past, without our being able to notice and accord recognition to them. However, it is not the profession itself which is under discussion now, but the service as such. This is what the Bill is about.

In a highly developed, progressive country such as South Africa, where technology and science have already reached great heights, and also enjoy world recognition, it is to be regretted that this work in a highly scientific and specialized sphere, viz. that of social welfare, is still being carried out to a very large extent in an unco-ordinated, unplanned and unscientific way. In fact it amazes me that in a country like South Africa, where there are many more than 2 000 welfare organizations, we did not have legislation of this kind on our Statute Book long ago.

Since the State is involved in a very high percentage of these welfare organizations, through the provision funds and subsidies, surely it goes without saying that the State can insist on planning and co-ordinating the services and activities of welfare organizations, in order to ensure and to bring about maximum efficiency in the interests of the service itself, and in the interests of those who must benefit from it. This is precisely what is being envisaged with this Bill. We can no longer allow or even finance uncoordinated action, in a sphere where planning, co-operation and co-ordination will ensure very much better results to the advantage of everyone concerned. That is why I feel that everyone who is favourably disposed towards national welfare and who carries out this service purely for humanitarian reasons and for the welfare aspect of such a service, will support and welcome this Bill. However, there are institutions and organizations that do welfare work with the purpose of benefiting their own organizations or making publicity for them. I do not want to condemn this out of hand, for in the process the net results of these publicity services, if I may call them this, are nevertheless in the general interests of national welfare and those who have to be served by it. But, Sir, through a lack of proper planning and co-ordination there has been a great deal of duplication in cases where welfare was a means of getting publicity and valuable resources and efforts were wasted in the process. It is a great pity, and I am certain that everyone in the House would agree with me, that this is the case. The purpose of this Bill is not to handicap welfare services or to impose restrictions on welfare organizations, but merely to co-ordinate all efforts and to promote proper planning. I want to point out that this sphere is a highly specialized as well as expensive one, if one takes into consideration the colossal amounts of money involved here, whether they are provided by the State or whether they come from the public’s purse.

Large amounts are involved in national welfare, and unscientific action in such a highly specialized sphere can certainly not be preferred by anyone to what is being envisaged by this Bill. The new approach which is being laid down by this legislation, will ensure that every welfare organization’s functions and activities will produce greater dividends, to the benefit of all the people concerned, viz. those who are involved as donors as well as those who are in need of assistance. This Bill simply wants to create structures for planning and co-ordination, which in modern life has practically become a slogan in every walk of life, with very good results. Information and guidance for welfare organizations, for which clause 3 makes provision, will therefore be a very important function of the Welfare Council. By means of the division into regional categories, which chapter 2 deals with, we make the choice between decentralization or centralization, because there are specific regional and local requirements and circumstances which can be met and dealt with far more effectively on a regional and local basis than from a centralized centre. When it comes to chapter 3, which deals with the registration of welfare organizations, I differ with the hon. member for Pinelands. It implies very emphatically that no obligation rests with any welfare organization to register as such.

What about fundraising then?

I am coming to that. As I said, no obligation rests with any welfare organization to register as such. That organization that wants to operate with its own funds, can go to work in its own way and in its own time, as in the past Therefore, there is no question at all of State domination in this case. As far as fund-raising is concerned, to which the hon. member for Pinelands has just referred, I believe that an organization which does not want to register as a welfare organization in terms of the Bill, will be able to apply in terms of the Fund-raising Bill, which still has to come before this House, to raise funds and continue its functions. However, I must concede that such an application may be refused on merits and possibly also on technical aspects. Therefore, although it is not compulsory for any welfare organization to register as such, I should say that it would be advisable to register, because I think—to my mind, in fact, this goes without saying— that only those welfare organizations which are registered as such, will in future be able to apply to the State for subsidies or financial aid. However, I say once again that those organizations that want to do their own thing with their own funds, are under no obligation whatsoever to register.

Apart from the important provisions governing registration, the legislation for the most part contains practical measures only, i.e. including the right of appeal as defined in clause 15, and once again this right is proof of the fact and a guarantee that there is no question of State domination here and that bureaucracy can be eliminated or neutralized in a meaningful way. The right of any person or organization that feels injured or aggrieved to be able to appeal, is surely the guarantee that there is no provision at all in this Bill for State domination or bureaucracy.

In general—and I conclude with this—this measure is one which should have been on the Statute Book a long time ago. The principles of planning and co-ordination are fit and proper, and accepted by all organizations and bodies in all relevant spheres of life and the fact that the Welfare Council will be required to present an annual report to the hon. the Minister, will also ensure that the functions of this board will be placed on a very high level. No one will suffer if this Bill is passed. This is very important, and therefore I want to repeat it: No one will suffer if this Bill is passed by the House. On the other hand, those who will benefit, i.e. the people in need of assistance, will benefit inestimably from it and will be eternally grateful to us for it That is why I consider it to be sound and essential legislation and I support it enthusiastically.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches had our general attitude made fairly clear by the hon. member for Umbilo when he rose to address the House on Monday. In principle we feel that the introduction of this legislation is going to be beneficial to both the practitioners, the organizations and the beneficiaries of social work in South Africa. Social work which has in the past, by its very nature, been extremely dependent upon donations, charity and voluntary workers, has tended to be shrouded in a kind of Cinderella atmosphere or suffered from a kind of Cinderella complex. Unlike our colleagues in the PFP we believe that the introduction of this type of legislation is going to serve the best interests of all in South Africa in the long run. That does not mean to say that we agree with everything in this particular Bill. We have given notice of amendments which we intend to discuss in detail in the Committee Stage. I think that the hon. the Minister himself, the hon. the Deputy Minister and perhaps even the hon. members for Bryanston and Pinelands will agree that our major problem with the introduction of these Bills has been the considerable degree of confusion and suspicion that has been generated in the minds of those concerned with welfare work in South Africa. I think that the hon. the Minister and his department have probably learnt one lesson—I hope sincerely that they have learnt this lesson—and that is that, when one makes major changes to fundamental legislation which affects the livelihood of a profession and the method in which that profession is practised in South Africa, it is better to go slowly, to take one piece of legislation at a time and to enlighten the public thoroughly, particularly those who are directly concerned, as to what it involves before adopting a steamroller attitude and trying to put through three pieces of legislation simultaneously. I think that the confusion and suspicion that this generates in the minds of the public is to be expected. I should like to quote from an article which appeared in The Argus on 11 April 1978 in order to indicate the attitude of the Press—

They are obviously here referring to the legislation that is coming—

That relates to the Bill on social workers.

They are talking generally. I quote further—

It is the volume of representations the hon. the Minister received from the different organizations …

That concerns the Bill on social workers; not this one.

If only the hon. member for Hillbrow would listen, he would be enlightened as well. As I said, it is the very volume of representations which the hon. the Minister and his department received that indicates the confusion that existed and perhaps even now still exists in the minds of the public regarding these Bills. If one reads these three Bills together—there are circumstances under which they must be read together—who can blame any member of the public for being suspicious about the intentions of the Government, especially if they read in the Fund-raising Bill about the Draconian powers vested in inspectors? If one bears that particular paragraph in mind and one looks at the National Welfare Bill, one sees why the Government cannot escape from the interpretation put on it by the public as a result of which they say they are suspicious of the bureaucratic straitjacket which the Government is attempting to put on welfare organizations.

Be that as it may, there certainly is a considerable amount of good that will flow from this particular Bill. I refer here specifically to the National Welfare Bill. I was most intrigued by certain remarks of the hon. the Minister in introducing the Second Reading. He came with an explanation concerning which we in these benches should like to ask him—in this regard we support what the hon. member for Pinelands said—kindly to clarify his interpretation of the necessity for the registration of the various welfare organizations with the regional welfare boards. If I understood him correctly, the hon. the Minister said there would be absolutely no compunction on any welfare or charitable organization to register with the regional welfare boards provided they are not dependent on State funds. I would like to have that clarified by the hon. the Minister. At what stage will the hon. the Minister insist that all welfare organizations should register, even though they are not currently in receipt of State funds? We notice, for instance, the moratorium on organizations over a two-year period—that is a sort of “grandfather clause”. It is the hon. the Minister’s intention to grant exemptions only during the two-year period or does he intend that, after the two-year period, organizations that are financially self-help organizations will still be able to pursue their aims and objectives without any interference by the hon. the Minister’s department? In this respect, once again, one must look at the other two Bills, which have to be read in conjunction with the National Welfare Bill, to ensure that there are no traps set for welfare organizations in the future whereby, if they are not caught by the National Welfare Bill, they will be caught by the Fund-raising Bill. There is confusion in the minds of the public about this.

Before going on to our own attitude in regard to the other basic principles in the National Welfare Bill, I should like to take the hon. member for Bryanston to task for the manner in which he approached this legislation last Monday. I think it was totally uncalled for to ask to have this whole issue referred back to a Select Committee. It is not going to fulfil the objectives that the hon. member for Bryanston had in mind, or even those of the organizations he spoke of.

The problems really arose once again because in an article which appeared in The Argus of 11th April the hon. member for Pinelands committed himself to negate this legislation. I was pleasantly surprised to find that he left the “kragdadigheid” to the hon. member for Bryanston for it was, in fact, the hon. member for Pinelands who said—

[Interjections.] The public must take note of the fact that what has been recommended by the Opposition, is not going to serve their best interests.

Why not?

However, to refer this legislation to a Select Committee is going to be a negative process. It will certainly not achieve anything further or anything positive as far as the welfare organizations are concerned.

What is a Select Committee for?

I think hon. members of the Official Opposition must have had second thoughts after last Monday’s debate because they then came with literally 100 amendments to this particular Bill. If anyone can talk about cosmetic amendments, the Official Opposition certainly know what they are talking about. They were not, I believe, acting in the interests of the profession, the recipients or the organizational structure of welfare.

It so happens that the amendments were specially requested. You are totally ignorant of what …

Speak a little louder, Senator, I cannot hear you!

This is the type of attitude which I referred to earlier, namely “kragdadigheid”, which achieves nothing.

We must see the National Welfare Bill in the South African context. If we look at the number of registered welfare workers in South Africa—and the hon. member for Pinelands referred to this earlier—we find that we have approximately 3 100 White social workers, 302 Black social workers and disappointingly enough only 83 Asiatic social workers and approximately 200 Coloured social workers. The ratio of social workers to the White population of South Africa is roughly 1 White social worker to 1 500 members of the White population group. If one uses that figure as a sort of a standard of the number of social workers that will be required in South Africa for the different population groups, we currently have a deficit of social workers in South Africa in the order of 12 500. This deficit is not going to be eliminated over the next few years unless we introduce co-ordination and planning such as is envisaged with the introduction of the Advisory Council. I think the fragmentation of effort in the welfare field in South Africa has been largely responsible for the problems which they are experiencing at the moment. We see from the Auret Commission that an average of 340 social workers qualify per year. As I have pointed out, there is a backlog of over 12 000. That backlog will probably increase because the social problems are occurring amongst the underprivileged in South Africa. We are going to find that we will have to increase very considerably the tempo at which we train our social workers. This professionalization of social work, both in its inherent structure and the profession itself as it applies to the individual, is going to be an essential prerequisite if we are going to attract sufficient people, not only as social workers, but also those involved in the administration and organization, to the profession. The difference between having a profession and a non-profession is protection by legislation of those who are properly qualified and who are prepared to do the job. I referred earlier to the fact that the social workers of South Africa were—and I believe to a very large extent still are—the Cinderella profession in South Africa in the medical field. One only has to look at the rates of pay to see that these people are doing a labour of love and that they have very little pecuniary interest.

I would like to come to the next point, which is the principal concern. Again, clarification will be required from the hon. the Minister by this party and, I believe, the other parties as well, as to what his intentions are in regard to the composition of the Welfare Council. Is it or is it not going to be multinational? We have amendments on the Order Paper which we will be discussing in the Committee Stage. We would like to add our appeal to that of the hon. member for Pinelands who was reasonably responsible today. He was very calm and well-reasoned in debate, unlike the hon. member for Bryanston. He tried to make a constructive contribution and we would like to add our appeal to that appeal to the hon. the Minister to tell us what his thinking is in regard to a multinational council.

I say that not from a political point of view. We can discuss the constitutional proposals of the Government ad infinitum at a later stage, but these very people, i.e. the Asians, Blacks and Coloureds, will have to become involved in that advisory council and preferably at the regional board level as well—we have amendments in that respect too—in order to provide them with the experience which they are going to need if, at some time in the future, they decide by local option that they want their own regional boards. Where else can these people obtain the experience of organization, planning and the promotion of the interests of their clients in the profession if they do not come in at the ground floor level as members of the National Welfare Council? I was intrigued—and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us clarification in this regard—to see that the Bill does not specifically exclude the board from being multinational. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it will be multinational. The hon. the Minister can see that we do have amendments on the Order Paper to support that.

I would also like to make a statement regarding the creation of the regional welfare boards. We in this party believe that local option and local participation is the key to government at any level and any organizational structure. We welcome the fact that the regional boards will not have to report to a co-ordinating body. We do not say that there should not be co-ordination, but the more power we have in the hands of people at local level, the more interested, enthusiastic and effective they are going to be. There is nothing that kills enthusiasm more than having always to report to a head-office or to a central council which may meet once or twice a year and which does not have the feel of the problem. We believe that that devolution of power to the regional boards is very much in the interests of the profession and of social welfare in South Africa. We shall therefore not be lending our support to the hon. member for Pinelands’ call for a further co-ordinating body. We see this devolution of power as being in the interests of all involved. The hon. member’s proposal will inevitably lead to control and conflict, and when there is conflict between regional and national issues, obviously the co-ordinating body at the top is going to have its ideas implanted on the people down the line.

The number of amendments that we have on the Order Paper can well be discussed during the Committee Stage and it will therefore not be necessary for me to go into all the details now. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister, however, that the hon. the Minister of Health has already set a precedent by creating national councils and advisory boards with multinational set-ups. Earlier this year we passed the Nursing Bill in which specific provision was made for representation of the different cultural groups in South Africa. On page 9 of the Nursing Bill the hon. the Minister of Health specifically made provision, as far as the registered nurses were concerned who were going to serve on their national body, the Nursing Council, that five shall be Whites, three Bantu, one Coloured and one Indian. It is the very absence of that type of formula which makes us a little bit suspicious about what the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions has in mind.

I would also like to go a little further in terms of a call to the various welfare bodies which we have consulted during the past few weeks. Unlike the Official Opposition we actually went out to make contact with them …

So did we.

That is not what the hon. member for Pinelands said.

I said I did not make any contact at all.

That is right; tell him.

I spent the whole long weekend talking to these people.

That is obviously where the confusion came from! [Interjections.] I would like to add my appeal to that of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the various welfare organizations concerned not to read into this legislation bogymen. If we are going to co-ordinate and plan correctly and properly we are going to have to work together and, in their own interests, they should see to it that they have the power at grassroots level.

That is what the regional boards are for and that is why we are going to be supporting this particular Bill at Second Reading, subject to the various amendments which we have recommended for the attention of the hon. the Minister. One can carry on for hours discussing the effects of the Bill and the interests of the various bodies, but I think we shall probably be able to deal with the detail of it more effectively during the Committee Stage and I would like to conclude by saying that we will, unlike the Official Opposition, be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands because I hoped that in the light of his background we would see, I would not say a split, but certainly a more constructive approach than the approach which we had from the hon. member for Bryanston. There is only one point on which I would agree with the hon. member for Pinelands, i.e. his statement that this type of legislation should not be contentious. However, who brought the contention?

The Bill.

No, it was the approach of the hon. member for Bryanston and it is a matter for regret that these hon. gentlemen have to bring their political fanaticism into a debate of this kind. [Interjections.]

I want to leave the speech of the hon. member for Bryanston on one side for a moment and come to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands. If one analyses the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands one notices that he raised a lot of small points in respect of a whole lot of clauses of the Bill. When the hon. member resumed his seat it was very clear to me that he has little or no knowledge whatsoever of the existing legislation, because if the hon. member had done any homework he would have noticed how many of the provisions of the existing legislation and the provisions in the Bill now before us relating to the powers granted to the Minister, are similar or the same. So, it was very clear to me that the hon. member had very little understanding of this legislation.

I should now like to come to the hon. member for Bryanston and his amendments. It is ridiculous to propose an amendment such as the one the hon. member for Bryanston has proposed. I do not want to enlarge on the points which were made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I do want to point out that the Auret Commission took evidence from no less than 620 individuals or representatives of organizations. They started their work in 1974. In the case of the Van Rooyen Commission the chairman of the commission made a lengthy visit to countries in Europe to study this subject and the commission made a lengthy report. The commission also sent out 2 000-odd questionnaires and the commission analysed the replies of 1 432 organizations. Furthermore, the Van Rooyen Commission heard evidence from 210 witnesses. So, in total these two commissions heard evidence from 830 witnesses. With all respect, I should like to ask the hon. members whether they think that a Select Committee appointed by this House can ever undertake a task of that nature. In any event, what would be the purpose of such a committee, seeing that all these representations and all these views have been lengthily placed before commissions whose membership consisted of highly qualified men in the specialized fields of social welfare and social work?

Why then the outcry?

Let me go back even a little further for the information of the hon. member for Bryanston, who at that time was probably toddling around in his nappies. The existing legislation and even the proposals in this Bill before us today were in 1953 considered by the Du Plessis Commission. Before the hon. member for Bryanston proceeds to move his amendments in the Committee Stage he should obtain those reports from the Clerk of the Papers and read them because he will then see that even at that particular time the thinking revolved around what is being done here, i.e. the separation of the categories of social work, national welfare and fund-raising institutions. These ideas were considered very seriously at that time.

In my opinion it is unscrupulous to play politics with an issue of this nature because welfare work in South Africa has traditionally been a proud partnership between the State and private organizations. It is regrettable that before the Bill came before the House such Press campaigns should have been conducted as have been conducted—I have a whole list of them here—even by ill-informed Ministers of the Church. I am not going to quote some of these wild statements in the time at my disposal, but I have a whole list of them here. The hon. member for Parys referred to some of the wild statements made by the hon. member for Pinelands even before the Bill reached the House. There can be no doubt that there has been much misinformed criticism. It shows that these hon. gentlemen in the PFP benches who have shouted the loudest, have little or no knowledge of the workings of the department or of the existing legislation. That applies in particular to the hon. member for Bryanston.

I think it is perhaps adequate and very fitting that I quote what was stated by the then hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading of the legislation which was accepted in 1965, because the attitude displayed by those members, led by the hon. member for Houghton, at that time was precisely the same. I am going to paraphrase it a bit.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton will remember these words. The hon. the Minister said the following—I am paraphrasing it (Hansard 17 May 1965, col. 6179)—

That was stated by the then hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions when the present legislation was accepted. I know the hon. member for Houghton will recall the occasion very well. I should like to ask the hon. member what slightest interest any member of her party has shown since 1965 to the present time in the welfare work of South Africa. Not one can produce a tittle of evidence that by way of a motion in this House or anything else he has shown interest in the welfare work of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions in all those years. That is why I have said I think these words are very apt. I think I can leave the PFP there.

In this modern age the test of the standard of civilization reached by the people of any nation lies in the degree of responsibility they accept for the less fortunate members of society and for those citizens who through age, misfortune or for any other reason cannot provide for themselves. I think I am correct when I say that the concept of national welfare or State responsibility was originally primarily based upon an outlook of charity as referred to today by the hon. member for Pinelands. In other words, the concept arose that national welfare was synonymous with national charity handouts. I submit and believe that in the modern state this attitude is hopelessly outdated. Like the individual citizen in our modern society the State also has a social responsibility. Its responsibility is on a par with that of any individual citizen.

Like the individual citizen I believe that the functions of the hon. the Minister and his department are not only those of dishing out cash handouts, supplied by the taxpayers of South Africa and made available by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The functions of the department, although very relevant in that regard, go much further. Their functions are also to plan, to give guidance and to give leadership to the social organizations of our national life in all its varied aspects, in which, as has already been pointed out in this debate, some 3 940 welfare organizations are concerned. According to the 1975 report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, there were 1 908 registered organizations together with 2 032 branches of these organizations.

The Bill before us clearly indicates the acceptance of more State responsibility …

Exactly!

I do not dispute it.

Well, the rest of your colleagues do.

… and the need to rationalize the work of the voluntary organizations, the majority of which rely to a large measure on State financial support. The history of welfare legislation placed on the Statute Books of this country, particularly since the Act of 1947, an Act which was replaced by the Act of 1965, which this Bill will in turn replace when it is passed by Parliament, follows exactly the pattern of sociological changes that have taken place in our ever-increasing industrialized technological society in South Africa. The impact of modern society places strains on the individual citizen, strains which were quite unknown some 30 years ago, and adjustments to meet these stresses and strains in modern-day life are not easy for many citizens. With the advance of medical skills and a longer life expectation the growth in the number of elderly citizens dependent on the State for their subsistence has increased phenomenally. I mention just these two factors to indicate the great importance and need to formulate policy to assist our South African nation in our complex society for the social life of the future. I would regard this aspect of the Bill as the most important task that will face the National Welfare Board in advising the Minister. I say this because I believe that if we fail to meet the social challenges of today we are going to fail as a nation. In this regard there is no tribute great enough that can be paid to those public-spirited citizens who devote so much of their time and energy to the work of many national welfare organizations, organizations which have come into existence, voluntarily in most cases, to alleviate or better some aspect of our South African society. With the growth in the number of organizations and the wide-ranging nature of their work, it is inevitable that there should be proper control. In a large measure this Bill follows very much the pattern of the 1965 legislation in that respect. There are certain fundamental differences, however, and I think one difference from the 1965 legislation which is very important is that where the work was categorized under four commissions, namely the Welfare Organizations Commission, the Social Work Commission, the Family Life Commission and the Welfare Planning Commission, this Bill now embraces those functions in those of the National Welfare Board as a whole. This board is given those functions in terms of the Bill. I want in particular to refer to one of those functions.

In clause 3(1) of the Bill these functions are listed in paragraphs (a) to (g) and in six of these paragraphs—and I make this submission to the hon. the Minister—emphasis is given in the wording of the Bill to the social aspect of the functions of the council; not to welfare, but to the social aspects of the functions of the council, the word “social” being used no less than seven times in six of the paragraphs. This emphasis is also being placed, in these functions of the council, on the need for future planning. I quote from clause 3(1 )(a) of the Bill—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, if possible, to give some consideration to getting away from this welfare aspect, because that creates the impression that it is something that is being dished out. With a view to future planning I would suggest we rather put the emphasis on the functions listed in clause 3 and for that reason call the Bill the National Social Welfare Bill. I suggest this as a way of getting away completely from the idea that we are dealing with legislation to control some form of State charity.

In the time still left to me I wish to deal with that function of the council of advising the Government, in the words of the Bill, “on measures particularly necessary for stabilizing, protecting or promoting family life or married life”.

I should be glad if the hon. member for Pinelands would give me his attention, as I think we share a similar interest in this respect. Of all the human institutions in our country, whether they be educational, religious, legislative or judicial, there is no single one so important as the family. It is the main source of strength of our national character because it is the main source of development, not only of the physical attributes, but also of the character and the personality of every individual in the South African society. It collectively contributes towards making up the South African nation. The family is the basis of the installation and continuation of knowledge, customs, values and traditions as we know them in South Africa. In the permissive society in which we live today this foundation of our society is being threatened as never before. An attitude is developing which looks upon a marriage certificate as merely a temporary licence for a short love life.

Speak for yourself!

In the communist society there is little respect for family ties, as we all know.

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

My time is very limited. I cannot answer any questions now.

In a communist society there is little respect for family ties and the communists know very well how to undermine the family. They also know very well how to undermine a democratic society. There are also other threats to the family and to family life in our country. There is the problem of the role of the working mother. There is inadequate housing. There is the increased tempo of living. There is the recreation of children which is now largely concentrated outside of the parental home. There are many other factors that I could mention, but time does not permit me to do so.

The report on the work of the Family Commission under the existing legislation, although it had shortcomings, certainly makes interesting reading. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinelands has ever bothered to read those volumes on the work done over these years by the Family Commission of the Department of Social Welfare. One of the facts brought to light by the Family Commission—and I have several of its voluminous reports here—was the extremely high divorce rate in South Africa; one of the highest in the Western world.

What does the report say about migrant labour? [Interjections.]

I want to quote some comparative figures in this regard. In the 10-year period from 1946 to 1956, the courts approved no less than 43 480 divorces. In the 10-year period from 1959 to 1969 the courts approved nearly 70 000 divorces. These still continue to multiply. However, I find that I have even become a bit outdated, because in the current yearbook for 1977, I have found the comparative figures for 1970.

From this it appears that out of every 10,9 marriages, 2,5 end in divorce. On the latest information we have, the position has become even worse. The findings of the S.A. Law Commission show that one out of every 3,2 marriages results in divorce. They point out that out of 41 333 marriages in 1975, there were 10 730 divorces. These figures clearly show a deterioration in the situation. It is, however, not merely a question of the stability of the home being upset by this trend; what I am more concerned about, is the effect upon the children. On these figures, no less than some 150 000 children have been affected as a result of broken homes over this period of review. This is a high percentage in terms of our White population. One must consider the effect this will have on the lives of these future citizens who have experienced broken homes.

Mr. Speaker, any social worker will tell you what the effect of this fantastic divorce rate is in terms of child delinquency. It has been conclusively shown that the case histories of children who are charged before the courts of our country reflect that in the majority of cases they are from broken homes resulting from divorce. I believe that we as a nation cannot afford to let this situation continue. This fact is made very clear in the report of this commission. I would like to support the recommendation made by the commission in its lengthy report on divorce, i.e. that family courts be established by the extension of the present children’s courts to include the functions of a preparatory examination, to be held in camera.

Sir, I am debarred in this debate from discussing the recommendations contained in the report relating to divorce matters, prepared by the S.A. Law Commission, but I would like to refer the House to certain statements made by the commission. I quote from the report—

The commission went on to point out, and very correctly so, that it is not the function of a court, once a divorce case reaches that court, to attempt a therapeutic approach. I quote again from the report—

In other words, the conclusion is very distinctly reached that once a divorce case comes to a court, it has reached the stage where it is already an inevitable issue. The tragedy is that in many of these cases the children are involved in an adverse type of publicity which often remains with them virtually for the rest of their lives. Therefore I should very strongly like to support this recommendation of the commission. I would like the hon. the Minister to give consideration to discussing this matter of family courts with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, before the legislation proposed by the commission to deal with divorce matters is proceeded with. The function of a family court would be to investigate and satisfy itself that there is no possibility of the marriage continuing. It could also offer advice and help in order to attempt to solve the particular family problem. This should particularly be the case where children are involved. Such family courts could also obtain reports from qualified social workers, with the entire emphasis being placed on the restoration of marital relationships. In most cases it is shown that divorce cases occur mostly in the young age group of 25 years to 30 years. In the past we have had many unedifying spectacles of the children of such marriages being dragged through the courts under the eyes of the public. As I have said, they have had to live with such publicity. A hearing in a family court, a hearing held in camera, would prevent this. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to the suggestions embodied very fully in the reports of the Family Commission.

Finally, I should like to say that this Bill is an advance on our welfare work in South Africa and our social development, the development of our nation as such. It forms the basis on which we shall progress in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis who said that there was absolutely nothing contentious in this Bill. However, it is a great pity that whenever the well-being of the needy in our country is discussed there are always people who indulge in suspicion-sowing. One comes to the conclusion that some of them already find themselves in a rut of always having to look for alternative motives in anything good which is being undertaken.

And what is more, always sinister motives.

We have just had the example here of a number of members who echoed the parrot-cry! “Migrant labour!” But what has that got to do with the Bill before us?

Family life!

It has a lot to do with family life.

Those hon. members are casting suspicion on the legislation. An attempt is being made to do something for the people whose cause is championed by those hon. members, but while that attempt is being made, those hon. members are trying to put a spoke in the wheel.

We support this Bill in principle, although at some stage we were also of the opinion that it would be wise to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, particularly on account of the representations made to us by probably the same bodies and persons that approached the Official Opposition. Some of them actually asked pointedly that it should be referred to a Select Committee. However, the hon. the Minister made it clear in his Second Reading speech that many bodies had fully availed themselves of the opportunity of putting their case to the department and to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister also pointed that out today.

We have also been told that some of them availed themselves of the opportunity to make recommendations, that they have been satisfied to a large extent and that certain improvements have been effected to the legislation as a result of the representations made by them.

The hon. member for Pinelands again advanced arguments today for having the matter referred to a Select Committee. Having been satisfied as to what has been done in this regard, however, I believe we should allow this legislation to be implemented as soon as possible so that we may iron out any difficulties and so that those organizations which still have misgivings about this legislation may point out any shortcomings in the legislation to the hon. the Minister and prove—in practice—the causes of those particular aspects which they regard as shortcomings. Then those shortcomings can be eliminated. Surely that is what legislation is there for. If it is found that it is not functioning satisfactorily, it can be changed.

It was also encouraging to have learnt that a practical test had in fact been carried out. The outcome of that test was that the legislation was found to be acceptable and that it would be as useful and beneficial and as had been anticipated. We shall let the matter rest there and we shall not insist any more on such a Select Committee being appointed. Whereas certain bodies and persons had feared that the Bill would be detrimental to the enthusiasm of the voluntary worker, it was encouraging to have learnt that the experiment had stimulated enthusiasm and interest to such an extent that, as the hon. the Minister put it, new life was observed in certain services in some cases. We trust that this experience will not be the exception but that it will be the rule when this legislation is implemented. Nevertheless we must guard against this legislation, however good it might be, creating the impression that State control will impose a heavier burden on voluntary welfare work.

The hon. member for Pinelands again tried to create that impression today. The sooner the legislation is put into operation, the sooner it will be proved that that is not the case and that it is not intended to impose State control. We are convinced that the regional councils will be better equipped than anyone else to determine the greatest need in a particular region and to what extent the community can be involved in the planning and doing of such welfare work. Whereas at present welfare work in a certain community is done on a loose footing by various organizations, each preoccupied with its own cause, it is hoped that there will be more effective co-operation in future.

Although overlapping is to be avoided, we hope that people will nevertheless guard against the injudicious closing down of organizations on the grounds of duplication. Indeed, the regional councils will have to display the wisdom of a Solomon. In certain regions there are several identical associations doing exactly the same work. A good example of this—this also concerns an organization which made representations—is the organizations for ex-soldiers and war veterans. It will be a tactical error to refuse registration to one of these organizations or to place obstacles in their way. That will definitely reduce the number of voluntary workers, something which we do not want to see happening and which we cannot afford either. With this legislation we intend—the hon. the Minister put it in so many words— involving the community as a whole in the welfare effort.

This is the spirit in which we approach this matter. There is one aspect of the legislation, however, about which we do not feel happy. Previous speakers referred to that aspect, but I think it is necessary for us to state our point of view in this regard as well. The hon. the Minister has given the assurance that there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of a multinational South African welfare council. This is in line with our way of thinking and with that of many of the welfare organizations which made representations. It is a pity to learn that talks still have to be held with interested parties before the Government can take a final decision in this regard. So it is by no means a foregone conclusion as yet that the South African Welfare Council will be multinational. Personally I believe that it would have been much better if there had been a more positive approach to this matter in the legislation so that we might have known at this stage what kind of welfare council it would be, in other words multinational or not The question arises whether or not the talks with the interested parties will take place in time to constitute the first council. We hope that will be the case. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some assurance in this regard. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to consider the constitution of multiracial regional welfare councils. A good case can be made out in favour of the point of view that each community can best see to its own affairs. Incidentally, that is the opinion of many people, particularly of people with experience of social work. They hold the view that separate functioning in respect of the different races will not give the best results. We are now talking of the interests of people who are most dependent on social work. As in many other spheres of colour will have to go through a transitional period in this sphere as well before they will be able to undertake the necessary planning and co-ordination in the interests of their own community as provided for in the Bill. Undoubtedly the hon. the Minister sees the full picture emerging after the implementation of the proposed constitutional changes, in other words when the councils for Coloureds and Indians themselves might place similar legislation with regard to their own people on the Statute Book. It is all very well, but the question arises: What happens in the meantime? I am speaking of the transitional period, a period in which the quality and even the extent of the service to which these people are accustomed, will suffer. Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to predict that even if separate regional councils were to be established, White encouragement, supervision and assistance as well as White initiative would, to a large extent, still be required for a long time. Would it not be better to have, instead of a definite arrangement at this stage, more flexibility in this regard?

I shall concede that in certain Coloured communities—and I emphasize this—a regional welfare council can and will function successfully, but what about other regions where that is not possible? What about the smaller communities which form an inseparable part of the whole community? I am thinking of, for example, smaller rural areas, magisterial districts, etc. Would it not be wise to constitute one regional council on which will be represented all the races in that area? There is no doubt that social work, among whatever race group, is done mainly by Whites or by White organizations. Wonderful and valuable work has been done by these organizations over the years and it is something for which we can never be grateful enough. We must not do anything which will detract from the enthusiasm of these people. White assistance and initiative cannot be withdrawn willy-nilly in the hope that a regional council of their own will be able to render the same service immediately. On the contrary, I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that this will cause duplication on an enormous scale as well as a concomitant waste of manpower. Let us take another look at the matter and see whether multinational regional welfare councils would not be most effective, if not on a permanent basis, then at least during the transitional period. We hope the hon. the Minister will give us a reasonable, sound motivation in his reply.

Another aspect on which I should like to touch—and in this regard I also agree with the hon. member for Umbilo—concerns the election of chairmen and vice-chairmen. It will be the most effective way—as the hon. the Minister put it—to involve the whole of the community in welfare efforts. Let the council elect its own chairman and vice-chairman in a democratic way so as to avoid any vestige of interference.

Another aspect on which I want to touch is of an administrative nature, because I think it is essential that we have more certainty on the functioning of the registered organizations already functioning in terms of section 27 of the 1965 legislation. The question is whether they will all have to register anew and whether that would not place an unnecessary administrative burden on the officials which will cause major delays? Is it not possible simply to put them on a list and to regard them as being registered?

Finally, is it possible for the hon. the Minister to explain how he foresees the regional welfare councils will function in the light of the fact that these councils will not have their own funds. I assume the necessary funds will come from the Treasury. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to furnish some more information in this regard, because we are a little concerned about this matter in view of the fact that these councils will have to carry out what they have planned and will obviously need funds to do so.

It seems to me I have advanced all my arguments and consequently I want to conclude by saying that we are of the opinion that this legislation will streamline welfare work in our country. Therefore we have no hesitation in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, we heard this afternoon that the three Bills had been published in the Gazette as far back as June last year. Therefore the public has been notified in good time and everyone interested or involved in welfare work has been given the opportunity to comment on the three Bills to be tabled in this House, furthermore, the people—the community—have been afforded the opportunity to submit memoranda and also—and this is very important—to conduct interviews on the operation of the legislation. We were told this afternoon that the hon. the Deputy Minister had numerous interviews with bodies which were experiencing problems of some kind with some of the legislation. The hon. the Minister, as well as his predecessor, also conducted interviews in this regard.

Therefore, the argument I want to advance is that nothing is being concealed with regard to the drafting and the passage of these three Bills. They certainly did not drop from the skies, as many people want to allege. I want to point out that there is a very clear history as regards the welfare legislation now before this House. Every individual conversant with the wide spectrum of the welfare field, could have anticipated the new legislation, as I shall try to point out in my argument It is true that there was much reaction from the public— from individuals, certain associations, etc. The reaction was varied. Before taking the argument any further, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central on his positive point of view and his objective approach to this matter this afternoon. The reaction to this legislation varied firstly from summary rejection by people who were subjectively involved in the matter and who resolved not to be interested or to ascertain the nature of the legislation to be piloted through Parliament. There was an almost hysterical reaction in certain newspaper reports, and if one takes a look at certain memoranda sent to the department, one sees some very naïve generalizations. However, there were also defiant accusations directed at the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the Secretary and other people involved in the matter. Fortunately there were also some well-balanced evaluations and a positive acceptance of the three Bills. There are people who accepted these three pieces of legislation with certain reservations. Others came forward with particular requests by way of amendments.

The Press also reacted to the notice in the Gazette that three new Bills were going to be published.

Reports were written about them, and on the whole there was in my opinion a very thorough coverage of the three Bills. In the letter columns of the newspapers there was a lively correspondence on this matter. It is my considered opinion that this measure of reaction was a good thing, because as a result of the reaction—whether negative or positive, subjective or objective—the air was cleared to a large extent in many respects. I believe the hon. the Minister derived some benefit in that those people who talked to him and to the hon. the Deputy Minister and those who had interviews with the Secretary and his officials, came to realize—if they would be honest and objective—that the Minister appreciated their views. It was possible for them to discover that the State was not as bureautic as is so readily alleged here.

There were certain aspects of the reaction, however, which made one feel anxious. I want to state categorically that the NP has never been afraid of sound criticism. When the criticism has ulterior motives, however, one becomes anxious. I just want to quote a single example in this regard, and that is a report from Beeld of 19 January 1978 which dealt with a paper entitled “Southern Africa Study Project”. According to the report one of the paragraphs in this paper reads as follows—

That is 1978—

The report continues—

Further on in the report one reads—

According to the report this paper continues—

If one summarizes what this paper wants to tell us, it simply means, firstly, that in future churches should take the place of the leftist organizations and groups prohibited in October last year. Furthermore, the paper points out a particular strategy, viz. that overseas church groups should mobilize international pressure in an attempt to prevent these three Bills from being passed. They suggest that the South African Council of Churches and other church groups be used to take over the work of these prohibited groups. At this stage churches must be made to fear the State. If these Bills were to be passed, overseas churches would have to find ways and means of counteracting the new legislation, but in the meantime a mood must be created of opposition to these three Bills being passed. If the legislation were to be piloted through Parliament and were to be passed by Parliament, the outside world and their friends in this country must not remain inactive while the Government, private initiative and other organizations carry on their good work. They must try to bedevil this good work. The whole purpose is to bring about the so-called liberation of the non-Whites in South Africa. This reaction makes one anxious. These overseas church groups and their friends in South Africa must be told clearly and in no uncertain terms that they should confine themselves to their primary task, viz. the preaching of the message of redemption, and that South Africa will take care of the well-being of all its people itself.

The National Welfare Amendment Bill, now before this House, has an interesting history. The historical line of development since the establishment of the earliest welfare services in South Africa is significant. I want to draw the attention to that for just a moment because it runs through such development like a golden thread up to this day. The Welfare Organizations Act, No. 40 of 1947, and the National Welfare Act, No. 79 of 1965, were born out of the need of a particular time and out of a particular situation just like this Bill now under discussion. Those particular circumstances were the Anglo-Boer War, the First World War, the poor whites question of roundabout 1920, the depression and the Second World War. From each of these situations endeavours were bom. Ordinances were promulgated and Acts were passed to provide for the needs of a particular time. The Afrikaans churches, as well as various women’s organizations and the private sector played a significant role in this regard. The State, too, started contributing its share to an increasing extent. I think a milestone was reached when the Carnegie Report of 1932 was published. This was the first effort to advocate three principles, principles which are more topical today than ever before, and they are, firstly, that there should be co-ordination of social work throughout the country and, secondly, that the various church groups throughout the country should co-operate in order to eliminate duplication. Furthermore, training was also advocated in 1932 in social work. Since the ’twenties the policy of the State has become progressively clearer. I just want to refer to two aspects. In the first place the State expects favourable conditions to be created for the provision of employment to its people since that is the best guarantee for social security. In the second place the norm applied that if things were going well with the people economically, they would require a minimum of assistance from the State, basically this remains the policy to which the Government still subscribes today.

In the ’thirties the emphasis shifted more and more from the economic to the social sphere. In the ’forties, the war years, the line was drawn through more and more clearly and a social welfare policy started to evolve. Hon. members will note that this line does not coincide with times of NP rule only. It was also drawn through in times when other parties were in power. However, it is one clear and pure line which runs through history.

The ’forties demonstrated very clearly that a spirit of dependence upon the State had to be guarded against. The means test was introduced at that time. One aspect which emerged very clearly was that there had to be quid pro quo from those requesting aid. In the third place it became very clear that welfare work was a combined effort of the State and the private sector. It was stated more and more clearly that services had to be consolidated, if necessary, and had to be given substance by means of legislation. In the ’fifties the welfare organizations became more active, a process which reached its highest point in the ’sixties. These welfare organizations are the eyes and the ears of the community. They act as the champions of the needy in certain spheres. They motivate the community. They are the best buffer against a welfare State which may threaten to come into existence.

In 1951 an important historic event occurred. I am referring to the Du Plessis Commission which laid down guidelines for subsidizing and in this regard there are a few matters which are of importance. In the first place the role of private initiative was recognized. In the second place the commission put it very clearly that the public had to contribute its share in collecting funds. In the third place it was stated clearly that subsidies should be aimed at improving the quality of services rendered, and, furthermore, that the State should exercise control where it subsidized. Finally the guideline was laid down that any planning that was undertaken should be national planning in respect of subsidized services. In this regard I should like to point out—it is an historic fact—that one may take a look at models in any country in the Western world where there is a tendency to increase State aid and one will notice that this is inevitably followed by the artisans becoming dependent on the State. In other words, there is a tendency in the direction of a welfare State. Where the activation emanates from the private sector, where the initiative emanates from the private sector, there we find subsidies decreasing and as a result a decrease in the need for State assistance and control. This is a positive move away from a so-called welfare State.

The next period I want to refer to, is the period of consolidation. In the period from 1947 to 1956 the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions did an extremely important job of work in that they rid themselves of irrelevant things and confined themselves to matters concerning social welfare and pensions. Social welfare officers received professional status during this period. I agree with a previous speaker that this profession in particular is the Cinderella among all the professions there are today. The division of branch office services on a regional basis occurred. Social welfare services were co-ordinated and a social welfare council for South Africa was established. Act No. 40 of 1947 provides that organizations have to register. They have to advise the State and the private sector, they have to be co-ordinated and have to report to the Minister from time to time. This dispensation resulted in the National Welfare Act of 1965 and in an extension of services. Material assistance was coupled to an increasing extent to case work, in other words, social care in the true sense of the word; research was stimulated; the registration of social workers was introduced for the first time, and the policy was determined on the basis of research. A National Welfare Council was established as well. This council co-ordinated the activities and established the regional welfare councils. In looking for future guidelines, it is necessary to realize— and the public outside should realize it too— that if the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions does not have a dynamic policy, it will not be able to progress. On the other hand, if the department does not adapt itself to the circumstances of its time, it will not be efficient. We should realize too that where the State is subsidizing to an increasing extent, we may also expect it to keep its finger on the pulse of what the needs of the population and of the times are.

On the other hand it is necessary for social work, in its full scope—that will be provided for in other legislation at a later stage—to receive greater recognition in the formulation of a social welfare policy. The responsibilities of the State are increasing. That means that the State is assuming more responsibility towards its citizens. The private sector remains its partner however. Something which is of the utmost importance for the future, is that research in connection with social work should link up with the social welfare policy. Specialized directions within the department must ensure that there will be a positive endeavour to achieve this. The services are increasing, and they tie up with this new legislation, as they do with existing legislation. We notice that the tendency which manifests itself in this way, is one of decentralization to a variety of regional offices.

From the foregoing it is clear—to me at least—that the proposed National Welfare Amendment Bill had to be introduced. The aims of the Bill is the establishment of a South African Welfare Council, as well as the establishment of regional councils and regional committees. In the Bill provision is being made for welfare programmes, for the registration of welfare organizations and for a number of other matters, too, to which, due to the time restriction, I cannot refer now. The logical line of development is drawn through to its logical conclusion in this Bill. The legislation of 1978 lends firm support to the hon. the Minister, as well as to welfare organizations and the private sector, in fact, to everybody active in this field for 1978 and for all the years to come. This legislation does not seek to offend any single body but does seek to create order where there is chaos at the moment, and to introduce control where there is lack of control at the moment.

Unfortunately time does not allow me to enumerate all the people who made major contributions in this field. I want to refer to one aspect, however, an aspect to which the hon. the Minister referred last week. It is that throughout the Republic in certain areas, welfare work is being done in accordance with the principle and the model embodied in this Bill, and very successfully too. Why should success not be achieved elsewhere as well if the goodwill is there to achieve success?

Act No. 40 of 1947 was the first full-fledged Welfare Act in South Africa, to put it like that. Subsequent legislation, in 1965, provided for the establishment of specialized commissions to which I have already referred. The legislation of 1965, too, has a shortcoming, and that is why the present Bill is before this House at the moment. Under the present legislation there is a lack of differentiated statistics with regard to the division of welfare organizations into fields of service. In addition this causes an inadequate record being kept of details and data in connection with registered welfare organizations and their authorized branches. We must bear in mind that there are almost 4 000 of them in the Republic at the moment The Bill before this House at the moment attempts to eliminate the shortcomings in the registration of welfare organizations by means of the establishment and constitution of regional councils and of certain committees which will be able to carry out the activities in a functional and efficient manner. That is the word and the concept we must remember today, i.e. that also as far as social welfare is concerned, there must be functional efficiency in order to carry out and fully develop the ever so necessary welfare programmes.

To sum up I conclude that I have the greatest confidence that if goodwill is displayed by all sides and by all parties, the legislation now before this House will set the seal on the previous two Acts—Act No. 40 of 1947 and Act No. 79 of 1965—and that it will complete their logical and historical line of development to date. Therefore I express my full support as regards the Bill in question.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support with all the force at my command the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, so ably supported by the hon. member for Pinelands, that the matter be referred to a Select Committee. I submit that it is true to say that this must be the most contentious Bill placed before this House during this session. This Bill, together with the legislation which deals with fund-raising, is highly contentious. I do not believe that I can remember any occasion—perhaps other hon. members in the House can help me by telling me whether they can remember such an occasion—when 247 organizations have seen fit to make representations in writing in connection with a Bill published in the Government Gazette in July the previous year. I cannot remember an occasion where a man like Prof. Eloff would lead a deputation of 17 organizations, consisting of something like 1 323 branches, to make representations to the Minister in opposition to a Bill. This is what has happened in the case of this Bill. They did not only make representations once, but also on a second occasion. After the Bill had been published, Rykie van Reenen wrote in Rapport of 28 August 1977—

When the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill he himself said (Hansard, 8 May)—

The hon. the Minister himself is therefore not convinced that it is so acceptable to welfare organizations.

When I come to the views expressed by the other opposition parties in this House, I am quite amazed. I must, however, say that as far as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is concerned, I am not surprised, because, quite frankly, I do not regard what they are doing in this House at any stage as any form of opposition. They are really an appendix to the NP.

Do you think we take any notice of you?

They are looked upon by us and the whole country as an appendix of the NP.

I would rather be a friend of the NP than of the PFP.

The hon. members of the NRP have so often flung the slogan of “effective opposition” into our faces as though they try to outdo us on every point, but now we find their real attitude displayed in the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo. He said that they could find nothing wrong with the principle embodied in this piece of legislation and I must say that such a statement shatters me completely.

Are you opposed to the principle of control over welfare organizations?

By contrast the hon. member for Durban North stated his reservations with regard to what he calls a multinational representation. The result is that I am not quite sure what their views are. We had a great display in this House of white spheres going around in space. We also heard about a plural society and there was also an approach that Whites, Indians and Coloureds should form one plural society while the Blacks should form another society. In so far as the Bill is concerned, they are however supporting …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I am trying to reply to the hon. member. He said that he supported the multinational concept, but I say that what they have said in this debate goes completely against their concept The hon. member for Durban North said that he was worried that the Bill could kill any enthusiasm and private initiative.

Yet the hon. member for Umbilo and other hon. members of his party do not find that this is a matter of principle to which they ought to object. The hon. member for Durban North pointed out the question of overlapping and he expressed his fears as to what overlapping could bring about, but the hon. member for Umbilo is not opposed to the principle; he is not worried about overlapping. He does not seem to realize that the Bill will give rise to a mass of overlapping and to a mass of unnecessary administration and fund-raising.

Shame!

Yes, of course it is a shame. The Bill is now before us and we have to consider it. Before doing that, however, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Brits. He says that the hon. the Deputy Minister has seen many organizations and that everything in the garden is now rosy; everybody is happy. I want to dispute that They are not happy. Everything in the garden is not rosy. As a reflection of what has been done since 1977 by the hon. the Minister, this amendment Bill and the Fund-raising Bill—which I must, Mr. Speaker, just refer to for a moment—have not in any way dealt with the main principle of the objections lodged by the mass of welfare organizations in South Africa, several of which I am personally connected with. Their attitude is still the same in regard to the main objections to the principle underlying what is contained in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the PFP is so opposed to the principle of the Bill, why did those hon. members not move that the Bill should be read this day six months?

Mr. Speaker, I understood this to be the strongest form of objection we could lodge in so far as reference to a Select Committee is concerned. We are against the principle of it, and because the Welfare Act of 1965 is being abolished, an Act which deals with welfare work, it is necessary to have some form of provision for the registration of welfare organizations. It is also necessary to have some form of control. That is why we dealt with it on this basis.

You are not opposed to the principle of control?

No, the principle of the thing. The hon. member for Von Brandis made reference here to the Auret Report and the Van Rooyen Report. He said that this was the consequence of those reports. The Auret Report, however, is a report based on an investigation into separate legislation for social work professions. We are not dealing with social work professions, however. We are dealing with the National Welfare Act and its amendments. The hon. member has made reference to the Van Rooyen Report. The Van Rooyen Report is the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Collection of Voluntary Financial Contributions from the Public. We are not, however, dealing with the collection of voluntary contributions from the public. We are dealing with the National Welfare Act as it stands. With great respect, therefore, let me say that these representations do not take the matter any further at all, and the objections we have raised remain the same.

What is the principle behind this Bill which is before us today? What is the policy involved? Let me refer to references made by the hon. member for Von Brandis, the hon. member for Bellville, who in my opinion did a very nice job of setting out the whole history of welfare, and the hon. the Minister himself. If I am not mistaken, I think that the Du Plessis Commission, back in 1953, actually made representations upon which welfare policy is based and in terms of which it is framed in this country today. One principle envisaged was that of a type of partnership between the welfare organizations and the State. I am not bringing in the Church, which has certain concrete methods of carrying out welfare work. I am talking about the partnership between welfare organizations as such and the State. It is true to say that in terms of the 1965 Act the capital required for the erection of welfare organizations’ buildings or homes is provided by the State, but the funds for the maintenance and the running of the organizations must be obtained from public sources.

The voluntary work which the private sector does for the organizations and the fund-raising work it does, work which is vital to those organizations, is the organizations’ contribution to the partnership. Is that still the policy of this department? In pursuance of the Auret and Van Rooyen Commissions’ recommendations, the 1965 Act has had removed from it the aspects dealing with social welfare, for which there is a Bill—and we shall say what we have to say about that—and those aspects dealing with fundraising, which is another aspect. This has left the Welfare Act to be dealt with in the manner in which it is being dealt with. I want to get at the policy which is behind this. I want to quote, if I may, from Kindersorg of November 1977, paragraph 4—

Does the hon. the Minister stand by that statement made by the Secretary of his department and is it the official statement of the department, setting out their reasons for introducing a new National Welfare Act? If we are to move away from that partnership in terms of this Bill, I want to submit that it is one of the most dangerous and retrogressive steps that is being taken in social welfare in South Africa It places the cart before the horse.

I am sure that all hon. members in the House must have some experience of social welfare. Being public figures in the areas they represent, they must have had representations made to them concerning social welfare and they must have themselves participated in such work. How is a welfare organization set up? To give a typical example, the process may begin with a parent who has a cerebral-palsied child and who is faced with the difficulty of bringing up that child. He will wonder how the child will fit into society and he will recognize that there will be other parents like himself who have cerebral-palsied children. He will start looking for some method of curing, looking after or housing such children instead of their being locked away as happened in the olden days when it was pretended that they did not exist. So, such a man gets his friends together and starts an organization. He goes to his local welfare board and applies for registration as a welfare organization. His application is submitted to the national board and he is granted funds to get his organization going and to build a home for these children. He appeals to the public for funds and also gets private people to raise funds for him for this purpose. The people who are motivated to do this work and who do it through private initiative are the ones who will set up and maintain such organizations.

However, this Bill reverses that position. It introduces another system entirely, a system which makes provision for a national council and regional boards within the magisterial districts. According to this system, those regional boards will then frame the policy they think will be needed in their area of jurisdiction. They must then look around and establish what welfare work is required within the boundaries of their jurisdiction, after which they must single out Mr. A, Mr. B and Mr. C or Mrs. A, Mrs. B and Mrs. C and say to them: Look, we need you; come along and help us. Is that the sort of motivation and the sort of private initiative the national welfare council will provide for South Africa?

I referred to the concept of partnerships. There are different kinds of partnerships. There is, for instance, the sleeping partner, the active partner, the 10% partner and the 50% partner. What partnership is envisaged between the welfare organizations and the State? I would say that the private sector will be a 5% partner in this system while the State will be the 95% partner. That is the partnership hon. members are speaking of in the House today. They use the word “partnership” very glibly, but they do not define the partnership that will exist between the private sector and the State.

Let me turn to the Bill itself. In terms of clause 2, the national council will advise the Minister on policy. The whole council is to be appointed by the hon. the Minister. The members of the council will not be representatives of the organizations as such.

They will be singled out and appointed by the hon. the Minister and will not be nominated and elected. As regards the multiracial aspect, the hon. the Minister indicated—I looked at his speech very carefully—that there is room for other races to serve on the national council itself. He went on to state very clearly that there will be no room for them on the regional boards. I shall deal with that in greater detail shortly. Where is the logic in it to represent other races on the national council but not on the regional boards? I fail to see the logic in that. If this is purely aimed to be a sop, I think it will not be meaningful at all.

I want to suggest—in this respect I have difficulty with the standpoint of the NRP— that the Bill before us is clearly the precursor to the constitutional proposals of the Government in terms of which there will be separate Parliaments for the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites. This Bill lays the foundation, as I clearly showed hon. members, and it shows the way because under the new constitution, social welfare work and fundraising will be done by the Coloureds through the Coloured Parliament and by the Indians through the Indian Parliament. I can only assume that hon. members on my left are committed to the principle of the new constitution. We are not, and that is why we are opposed to this measure. It goes to the very root of our objections. Does the hon. the Minister realize the implications of what he is doing? Firstly we have in South Africa, as the hon. the Minister well knows, national bodies which have branches and which are represented throughout the country. One can name any number of these. For instance, the S.A. Legion has 80 branches. I can name any number of organizations which have branches throughout the country. These are organizations which undertake social welfare work amongst all population groups in South Africa However, the hon. the Minister is now going to separate them and the question is: What will happen to these services, because they will not only have to be duplicated, but triplicated? Medical services, para-medical services and social welfare work will all have to be separated and each will have to be dealt with by the separate groups. The national organizations, of which I have personal knowledge, for example, provide clinics throughout the country in the various cities. Those clinics serve Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. Our social workers and medical and para-medical workers, deal with all these races. We have one national organization to collect funds on a national basis and this we then distribute to the branches throughout the country. What is this Bill going to do to us? It is going to cut off the administration of a national organization. The national organization will have no meaning any more as far as social work is concerned. The individuals who render such services will no longer be able to render services across the colour line and one will have to find separate medical, para-medical and social workers amongst the Coloureds, Indians and Whites.

Where do you get that from?

One will have to have separate staff, separate administration, separate offices and separate clinics. Look at the enormous expense which the country is incurring, and for what purpose? To fulfil an ideology. It is being done for the sake of an ideology and as a precursor of the constitution to be created in terms of that ideology. Each then has to apply for registration and they will have to raise their own funds. Does the hon. the Minister think that the Coloureds and Indians in some of the poorer communities will be able to raise funds to maintain their own welfare organizations and the services which these organizations undertake? Does he really think that they will be able to raise it without the help of the White community in South Africa?

Where in the Bill do you read that it cannot be done?

The White community is going to be hard put to raise funds amongst their own community to maintain their own welfare services. The boards will be appointed in terms of clause 7(2) of the Bill and members will be nominated from lists.

Each board is to propose a welfare programme in terms of clause 11(1)(c) which will then be submitted to the Minister in terms of clause 12(3) who may then approve it, amend it or impose conditions. As I have submitted, this is a complete reversal of the entire process of welfare organizations which will kill the voluntary basis and which will kill the initiative of the private individual who will not have the motivation that is required by each of the workers.

The partnership is on a one-sided basis. If hon. members of this House do not wish to agree to our suggestion that this measure be referred to a Select Committee—and I have heard suggestions from both sides of the House that this is the case—I want to submit as an alternative for the consideration of the hon. the Minister, the following proposal: I want to submit that he calls a congress of all the welfare organizations in South Africa as the hon. the Minister of Transport did in the case of the consideration of the Urban Transport Bill. He did not call one meeting; he called three. When he received the first Bill, he redrafted it and sent it back again. When he received the final draft Bill, it was sent back again. If that could have been done in regard to urban transport legislation, I want to submit that it can also be done in respect of social welfare. All the disciplines of social welfare, social work and fund-raising should be brought together so that we can hear their views for ourselves. Perhaps out of such a combination of effort, with the agreement and the consent of all, some sort of phoenix can arise out of the ashes which will result in a proper service, since there may be various matters that require attention. That is the appeal that I wish to make in this connection.

The Fund-raising Bill—I am sorry that I have to refer to it once again—will indisputably discourage the public from providing the necessary funds. They will simply turn around and say that it is now a State institution and that they are not going to give any funds. A welfare organization cannot raise funds privately unless it is registered with the fund-raising director. The hon. the Minister says there is no problem in this regard, because if they do not wish to register, they need not, and in such a case the State will still continue to provide them with their funds. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in all humality: Can he name me one welfare organization in South Africa that can exist without raising funds? I cannot think of any. I have asked various people connected with social welfare and we cannot think of any one such organization that can exist. It will therefore mean the end of such an organization.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made reference to clause 13 of the Bill, which allows an organization an extension of two years during which it may operate. This is, to my mind, all wrong. An additional lifespan of only two years is provided for, but there are, for instance, permanent staff who belong to pension schemes. What will happen to those staff members and their pensions if they are deregistered, as they will be, in terms of this Bill, after two years? What is going to happen to their financial commitments, to the mortgage bonds over their properties, if they can no longer continue or if for some reason they fail to qualify for registration in terms of the reregistration provisions of the Bill? I think they are being placed in a terrible position. Surely the answer lies simply in the fact that existing welfare organizations, duly registered under the National Welfare Act of 1965, should remain registered with all their branches intact in every part of South Africa where they exist. Surely that is the only fair way of dealing with a piece of legislation of this nature.

The establishment of national councils is an historic, natural, democratic and voluntary development, and should remain on that basis. As regards the regional boards, what will happen if there are different policies involved? Where is the co-ordination between the National Council and the various regional boards going to come from? The hon. the Minister must tell me how many regional boards he contemplates establishing. At the moment there are 10 welfare boards, but they are based on a different concept In the light of the fact that he can now combine different magisterial districts, I would like to know: How many regional boards does the hon. the Minister contemplate?

I want to submit that if the policies of these various regional boards differ, one will find that the national body’s branch in, say, Port Elizabeth, is refused registration, whereas in Durban it will not be refused registration. How are they going to exist? Where is the common policy that is going to be applied? We know that, under existing legislation, a welfare organization cannot be registered in a district if its objects conflict with those of an organization which is already registered there. That is where the question of co-ordination comes in. Let me mention the case of a cerebral palsy organization in the north of Johannesburg and another cerebral palsy association in the south of Johannesburg. They both exist, raise their own funds, look after their own children, have their own staff and are perfectly happy. What is wrong with that? They are performing a service to these poor people who find themselves in this predicament.

On a national level no machinery for consultation exists. If a branch’s certificate lapses because it is not operating effectively, how will the national organization be able to deal with that position?

Before I conclude my speech I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Bellville. In his very interesting speech he said that the whole of welfare rests on four principles. He said (Hansard, 8 May 1978, col. 6311)—

With great respect, where is the spontaneous action of welfare organizations by the people for the people? This legislation goes to the very root in destroying that very initiative for which we are pleading here today.

Never!

Of course it does; do not say: “Never.” The hon. member for Bellville in the second place said—

With the greatest respect in the world, how are private welfare organizations going to exist if they do not raise funds? How are they going to pay their staff? The funds which they get from the State itself are insufficient. That is the basis of the partnership on which the policy of welfare in South Africa is built. These organizations cannot exist if they cannot raise funds, so the hon. the Minister is sounding the death-knell of private welfare organizations. [Interjections.] In the third place, the hon. member for Bellville said—

I am afraid I do not understand what the hon. member means by this. Perhaps he could explain to the House what he means. I am sorry, but I just do not understand the relationship between these two aspects. [Interjections.] Fourthly, the hon. member for Bellville said—

I want to submit that this Bill falls down completely when it comes to co-ordination. I believe we on this side of the House have submitted cogent arguments to show that there is a complete breakdown and lack of co-ordination in regard to, firstly, the policies of the various regional boards that exist and, secondly, the relationship between the regional boards and the National Council itself. For those reasons I can only re-emphasize our total opposition to the Bill in the form which has been introduced. I believe that the hon. the Minister has not told us why the National Welfare Act had to be changed to bring about this form of legislation. Has he had complaints?

I should also like to know why the hon. the Minister used the recommendations of the Auret Commission in order to deal only with social welfare matters, and the recommendations of the Van Rooyen Commission to deal purely with the question of fund raising. If those two aspects are taken out of the existing 1965 Act, we shall be left with an ordinary National Welfare Act upon which welfare in South Africa could well continue to exist without the problem which the hon. the Minister is creating for everyone in South Africa If the hon. the Minister had wanted to separate these aspects and had wanted to create a separate Bill, a separate profession and a separate status for social workers, he could have done that. Furthermore, if he had wanted to deal with fund raisers who are contravening certain Acts or who are ripping the public off, he could have dealt with the matter separately. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should prefer to reply to the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow towards the end of my speech, when one’s blood pressure has subsided a little after the extremely wild statements he made. But at this stage, I cannot help contrasting his contribution with that of the hon. member for Umbilo. We know the hon. member for Umbilo—even though he belongs to the wrong party—as an expert in the field of welfare. We on this side of the House have always had the greatest respect for his contributions. When that hon. member speaks, one therefore has to listen carefully to what he has to say and take note of an informed opinion. In his Second Reading speech on this subject, he made the following statement (Hansard, 8 May 1978, col. 6439)—

In contrast to that, the tirade by the hon. member for Hillbrow who only came to the House very recently, indicated that this Bill, together with the others which come after it, is intended to destroy voluntary welfare work in South Africa. I leave it in the hands of the House to decide whose “expertise” they accept in this connection: That of the hon. member for Umbilo, or that of the hysterical hon. member for Hillbrow. I shall return to the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow later on and reply to every one of his wild allegations.

It is perhaps interesting to note that today, 15 May 1978, exactly 13 years after the Second Reading of the National Welfare Act was debated, we are again debating the Second Reading of a similar Bill. The Second Reading of the National Welfare Act took place on 14, 15 and 16 May 1965. Hon. members may perhaps find it just as interesting to hear that at that time too, there were predictions of how that Act would cripple welfare work in South Africa and encourage a take-over by the State.

By the same party.

After 13 years, two commissions have recommended that we should introduce new legislation. During these 13 years, we have had time to put the functioning of the National Welfare Act to a proper test. That Act produced good results. For this reason we should regard this Bill and the one which follows on it, as being merely the next phase in the maturation of our welfare structures and our legislation in this connection. In the course of this debate, during the Committee Stage, and in the discussion of the other Bills, we shall expose the efforts to see sinister ulterior motives in this Bill for what they are: A hysterical reaction to achieve political aims, and one which by no means sprang from an interest in and serious reflection on what is in the interests of our peoples’ welfare as such.

Before I discuss these matters with the hon. members of the Official Opposition, I should first like to thank a few other hon. members who have participated in this debate. Hon. members on this side of the House very ably exposed the absurd arguments of hon. members of the PFP. They made positive contributions. They proved that they were concerned with welfare, and that they had made a scientific and penetrating study of the subject. I thank them for their work and for the positive contributions which they made.

I also thank the hon. members for Umbilo and Durban Central for their positive support. It is clear to me that they, like myself and other hon. members, went through all 240 representations and nevertheless came to the conclusion that there was no need for any problems in this House with the principle of this Bill, and that in essence and in practice—outside as well—there are no problems with the principle, as the hon. member for Umbilo in fact said. As they said, we can discuss the details of the measure during the Committee Stage.

I also wish to thank the hon. member of the SAP for Port Elizabeth Central for the fact that he has made a positive and motivated speech in which he stated why he was supporting the Second Reading. He did not state that he was supporting this merely for the sake of supporting. He said why he was supporting it The hon. member for Hillbrow, on the other hand, does not know why he is opposed to it.

The only discordant note in this entire debate, which concerns an important matter for our country and all its people, and one which is basically of a non-political character —except for the few aspects to which we shall return—came from three hon. members of the PFP. I want to group their arguments under a few headings and then try to answer to them. Their point of departure is that in the first place, the Bill is conductive to State control. The superlatives which they have used in the process, made one gasp for breath. The hon. member for Pinelands even spoke about a National Party which believes that it has a fiat to carry out a “divine plan”. That is what he said, obviously—and I say this with respect—under the illusion that he himself has “divine authority” to make statements of that nature. His little jokes about religion and his dragging in of God into everything whenever it suits him, is repellent to us. He has said that the NP is an octupus which wants to get everything into its clutches. The hon. member for Bryanston said even before this debate—we are now living in a time of debate by way of Press statements as well: “The system envisaged will put social welfare activities in a strait-jacket”. This appeared in the Sunday Times of 7 May, in the middle of the long weekend, but this afternoon we had the admission by the hon. member that he had only consulted other people during the long weekend and had subsequently formed his opinion.

The PFP says that we are suppressing initiative by means of this legislation and also that the freedom of welfare organizations will be threatened. I venture to state—and I shall motivate it—that the co-operation between the churches, the welfare organizations and the State, as it has taken place up till now, is in no way being jeopardized by this Bill or by any other Bill, and that it is our intention and desire that it should continue in that way. In fact, I am convinced that it will continue in that way in practice. Where do they see an urge to suppress and interfere in the private sector’s freedom to do welfare work? I have looked at their amendments and among them there is not a single proposal that any of the structures which will be created in this Bill, should not be created. Judging from their own amendments, they therefore agree with the proposed structures. What is more: They propose that an additional structure should be created. They want to add another one. If we analyse their objections, after stripping them of the emotionalism in which they enveloped their speeches, their only objection is that the regional boards and the S.A. Welfare Council are to be appointed by the Minister and not elected. I shall reply to that when I come to that specific aspect. Apart from that I was unable to extract a single logical and zalid argument from their speeches which indicated that they had good grounds for alleging that the freedom of organizations was being affected here.

If they allege that this is State-inspired legislation, let us look at how the legislation originated. There were two commissions of inquiry to whose recommendations this Bill and other Bills are basically giving effect The one commission was known as the Van Rooyen Commission. There were three members. Two of them were from the private sector and the third, therefore only one member, was a government official. The other commission was the Auret Commission. Seven members served on that commission. Five of the seven were from the private sector and only two were government officials. Therefore the private sector played a direct part in the essential decision-making process concerning the basic principles of this Bill. Furthermore, the representations received by these commission, were received from the private sector as a whole. The Bill is therefore the culmination of the opinion of the community, as ascertained by two independent commissions. The reason for the inability of hon. members of the PFP to make progress in life is that they do not take cognizance of public opinion, because they attach no value to democratic processes which do not suit them. In the course of my speech, I shall indicate in connection with other aspects how the welfare organizations have been assured of freedom of movement and how hon. members of the PFP have absolutely nothing to worry about.

The second point is their amendment that we should refer this Bill to a Select Committee. Once again, they are trying to make political capital out of this. In the same statement in the Sunday Times, we read that the hon. member for Bryanston asked me on two occasions to refer the measure to a Select Committee. The impression is created that a well-motivated request had been submitted to me. But what actually happened, was that the hon. member for Bryanston had me called to the lobby and asked me whether I would not please refer the Bill to a Select Committee. In reply to my question why he wanted one to do that, he said it would do me good as a new Minister, that it would give me the right “image” if I did that. That was the hon. member’s motivation. [Interjections.] I asked the hon. member to motivate his request and I invited him to move an amendment to that effect during the Second Reading debate. I gave him the assurance that if he motivated it well, I would listen to that with an open mind. Consequently I did listen to the Second Reading debate with an open mind. But the hon. member for Bryanston provided no motivation in his speech for referring the Bill to a Select Committee. All he spoke about was “straitjackets” and of an encroachment on people’s liberties. He did not advance any considered arguments in connection with the fact that here we had two expert commissions that had collected a great deal of information and evidence; nor in connection with the fact that the department had subsequently published the Bill for general information. The hon. member also omitted to mention that the department had gone through approximately 240 representations document by document and word for word. He also said nothing of the fact that in the process, not only I, but also my predecessor had co-operated and that there had been a constant further feedback to certain really representative bodies that had raised objections. The hon. member kept quiet about the fact that discussions had taken place and that we are now dealing here with a Bill, and with Bills, which have been tested to the utmost by way of interaction and discussion—also against public opinion and the opinion of the organizations concerned.

Why then bring this amending Bill at the last moment?

Because at the last moment we were still taking cognizance of the representations we had received. [Interjections.] When one wants to have something investigated, one must, for the sake of good order, make a basic choice. In the first place, one must make a choice and decide whether to refer it to a committee of experts—as was indeed done in this case—or whether a Select Committee could perhaps make an appropriate investigation. Now, to get the 11 or 15—I do not know exactly how many—members of a Select Committee to go through all these documents, amounts to a motion of no confidence in the members of the commission of experts. [Interjections.] Of course that is what it would amount to. Why would hon. members of the Opposition and hon. members of the NP be better equipped than these commissions of experts to interpret all the evidence and the feelings of people? No, a Select Committee is definitely not the right thing in the case of Bills with a history such as that of these.

How many organizations asked for a Senate Select Committee.

Some of them did ask for that. But the reply which I have now given to the hon. member, is the reply which I also gave to those organizations—except that I do not blame them for having asked for that because they are not conversant with the procedures of Parliament. But these hon. members ought to know better. [Interjections.]

Their third argument is that the Minister has too many powers. They centred their objection mainly around the idea that the Minister makes too many appointments to the South African Welfare Council and that the Minister also appoints the regional councils. They have, however, conceded that there is at least a nomination procedure, and that the Minister makes the appointments from a list of nominations. I want to ask them whether Select Committees are elected. No, they are appointed. But the hon. member does not question the ability of a Select Committee.

That sounds very clever, but it does not help.

There are very good reasons for that. I want to ask them whether judges who give very important rulings, are elected or appointed. Why do the hon. members not say that the Bar Council should elect the judges? It is true that they are appointed from the Bar Council. The hon. members must take note of the fact that the bodies are not prestige bodies, but functional and administrative bodies. I have no objection in principle to the election of people on a democratic basis, but here we are dealing with a type of body where an ordinary, free choice is not suitable, just as it is not suitable in the appointment of Select Committees. Here we are dealing with a host of factors which must be considered in order to appoint an effective, functional South African Welfare Council and regional boards. There are factors like ensuring a balanced representation. If we were to allow a free choice, we could get the situation that one or two welfare organizations would dominate the scene entirely in the constitution of the boards, while certain specialist organizations would not be represented at all. We could get the situation which we often encounter in practice that very able people who really do not have the time, are elected to positions on those bodies while equally able people are not given the opportunity. There are a host of factors in practice why it is desirable that we should make the appointments. Because provision is made for a nomination procedure, we can obtain the democratic co-operation of all bodies—national or local. But that is something which the hon. members completely underestimate and which is not properly mooted, because it does not suit their argument.

Their fourth argument is that there will be a lack of co-ordination within these structures. There will indeed be co-ordination on various levels. The South African Welfare Council has an important function to perform in connection with the question of co-ordination. Clause 14, as it will be amended if an amendment which I shall move is accepted, demonstrates this. It is provided that the council may, with the approval of the Minister, arrange conferences in connection with social problems or matters pertaining to its activities. A great deal of important co-ordination can flow from that. The wording of the amendment to be moved, must still be added, and then they will have the function of furnishing or giving information and guidance to welfare organizations in connection with social welfare services. The furnishing of information and the giving of guidance is a function which is separate from their advisory function to the Government and for that reason they have the opportunity to effect co-ordination. I believe that they will work in a co-ordinating way, and that their actions will have a co-ordinating effect. The department also has a key role to play when it comes to co-ordination. That is so from the very nature of things. It has played that role in the past, and it shall continue to play that role in future. The Minister also has a co-ordinating function.

The national councils which the hon. member for Hillbrow is so concerned about— I am now referring to the welfare organizations which are organized on a national basis—also have a very important co-ordinating role. They need not vanish from the scene. Indeed, I think it would be a great pity if any of them were to feel that as a result of the Bill that they no longer have a role to play. I see an extremely important role for them. Let us assume that a national body were to tackle the problems of cripple care or care of the blind, or child welfare, or whatever. I see an important role for such a national organization, because it must also, within the framework of its entire national structure, determine priorities for what should happen within certain regions. It must therefore draft an overall budget for its organization, a budget which must then be presented by its various representatives to the various regional boards to the extent to which it affects those regions. That is a very important role, a very strong co-ordinating role.

In this debate, they have also accused us of over-organization. They have accused us of wanting to stifle initiative. But the very thing we do not want to do is to co-ordinate everyone into absolute uniformity. The value of regional decentralization lies in the very fact that we are allowing people the latitude in which to place their own emphasis on welfare work according to the particular needs and customs of a region and will therefore not be co-ordinated into a pale, colourless similarity, something of which the hon. member for Pinelands has accused us so eloquently. There is an inherent flexibility here which I should not like to part with.

The fifth argument is that the welfare structure in its entirety should be multiracial. With a reckless irresponsibility they have tried to create an image of the NP which wants to separate everything into watertight compartments, as though we want to sabotage and prevent contact, as though we do not regard co-operation between the various population groups as something positive and of importance, and as though we have sinister ulterior motives instead of good intentions, e.g. the fact that we believe in decentralization and that that decentralization will manifest itself in institutions of their own for every nation. Surely our physical situation is that we are also decentralized on a multinational basis. We live on a decentralized basis. Our political institutions are also developing in a decentralized way. Our entire direction—the real direction, and not merely the direction of policy—is one of decentralization, also when one looks at the various peoples and population groups.

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

The hon. member can put a question to me at the end of my speech. I should just like to finish my argument first. With reference to the multinational institution which they are advocating, I want to spell out the approach of the NP and of the Government to multinationalism in welfare. I want to read out a circular to them, a circular which was sent out to replace circular 29/1966. It reads as follows—

That is the standpoint of the Government, not the one-sided standpoint which the hon. members on the opposite side have tried to present, but a balanced standpoint, a standpoint in which provision is made for the structures for every population group which are all acquiring other institutions of authority, e.g. legislative authorities and executive authorities which will ultimately allocate money to them while the White Parliament will allocate money only to White organizations. This is essential. Dialogue, co-operation and mutual stimulation are also encouraged. An equilibrium is therefore inherent in this measure.

I want to reply here to one aspect to which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred. It is absolutely irresponsible to state that in this Bill, in any Bill or in the circular which I have just read, there is anything which will prevent any White organization from rendering welfare services, or providing money or whatever across the dividing line of colour. That is not stated here, nor is it the intention. What is involved here is the essential make up of an organization via its constitution.

It hardly encourages it.

In the nature of things, there will always be services from the more affluent part of the community to the less privileged persons, regardless of race or colour. That is also an inherent part of the Christian foundations on which the NP and the Government take up their stand and which they try to apply in practice. It is scandalous to allege that we will prevent an organization from giving money to whom it likes. The only requirement which is being laid down, in terms of the fund-raising legislation, is that the organization should spend the money for the purpose for which it collected the money from the public. [Interjections.]

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

The hon. member can put his questions at the end of my reply.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Verwoerdburg allowed to call the hon. member for Hillbrow an “opsweper”?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say anything.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on my point of order. In the past the word “opsweper” has been regarded as unparliamentary …

Order! Did the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, in using the word “opsweper”, mean an inciter of racial feelings?

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that at all.

Mr. Speaker, in that case I shall withdraw my reference to the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. I want to ask whether any member on that side of the House is allowed to describe a member on this side of the House … [Interjections.]

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Pinelands did not hear correctly. I said that the person at the back who made an interjection, was a scandalous person. [Interjections.]

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

I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Hillbrow wants to put a question in connection with this aspect, I am now giving him an opportunity to do so.

What will happen if the national organization decides to have a clinic for Coloureds and a clinic for Indians? Does that mean that they will have to shed those arms of the organization?

Mr. Speaker, we are now discussing the principle of the Bill. I would suggest that the hon. member should put that question to me when we come to clause 22 during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Then it will be more relevant and then I shall go into that in detail.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether if this is, as he states, the direction taken by the NP, he sees any distinction between the role of social welfare and the role of sport in the overall planning of his Government?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that that is a valid argument. Each of these two aspects is a discipline on its own. In any case, I do not see such a great difference between the circular which I have read, and the policy which we are applying in practice in connection with sport. That, then, disposes of the specific objections raised by hon. members of the Official Opposition— except for certain isolated aspects to which I shall return when I deal with the hon. members’ arguments in the sequence in which they spoke.

There are two matters which were raised by hon. members of all parties on the opposite side. The first is concerned with the question of dual registration. The hon. member for Umbilo, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, and also hon. members of the Official Opposition, raised objections to that. The reply is that dual registration is not necessary in all cases. But while it is not necessary in all cases, it is in fact necessary in some cases. Hon. members will realize that if all organizations do not have to register twice, and some merely have to register once, one will have to make provision for dual registration for those which, owing to their circumstances, also want to raise funds and want to be geared to planning on a regional basis. That is so because in practice some organizations merely have to register as organizations which raise funds, because registration as a welfare organization is, in terms of the Bill which we are now discussing, not compulsory. I think the hon. member for Pinelands should ask the hon. member for Sandton about this. It seems to me he followed my argument, because he is looking at me quite intelligently.

I shall deal with all the different Bills now. In terms of the National Welfare Act, registration of a welfare organization is not compulsory. If an organization intends making use of State funds, it is advisable to register. In fact, if such an organization wants to make use of State funds, it will have to register. This is not laid down in the legislation, but in practice that will indeed be the case. But it need not necessarily register. If it is satisfied to go to the public as a registered fund-raising organization, for which provision is being made in other legislation, and if it wants to do welfare work with the funds which it has raised, and which it has, it can do welfare work without registering in terms of the Bill which we are now discussing. The Fund-raising Bill also makes provision for compulsory registration, just as is the case at present in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965. Registration is only compulsory when an organization wants to raise funds. If an organization does not want to raise funds and does not do welfare work either, but still undertakes other work, it does not fall under this registration.

However, I do not want to mislead hon. members. If an organization is a welfare organization which is in fact registered as such in terms of this Bill, it will be a prerequisite that that organization should also be registered as a fund-raising organization. This is so because I do not know of any welfare organization which does not also raise funds. So in practice there will be a considerable measure of dual registration but hon. members should realize that it is not compulsory and then should also realize that the mere fact that a fund-raising organization can do welfare work without registering as a welfare organization, makes the system of dual registration necessary. I should like to remind hon. members that in terms of existing provisions, a welfare organization must at present be registered if it wants to raise funds. Therefore, essentially the position does not change much.

The next question was whether the S.A. Welfare Council would be multinational. Hon. members objected to the fact that I said it might possibly be, but did not announce it as an absolute fact. On other occasions we are criticized because we announce decisions and make laws without consultation, and in this case I made it very clear that we shall consult with various interested bodies and that only then would the Government take a final decision in this connection.

Why did you not do that before you introduced the Bill?

In principle, therefore, my reply is “yes”, but I am not going to elaborate now on how it ought to be constituted. All I want to say, is that in principle, the reply is “yes” and that we shall now consult various interested bodies in connection with the matter. If those hon. members believe in their own standpoints, they ought now to applaud me.

I now want to react to individual members’ questions and standpoints which I have not yet discussed in this general introduction. The hon. member for Pinelands made a great fuss about the many objections which were received. He wanted to know from me who had submitted the objections and to what effect they were. The hon. member also quoted some statement by Prof. Erika Theron in which she alleged that the representations by the National Welfare Council were not being complied with. The approximately 240 objections which we received, were received from many sources. In this connection, I want to reply at the same time to the arguments of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Before hon. members decide how startled they should be, they should first consider all the surrounding facts. Approximately 240 objections were received, whereas there are 3 900 welfare organizations, as the hon. member himself said. That already gives a perspective. Another fact which must be taken into account, is that many of the 240 objections which were received, were duplications in the sense that the same representations were received from various branches of one and the same main organization. That ought to give further perspective to the matter. In the third place, if the hon. members have done their homework, they would have found that many of the objections were of a positive nature and concerned neutral matters. For example, I received an objection which consisted of five folio pages, and 4½ of the pages were about the grammar in the legislation. The organization concerned evidently did not like the way in which our legal draftsmen had developed their own legal language over the years. There was therefore essentially nothing in this particular representation.

They did not send us that one.

The most important aspect of all is the fact that hon. members must remember that most of these objections were raised after publication of the draft Bill in 1977. Thereafter, the objections were studied and much of what was proposed, was acceded to. Therefore those hon. members need not be so startled. I just want to add that the representations made by Prof. Theron, to which the hon. member has referred, could not be traced. I do not allege that she agrees with us, but I merely mention this because the hon. member’s statement may create the impression that she made representations to us and that we ignored her representations. As regards the representations by the National Welfare Council itself, I just want to say that they were properly discussed.

Consultations took place with the former Minister, with myself and with the chairman, and if I remember correctly, many of the representations in connection with this legislation were acceded to. But not all their representations were acceded to. The impressions of the former Minister and of myself after discussions with the chairman, were that no real problems remained and that basically all their problems had been eliminated.

The hon. member for Pinelands also found a sinister reference in clause 3(1 )(c) in which it is provided that one of the functions of the council shall be to advise the Government in relation to—

When the hon. member saw the phrase “other groups of the population”, he looked in “technicolour” again, and immediately saw in those words a racial connotation again. The hon. member will do well to consult the legal men in this party. They will tell him that the “other groups” to which are referred, are categories such as the aged, young people and the children of divorced couples.

That is what I wanted to know.

If the hon. member is really interested in the essential meaning of the words, I want to tell him that the reason for this addition is that we should like to give the council wide terms of reference and that we should also like to give them the initiative to identify a group which is not specified themselves, and assist the Government with advice in that connection. [Interjections.]

The hon. member also wanted to know, in connection with the functions of the council, why the Government and not the Minister should be provided with advice. The explanation for this is the fact that their advice will also have effect in fields other than merely the field of the department which I represent. Their advice may have implications for the Department of Plural Relations, the Department of Coloured Relations and the Department of Indian Affairs. There is a very close liaison between the Department of Health and my department, and the council’s advice may affect them too. For that reason, the council will advise the Government, and not only the Minister.

The hon. member was also very concerned about clause 14(3)(d) and the tremendously wide powers conferred by this provision. I want to point out to the hon. member that these powers are necessary for cases where contraventions take place or where the circumstances which are foreseen in that clause, do indeed exist. However, an organization does not lose the right to do welfare work if its registration as a welfare organization is repealed. That is so because there is no obligatory registration. The hon. member must realize this fact.

The hon. member for Von Brandis has brought two specific matters to my attention. In the first place, he asked whether we could not call this Bill the “National Social Bill”, or something to that effect instead of the “National Welfare Bill”.

National Social Welfare Bill.

Yes, the National Social Welfare Bill. I have sympathy for the underlying thought of the hon. member. I, as the Minister, and the department, are also basically opposed to the “Welfare” idea which is gaining so much ground overseas. In many cases one has to do with “welfare States”. But I think that for the sake of the distinction between welfare work and social work— another Bill, the Social and Associated Workers’ Bill, is coming up—and for the sake of tradition—the people are used to the concept of “welfare”, and there has always been a National Welfare Act—it is perhaps not practical or desirable to accede to the hon. member’s request at this stage. Then there is still another minor difference between the hon. member and myself. When the hon. member talks about family life, I think he is talking in a wider context than the actual function of the department, and we are of course also bound to our function and the definition of our task as it has traditionally developed through the years.

Furthermore, the hon. member has pleaded for family courts and has referred to a report by the S.A. Law Commission. At this stage I do not want to anticipate legislation which may be considered in this connection, but I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I am very interested in legislation of this nature and that my department and I certainly have an interest in that matter. We should like to look into it and when the time is ripe we shall certainly communicate with my hon. colleague concerned—a person who has always had an open mind to listen, and with whom my department has always always had a good reciprocal association. We shall bear his remarks in this connection in mind.

I have already praised the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his motivated contribution. The hon. member for Hillbrow, who now wants to upbraid him for supporting a Bill which is not a political matter, evidently did not listen to him. Otherwise, he would have heard that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said that he had also initially felt that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. But then he went to work—and herein, perhaps, lies the difference between the two hon. members—and tried to determine the essential significance of the representations which he had received. Independently of the hon. member for Umbilo, he reached the same conclusion that there was no objection on the part of any organization to the principle of this Bill. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central then saw matters in a different light In other words, he approached this debate in a way an hon. member ought to approach it. This is a non-political debate; it is concerned with functional legislation. The hon. member was open to conviction. He made a study of the matter and saw what was right, and that those hon. members were wrong.

The hon. member has asked me who will finance the regional boards. The reply is that the administrative costs of the regional boards will be financed by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The welfare services which result from their planning and the projects which are initiated, will, however, be financed in the ordinary manner just as in the past, i.e., in co-operation with the private sector and with the State, etc.

The hon. member for Hillbrow has really done further damage to his already tattered reputation still more. He asked whether we are now going to destroy the national councils, and he then made a plea for them. I have in fact indicated that I think the national councils have an important part to play. Apart from their normal functions with which they continue as before, they now have a key role in the co-ordination—to act as co-ordinators of the total planning of their organization which must take place on a regional basis.

The hon. member also asked what would happen if regional councils were to differ with one another. I want to reply to him by saying that if regional councils differ, it is often a good result of the fact that expression is now also being given to the differences of emphasis of that particular regions.

I want to refer again to the main point of attack raised by hon. members. Their attack was of a twofold nature. Firstly, they allege that we are suppressing and stifling private initiative. By way of summary I can tell them that I believe that new momentum will be given to private initiative in respect of welfare work through this regional planning and the success which we achieved in the Vaal Triangle, which will carry them to unprecedented pinnacles of success. If that was the result in the Vaal Triangle, why should it be any different in other places?

Secondly, they have argued that we are fragmenting to too great an extent, and they advocated a multiracial structure. I want to reply to them with a question. Why should any nation or population group have a say in the decision whether an orphanage for Whites should be built at Wolseley or at Tulbagh? Surely, the Whites must themselves decide where they want to build their orphanage. Why, on the other hand, should the Whites have a say at meetings, where they are perhaps still in the majority, and prescribe that an orphanage for Coloured children should be built in Manenberg or at Mitchell’s Plain? Must we now conclude that hon. members believe that everything must be mixed and that we have now obtained an indirect reply to the hon. the Prime Minister’s question on mixed schools?

When that question was put the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would not accept responsibility and say that that was the policy of his party. On the question of mixed residential areas, he jumped this way and that way, and until now, he has not yet said whether or not they support mixed residential areas.

We conclude from their standpoint that they are in favour of total integration on all levels in all homes throughout the field of welfare work, and that they do not like differentiation. Therefore, as I said in my Second Reading speech, their claims to preservation of identity and the high premium which they place on the right of particular population groups, of cultural groups, to remain true to themselves is not worth the paper on which it is written.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—126: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Jong, G.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W.H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Miller, R. B.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der 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 Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—16: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. R; Myburgh, P. A.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. R.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Control over the collection of contributions from the public is nothing new. In the majority of Western countries it is deemed essential, and measures to control this aspect are implemented fairly widely. The first legislation in this connection came into being here more than half a century ago on a provincial basis. It was placed on a countrywide basis for the first time in 1947 by the well-known Welfare Organizations Act, 1947.

This matter was regulated afresh in the National Welfare Act of 1965, and it is interesting to note that in so far as it relates to the registration of welfare organizations the latter Act in fact regulates the collection of contributions. Indeed, the collection of contributions for or by welfare organizations is simply out of the question without such registration.

The question could perhaps be asked: Why, then, come up with new legislation, when legislation regulating this matter already exists? The answer is that the National Welfare Act, 1965, only regulates the matter in part because it is limited to the collection of contributions for or on behalf of welfare organizations.

There is therefore an imbalance, in the sense that welfare organizations that render an essential service to the public, welfare organizations that do a great deal of good, are singled out for control, whereas all other collecting organizations can act freely, without being subject to any form of control. This imbalance is rectified by the Bill. Thus the Bill provides that all bodies approaching the public for funds are subjected to the same control measures.

It has also become evident over the years that the existing legislation is inadequate for counteracting all problems and abuses in connection with the contributions, or for the full protection of the contributing public against abuses. Abuses with regard to fundraising are a world-wide phenomenon and give rise to serious concern everywhere. They undermine the sources of revenue of bona fide organizations, bring the aims of welfare bodies into disrepute and exploit a benevolent and generous public in a deceitful way.

The problems encountered over the course of many years resulted in the appointment, on 16 August 1974, of the Commission of Inquiry into the Collection of Voluntary Financial Contributions from the Public, also known as the Van Rooyen Commission. As is generally known, Prof. Dr. I. J. J. van Rooyen, head of the Department of Social Work at the University of Pretoria, was appointed as chairman of this commission. He was assisted by Prof. Dr. H. S. Cilliers of the University of South Africa and Mr. B. C. Loots, Assistant Director of Welfare Development in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

On 19 July 1976 the commission issued a report on its activities and this report was tabled in 1977. I take it that all hon. members are acquainted with the contents of this report.

Not only does the report contain a wealth of important information, it also bears testimony to the fact that the members of the commission, in thorough and expent fashion, penetrated to the nub of problems that we have been wrestling with for a long time. I want to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to the commission for this in-depth study of a matter which is of exceptional practical significance to us in these times. It entailed hard work that was carried out with great sacrifice, and the speed with which it was done attests to the ableness of the members of the Commission. We have great appreciation for a task well done.

The scope of the work programme of the commission was tremendous. In this regard I have in mind in particular the more than 200 witnesses heard by the commission, the more than 2 600 questionnaires issued by the commission, the innumerable memoranda and other documentary evidence submitted to the commission and the analysis carried out at the instance of the commission by the Bureau for Financial Analysis at the University of Pretoria. Last but not least, there was also the extensive visit paid by the chairman of the commission to the USA, Canada, England and various European countries, in the course of which, as is clear from annexure E to the report, the matter of the collection of contributions in those countries was gone into in depth.

Every facet of an activity which has become big business in this country and overseas, and which affects the pocket of virtually every citizen in the country, was delved into. We can indeed speak in terms of big business if we take into account that more than $26 billion is collected annually in the USA, whereas the amount in this country already runs to approximately R135 million per annum. No wonder the commission found that the public is being overwhelmed by appeals for contributions from a number of sources. However it is gratifying that the commission found that the public still gives freely and generously. If welfare organizations bring the cause they serve and the work they do to the attention of the public in an open and honest fashion, the public is always willing and ready to support such organizations financially and otherwise despite the large number of appeals made.

The commission also found—to my mind, rightly so—that increased contributions from the public had to be intimately bound up with the principle that regulation was essential in the sphere of private initiative. The commission is of the opinion that there can be no question of regulation unless all bodies and persons collecting contributions from the public comply with certain minimum prescribed standards and principles. It correspondingly adopts the standpoint that the regulation of collections has become an urgent necessity.

The commission bases itself on two important points of departure in particular— which points of departure are echoed in and form the points of departure for this Bill— viz. the principle of accountability and the principle of disclosure. As far as the principle of accountability is concerned, the commission is of the opinion that the public is entitled to know that the contributions they donate will be utilized for the purpose for which they were asked. In this connection the commission quotes Malvern Mogulof who apparently said on one occasion—

Thus the commission comes to the conclusion that it should be made a matter of principle that all bodies collecting money from the public must account to the public in regard to the utilization of the funds collected and the results achieved therewith.

As regards the principle of disclosure, the commission points out the following—

1. (a) In a considerable number of cases, a percentage is given to the fund-raiser as a consideration;
2. (b) In yet other cases the word “charitable” is used purely to promote the sale of merchandise, the welfare aspect being wholly subordinate to this; and
3. (c) sometimes welfare bodies collect money in such a way as to give the public the impression that the funds are to be used directly for the welfare of the client, whereas this is not so.

In the circumstances, the commission is of the opinion that it is essential that all bodies collecting money from the public should disclose to the public precisely what is done with the money, how it is to be utilized and has been utilized in the past, and that they should do so in such a way that it will be understood by those persons who make the contribution or wish to make a contribution if they should investigate.

I associate myself with the principles of responsibility and disclosure. However I do not know whether the hon. member for Houghton associates herself with them.

I shall let you know.

Would you like to have concealment of welfare organizations, and not disclosure? Hon. members will also find that these two principles form the cornerstones on which the Bill at present before the hon. House is based. It will further be found that the Bill to a great extent gives effect to the findings and recommendations of the commission, to which I have just referred briefly and in very general terms.

There are still several other aspects of the commission’s report which are deserving of public attention but in view of the time I think it would be as well to begin discussion of the Bill at this stage.

As hon. members have probably already noticed, this Bill goes somewhat further than its predecessors, in that it is not confined solely to the collection of contributions for welfare organizations. On the contrary, it regulates all collection of funds, subject only to certain exceptions. Nevertheless, throughout the Bill hon. members will perceive the pattern of the National Welfare Act 1965 in so far as it applies to the collection of contributions. However, the principles of accountability and disclosure are more consciously and prominently made part of the Bill, and the regulation of the collection of contributions is rounded off better, if I may put it like that.

Since accountability by way of disclosure is the basis of this Bill, it goes without saying that the necessary machinery to bring this about has to be established, machinery by which it may be ensured that the necessary accountability will in fact take place by way of disclosure. This is what the Bill does.

Here, too, as in the case of the previous Bill, there are no sinister ulterior motives. The sole intention is to establish machinery to ensure accountability by way of disclosure. The public, that make their contributions, certainly have the right to know how their contributions are utilized and to determine whether their support of the cause in question is justified or not.

There are bodies that flinch from the discretionary powers conferred on the director. I have given very careful consideration to their appeals in this regard and in regard to other matters and have come to the conclusion that there are sufficient guarantees to ensure that fund-raising bodies will not be prejudiced by arbitrary action on the part of the director.

It must be noted in this regard that various amendments have been effected to the original Bill published for commentary, and still others were effected at a later stage to the Bill that was withdrawn a short while ago and replaced by that which is at present under discussion.

Furthermore, it must always be borne in mind that the findings of the director are subject to appeal, an aspect which I shall come back to later.

The control over fund-raising which will be exercised will be aimed at disclosure, as I have already indicated, and—I want to underline this clearly—does not aim to discourage or suppress fund-raising in any way. My department is certainly not going to start a witch-hunt against offenders, and no respectable organization has anything to fear from this Bill. In the vast majority of cases, in 99,9% of cases, registration will be a pure formality. Registration merely signifies the starting point from which disclosure may be implemented in an orderly fashion.

As is evident from the various provisions of the Bill, the principle of disclosure is also applied to the collection of contributions for remuneration. Experience has taught us, both here and abroad, that bodies collecting contributions for or on behalf of welfare organizations for remuneration, which therefore make a business of collecting money for welfare or any other purpose, often get away with the lion’s share of the contributions collected. It is also clear from the report of the Van Rooyen Commission that control of fund-raising by professional fund-raisers has become not only desirable, but indeed essential.

Apparently it has already become the custom for contracts to be concluded between such fund-raisers and the organizations concerned. The procedure by means of which fund-raising of this kind is to be controlled in terms of the Bill will not, therefore, entail unnecessary burdens for the parties concerned. The underlying idea is that the contributor should be fully informed so that if he should so wish he can ascertain how much of the contribution he makes will go to the professional fund-raiser, and how much to the institution for which the funds are being raised.

There are bodies that are of the opinion that the appeal mechanism to which I have already referred and which is being established under clause 10, is inadequate to the review of decisions of the director. These people believe that it would be preferable for the director to be assisted by a board which, so they argue, would share in his decisions and serve as an additional guarantee that their interests would not be prejudiced. However there are sound reasons why the registration of fund-raising bodies should be transferred from the existing board to a Government body. We could discuss this more effectively at the Committee Stage. At this point I shall only refer to one of the reasons, viz. that on this basis, applications will enjoy uninterrupted attention and can definitely be disposed of more promptly. However, the essence of the matter is still that the director cannot simply act arbitrarily. In my opinion, the appeal mechanism established to review his decisions ensures that no one will be left without a legal remedy, and it rounds off the whole cycle from application to final decision in a reasonable way. Further interference in the decision-making processes of the director, or further canalization thereof before it reaches the appeal committee, would give rise to unnecessarily expensive and time-consuming procedures.

As far as the appeal committee is concerned I also wish to make it known that I have recognized as a matter of policy that in cases where various types of organizations may become involved in appeals, the committees should as far as possible be so constituted that people acquainted with the activities of the appellant’s type of organization be represented thereon. What this will amount to, therefore, is that organizations will be judged by their peers with special knowledge of these matters.

Chapter III concerns funds already under the control of the State. Some of these funds have existed for years and it is desirable that these, too, be now brought under statutory control.

The S.A. Defence Force Fund functions on a full-time basis, whereas the other funds referred to here, although also permanently active to a certain extent, often experience relatively inactive periods.

The idea is not that the private sector should be excluded from the management of these funds. In fact, the involvement of the private sector in these funds is both desirable and essential, and private bodies and persons will, as in the past, be involved in the running of these funds.

I am aware of the public reaction to clause 30. I think that intentions have been read into the provisions of this clause which are not justified by those provisions. Nevertheless I can understand the fear of authoritarian action harboured by certain bodies and persons and consequently I have provided that action taken in terms of clauses 30(5) and 30(6), is subject to the Minister’s approval. That will ensure that one-sided action does not take place. I also trust that in this way I have been able to eliminate the fears of the bodies and persons concerned.

The Van Rooyen Commission obtained an abundance of evidence indicating that the magical influence of certain words, for example charity, religion, health, war and education, are exploited by people whose first consideration is often to benefit themselves. I want to quote from an information document issued by the National Welfare Board, a body which the hon. member for Pinelands agrees with me in regarding as a highly sophisticated and authoritative board—

We all realize and appreciate the fine and essential work done by welfare and other organizations and their constant struggle to remain financially viable. No one wishes to do anything deliberately calculated to harm or paralyse them financially. However the evidence is overwhelming that the collection of contributions cannot be left uncontrolled. Indeed, even those who attack the Bill in the strongest terms, recognize this.

I believe that the provisions of this Bill provide us with the powers necessary to eliminate undesirable conditions and to ensure that appropriate action is possible when required. I further believe that they do not set unreasonable demands to bona fide bodies or threaten those that act in good faith. On the contrary, I am convinced that instead of being a millstone around their neck, it will prove to be supportive of their activities. As is the case at present in the case of a WO number, registration will be an asset and will serve as proof to the public that they are dealing with a bona fide organization.

I do not wish to dwell further on the measure at this stage and I think that the details of the various clauses could be more fruitfully considered at the Committee Stage.

I submit the Bill to the hon. House in the confidence and knowledge that it contains measures which the times and circumstances demand of us.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. the Minister speaking about his social welfare Bills, one would think that these Bills had received general approbation from everybody affected by them. One would also think that these Bills were ushering a new era of freedom as far as fund-raising and social welfare organizations are concerned. One would think that, with these Bills, the Government was creating a situation in which they will assist, guide and help social welfare and fund-raising organizations instead of a situation where they are about to hog-tie these organizations in the execution of their responsibilities and in their work. The hon. the Minister has not, however, convinced this side of the House that that is the situation. To let him into a secret, he has not convinced the hundreds of organizations and the thousands of people outside who have to labour under the provisions of these Bills that what he is doing here is creating a new era of freedom as far as their activities are concerned or that he is really trying to help them to do a better job than they are doing at the moment. I immediately want to say, however, that there are obviously certain positive aspects in these Bills. We have recognized the existence of those positive aspects and we have also recognized the need for the positive aspects which are contained in these Bills. By and large this hon. Minister, as a new and young Minister, is embarking upon his ministerial career by placing on the Statute Book legislation which is not to his credit, and which is going to hang like an albatross around his neck for many, many years to come. [Interjections.] We have tried to help him. We have been generous towards him. I went to the hon. the Minister and I pleaded with him not to rush in where angels fear to tread, and not to bulldoze this legislation through Parliament as his party is so want to do. I said to him that since he was a new hon. Minister, we would like to help him by being generous and by assisting him. I also told him that we would in particular like to see him have a new, enlightened, fresh and attractive image, but he was not prepared to accept that offer. He aspires rather to the stereotyped Nationalist Cabinet Minister, who offends rather than assists and who puts people off rather than gaining their support.

Let us return to the Fund-raising Bill. Right at the outset our attitude is that we accept that there is a need for reasonable and enlightened control over fund-raising and over fundraising organizations. We accept as everybody knows, that there are many people and organizations that collect funds who exploit the public in collecting those funds. There is a lot of administrative inefficiency in some organizations and there is also a wastage of public funds. We also believe that there is a possibility that organizations can allocate funds for malpractices and for activities which should not be funded by public money. There is a possibility that these malpractices can arise, but there are measures which can control those malpractices at the moment We are quite happy to assist the hon. the Minister in bringing about legislation which will rule out these malpractices without stifling the activities of fund-raising organizations and without placing them under Draconian control measures, but we are not prepared to go along with the hon. the Minister when he places laws of this nature on the Statute Book.

When this Bill first made its appearance, there was a tremendous amount of public concern and unhappiness. When the hon. the Minister—we thought he was acting in an enlightened way—reacted to that public concern and unhappiness after having been seen by a number of very responsible and representative delegations, we were all very happy indeed. He in fact withdrew the Fundraising Bill and a great deal of hope was created in the hearts of many people who thought that we now had a Minister who had in fact seen the light. Far from seeing the light, however, he came to light with a second Fund-raising Bill which is far worse in its provisions and in the extent of its activities than the previous Fund-raising Bill. I think the hon. the Minister consulted the Dark Ages and did some research into the control measures which were applied in the Dark Ages. He then came forward with a Bill containing additional controls, some of which we are very concerned about.

I should like to mention at this stage a new principle which the hon. the Minister has introduced in the Bill. I am referring to clause 1(2) on the bottom of page 5—this is part of the definitions clause, mind you—which reads—

I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister is going to tell us that the provision is in the interests of South Africa, that it is innocent, that it is positive and that there is nothing to be concerned about. However, I wonder whether there is not very good reason for concern about the appearance of this provision in this particular Bill. One would like to know what the intention of the Government is with regard to this particular provision. In what way are they going to use it? Who are they going to use it against? [Interjections.] There has been a great deal of concern within the ranks of the Government recently and they have expressed their disappointment and chagrin at the fact that there are people outside South Africa who legitimately and openly are prepared to contribute funds to organizations in South Africa that legitimately and openly assist people who are subject to court actions in South Africa; people who need proper defence; people who are the hapless victims of this Government’s racial legislation; people and their dependants who need assistance as a result of the actions of the Government.

That is absolutely scandalous!

In so far as these organizations are legitimate and in so far as they do work which is above board, which is in the interests of the people concerned and which is humanitarian in nature, nobody can object to funds coming from any source whatsoever to assist them. There is nothing whatsoever wrong, illegitimate or illegal about it. I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister to which he must give a categorical answer: Will the Government or will the Government not use this particular provision against those organizations who contribute funds in the way that I have described, organizations of which this Government disapproves? Will the Government use this provision to stop those organizations from assisting people in South Africa, or will they not do so?

Name the organizations!

What are the dark intentions of the Government in regard to this provision? I should like to have a categorical answer to this. [Interjections.]

In his reply to the Second Reading debate of the National Welfare Bill the hon. the Minister tried to explain, totally unsuccessfully, why it was necessary to structure the social welfare field of activity in South Africa on a racial basis. This particular Bill, the Fund-raising Bill, is once again going to affect Black, Coloured, Indian and White in South Africa and each one of these communities have a primary and very important interest in this legislation, and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to what extent those communities were consulted in the drafting of this legislation. I have had the privilege of consulting with some of these communities and leaders …

Name them!

… who are involved in social welfare work amongst Black, Coloured and Indian people. These people have not been consulted and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister specifically: Which people did he consult, what attitudes did they express to this Bill and in what way has the hon. the Minister attempted to accommodate the views of these people in the Bill? Once again it is clear that this is a Bill created by the Nationalist White Parliament for multiracial South Africa without providing for the multiracial character of the country.

If one studies this Bill carefully …

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

I do not have time now, but if I have time at the end of my speech, I shall answer any questions the hon. Minister may have. Once again I should like to point out a fatal flaw in this proposed legislation. It derives from the basic philosophy on which this proposed legislation is based. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that in the Van Rooyen report the concept of a fruitful, effective partnership between the State and the private sector of our society is emphasized. These activities can only be effective and successful if there is such a fruitful partnership and if there is co-operation at all levels. However, once again the hon. the Minister has failed to give effect to that requirement. By the introduction of this legislation he has frustrated that particular requirement and the need to create a free, voluntary and happy partnership between the State on the one hand and society on the other. I believe this is once again an indication of the lack of understanding of the Government of what is really required in this particular field. The Government believes and perceives that it is its responsibility to establish an organization and a system which will exercise total, complete and absolute control over everything that breathes within South Africa The activities of any organization or person that happens to live or breathe in this country come under the control and regulations of some department of State. Whilst it gives the Government satisfaction to know that they control people and that they control people’s activities, and whilst they aspire to control people’s thinking, the fact is that it is not good for a democratic society; it is counter-productive for a democratic society to attempt to place it in that sort of strait-jacket I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister—he may not realize it and he may argue and protest against it—that he is taking one giant step after another in the direction of socialism and a social welfare state. That is what the hon. the Minister is doing. He is not creating a free society and encouraging free and open participation by the society. He is not motivating the public to volunteer and to participate; he is in fact discouraging people from becoming participants because he is saying to them that if they become participants in fund-raising in the social welfare field, they will come under the control of the State and will be subject to a vast array of rules and regulations which are the product of and under the sole direction and control of the hon. the Minister and over which the hon. the Minister’s discretion is the final word as far as these activities are concerned.

One would have thought that in regard to this particular requirement the hon. the Minister would have seen the need and the advantage to involve all interested people in a national fund-raising council, in which all those organizations and persons who have a contribution to make and who have a primary interest, can participate, become involved and take these responsibilities off the shoulders of the hon. the Minister and his department. This council would be representative of these organizations. It would elect its own office bearers, appoint its own officials, and as the co-ordinating body in the fund-raising field, provide assistance, guidance and leadership in that field, and stimulate the entire fundraising field of activities in South Africa. Instead of that the hon. the Minister appoints a director, a single appointed State official with the power of life and death over fundraising organizations, an official who has the power of a god. I think the hon. the Minister frustrates the first commandment in this particular respect. He appoints a god. He creates a graven image who has the power of life and death over fund-raising organizations. I believe that that is the wrong thing to do, because in doing that one loses credibility, one loses public confidence and one loses the interest and initiative coming from the public.

We have pointed out before that the interrelationship between this Bill and the National Welfare Bill is unfortunate in that welfare organizations are also fund-raising organizations. The hon. the Minister was at pains to explain that an organization does not have to be registered as a welfare organization, but that it then has to be registered as a fund-raising organization. If it does not register, it may not raise funds, although it can always spend its own funds. However, we wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that it is wasteful of resources and time and an unnecessary creation of red tape to require organizations to register twice. Why on earth should this be necessary if there is a good National Welfare Act, if the mechanisms which have been created in terms of the National Welfare Act are effective, and if welfare organizations have to register under that Act and have to provide evidence of their activities and of their bookkeeping systems? If they register they have to register in order to satisfy the Minister’s requirements and regulations under that Act, so why on earth is it necessary for the same organization and its branches to have to register once again in terms of the Fund-raising Act? Surely to goodness we can exclude a tremendous amount of work, a tremendous amount of red tape, by saying that an organization which is registered in terms of the National Welfare Act has passed the scrutiny and requirements of the Minister, and is acceptable and responsible? Surely such an organization should not now have to go through the whole rigmarole of being subjected to the vast array of new provisions and controls which the Director of Fund-raising will apply to them?

I also wish to mention the appeal provisions in the National Welfare Bill. I believe that those appeal provisions should exist and in fact do improve this particular process. Once again, however, if one really wants to have public trust and confidence, one must allow, in addition to that, appeal to the courts, because no organization or persons will feel that they really have access to an independent judgment if they are aggrieved with regard to decisions of the Minister or the director, unless they feel they have the right to appeal to the courts.

In the new Bill the hon. the Minister has favoured us with a new clause 29, which is one of the most unfortunate provisions which we have yet come across in any legislation before this House. I should just like to read it to hon. members. Clause 29 reads as follows—

That is a new line which has been introduced into the Bill. In other words, he may act even contrary to the provisions of this Act, or ignoring the provisions of this Act—

That is an absolute blanket power exercised by the Minister in his sole discretion. It is the purest form of unadulterated tyranny on the part of a Cabinet Minister that one can have embodied in a provision.

You are talking nonsense!

The Minister can decree the death of a fundraising organization and the Minister is responsible to nobody in that decision. One cannot appeal because the appeal committee which the Minister himself provides for only decides on decisions of the director. The decisions of the Minister are beyond appeal. One cannot go to the appeal committee against the Minister and one cannot go to the courts to appeal against the actions of the Minister. In fact, I wonder why it was necessary for the hon. the Minister to produce this rather expensive piece of legislation. Why was it necessary to have pages upon pages of provisions dealing with authorities and temporary authorities, with permission and what not; with how organizations and applications shall be dealt with and with what is allowed and what is not allowed? Why did he include clause 29? Why did the hon. the Minister not just come to Parliament and introduce a Bill consisting only of clause 29, which states that the Minister is the final, absolute and total authority? If the hon. the Minister—and that is what it boils down to— does not like one and does not want one to raise funds, one has had it. [Interjections.]

That would have been a far more realistic approach, because if one studies this Bill without seeing clause 29, one would not be aware of what the powers are that this hon. Minister can wield without anyone controlling him and without any chance of people affected by it being given an opportunity of appealing against those powers which the hon. the Minister has. [Interjections.]

I believe that it really is not in the interest of the hon. the Minister or of his department, and very definitely not in the interest of the field of social welfare or of fund-raising organizations, for the hon. the Minister to be responsible for including clause 29 in this Bill. I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister takes the earliest possible opportunity of announcing that he is withdrawing that particular clause.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to answer that man’s questions now. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must not refer to an hon. member as “that man”, but as “the hon. member”.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I cannot answer the hon. member’s questions now. [Interjections.]

There are a number of other provisions that I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister at this stage. We also have a provision in terms of which the hon. the Minister takes unto himself the power to decide that no person or organization can voluntarily, out of the good of their hearts, contribute funds to an organization which is not registered as a fund-raising organization. In other words, one is not even allowed to do with one’s own money as one likes. One cannot exercise one’s own initiative and one’s own discretion in connection with making contributions. This Government decrees that if one contributes money to a person or to an organization that is not registered and that does not comply with the provisions of this legislation, such person or such organization is legally compelled to return such money to whomever donated it. I doubt whether any where outside of the Iron Curtain countries there is a provision of that measure in any law. I doubt whether there is any free country in the world which has legislation containing a provision of this nature. [Interjections.]

I should also like to point out that this legislation allows inspectors of the department to search at any time the premises of any organization or person involved in the raising of funds. They are allowed to do so without a warrant, obviously at any time of the day or night The Government’s inspectors all seem to suffer from insomnia. They all seem to be visiting people at three o’clock or four o’clock in the morning.

That’s right! the knock on the door! [Interjections.]

Such an inspector can demand explanations; not ask for explanations or request explanations, but demand explanations there and then. Do you know what he can do, Mr. Speaker? He can put a poor, hapless fellow—at three o’clock in the morning—under oath there and then, regardless of the fact that the poor fellow might still be in his pyjamas and sleeping socks. He can put the fellow under oath and not question him, but interrogate him. [Interjections.] This Government likes words like “interrogation” and “demand”. This Government likes putting people under oath and likes calling on people at any time of the day or night. [Interjections.] Be it a person or an organization involved in fund-raising this Bill actually provides for it than one’s personal account and one’s personal assets and one’s personal affairs can be probed. It is not what one does on behalf of fund-raising activities, but also one’s personal activities, affairs, accounts and assets that can be probed.

Where do you read that?

It is true. If the hon. member will only read the legislation, he will realize it very soon.

Quote the clause.

I shall do so at a later stage. [Interjections.] It is in the Bill, but I do not happen to have it in front of me at the moment. It is the provision that is in the Bill, in clause 12(1) if the hon. member would like to know.

Let me now deal quickly with the exceptions. I think there are some questions which the hon. the Minister must answer about the exceptions. The first question I should like to put is the following: What is meant by “any other law” when the hon. the Minister speaks of exceptions in terms of any other law? I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister why an exception is made of the State, local authorities and hospital boards. Surely, if this legislation is to stop malpractices, it must be realized that malpractices will not only occur in private organizations. They could equally occur in organizations under the control of the State or local authorities.

I now come to the exception which applies to moneys collected from members of an organization. What about corporate membership? What about organizations like the S.A. Foundation, the Chamber of Commerce and Sabra which have corporate membership? Are those organizations not entitled to exemption? Why only organizations which derive income from their own members?

The one exception I am very worried about is that of religious organizations or churches. It is stated that they are exempted provided they collect money exclusively for the purpose of promoting the religious work of such bodies. I want to ask a question. What does that really mean? Does that mean that churches or religious organizations that involve themselves in humanitarian activities, in assisting the poor and the weak and the oppressed, must submit themselves to the control of the provisions in this legislation? Does it mean that if a church wants to use some of its money to help the hapless victims of squatter camps that have been bulldozed into the ground by this Government, that church must then come under the provisions of this legislation? Is that what it means? If that is what it means, this exemption means nothing! You see, any church today that is worth its salt, that wants to do a reasonable job of work and subjects itself to the dictates of God and the Bible, involved itself in the work and the interests of the community and does something when that community is subject to actions by authorities or otherwise. [Interjections.]

We cannot accept this Bill at all. We should therefore like to express our strongest objections to the Bill, and for that reason I should like to move the following amendment—

We believe that if this Bill should go into the Statute Book in its present form, it would be one of the most unfortunate statutes on the South African Statute Book because it would provide for draconian new powers to be wielded by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, unchecked and unfettered and without any mechanism whereby the victims of this particular legislation could appeal against the actions of the hon. the Minister.

Order! I should like to appeal to hon. members to refrain from using the name of the Almighty in this House.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things to which we have become accustomed in dealing with the Official Opposition. The first is the language they use about any measure or Bill which is piloted through the House by this side. These measures or Bills are described as Draconian and as measures from behind the Iron Curtain. We are used to that way of speaking and it is the hon. member for Bryanston who has now dragged politics into the Bill which is before the House. He is the one who is accusing the Government of causing subversive organizations to be formed as a result of its racial policy. Furthermore, the hon. member for Bryanston held it against the Government that no non-White organizations or persons had been consulted in drawing up the legislation. If the hon. member had taken the trouble …

Horace, he is talking to you now. Please pay attention.

If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read the report, he would have seen on page 12 that a full itinerary was published before the commission heard evidence in public. Invitations were issued to all public bodies and persons to come and give evidence. What is more: No fewer than 15 of these sessions were held. As is also stated in the report, the Press and other news media regularly kept the public informed about those public sessions. Any person or public body was therefore free to go and give evidence before the commission. Just as the hon. member does not have the decency to listen to me while I am replying to his speech, he did not have the decency to read a report which concerns the legislation.

The second type of behaviour of the PFP to which we have become accustomed is that they oppose everything which aims at protecting law and order. If that party could have its way, there would be no control at all over any fund-raising or over the application of such funds. However, I see a completely different motive in their opposition of the measure and I shall come to that in the course of my speech.

Then I should like to convey my sincere thanks to Prof. Van Rooyen and the members of his commission and to congratulate them on the thorough piece of work they did concerning the most important aspects of our welfare services: The collection of voluntary contributions from the public and the purpose for which the contributions are collected and used, as well as the contributions collected for crisis relief. Another important aspect of the investigation is that a look was also taken at the efficiency of our present legislation in order to investigate the collection, the utilization and the regulation of these collections. While reading through the report, I was impressed, not only by the thoroughness of the investigation, but also by the necessity for new legislation to enable us to exercise proper control over voluntary contributions by the public. On behalf of this side of the House, we thank Prof. Van Rooyen and the members of his commission for the good work which they did.

I feel that all welfare work rests on three pillars: In the first place, on welfare organizations themselves, in the second place on the public and in the third place on the State. That very fine understanding, the very fine partnership between welfare organizations, the public and the State has always been there. As far as welfare work is concerned, all three of these partners need one another because without any one of them, welfare work in South Africa would collapse. I therefore want to make it clear that if this Bill had been intended to upset this fine relationship or partnership in any way, I would have definitely spoken out against it. However, this is not the case.

Having read the Van Rooyen Commission, one is convinced that it was definitely not the intention to disturb that partnership or fine understanding. On the contrary, unnecessary red tape and delays will be eliminated. Furthermore, the Bill will introduce a much better procedure. Most important, however, is the fact that it will create more mutual confidence between the State, the welfare organizations and the public.

I should also like to express the greatest praise and appreciation for the fine work which is being done by our welfare organizations. This is work which is being done voluntarily without any remuneration and which brings joy and relief to many thousands of our people. We are grateful for that good work, because not only would it be impossible for the State to undertake this, but it would also be a sad day if the State had to take all welfare work out of the hands of the welfare organizations, because then it would be leading us to nothing but a welfare State.

According to statistics which appear in that report, there were 1 908 independent registered welfare organizations with WO numbers in 1976, and together with the branches committees of the welfare organizations, there were almost 4 000 separate welfare bodies. The total income of these bodies, according to the report, amounts to about R135 million per year, of which the public contributed approximately half, or R65 million. Therefore, the large amount of R65 million is received and spent by bodies that receive their money from the public.

If we take this into consideration, it is definitely not unreasonable to expect that those bodies who collect money from the public should have to account for the way they spend these funds. This is what this legislation envisages. It rests on the principles of regulation, co-operation, responsibility, disclosure, control and the elimination of duplication. Without going into detail, because we shall probably discuss all these clauses thoroughly during the Committee Stage, no one can object to the fact that there will be proper control over the people who may collect funds for welfare services. The present legal procedure for obtaining permission and registering welfare organizations is very clumsy and has resulted in a great many unnecessary delays. We also know that it sometimes took an organization two to three years to be registered and to receive permission to collect funds.

The proposed procedures will make that process of granting permission much more streamlined. The Director of Fund-raising, who is unfortunately maliciously represented as a dictator by some bodies and persons, is appointed by the Minister in the first place, to whom he will be responsible. What is more, he is under the administrative control of the Secretary to the department. If there is an application for permission to collect funds and that permission is refused, the director is obliged to notify the person or organization concerned in writing of the reasons why permission was refused. I want to ask the hon. member for Bryanston, who spoke here about Draconian measures, whether a dictator would act like that, whether a dictator would inform people in writing why their applications have been refused.

Where does that get them?

Then there is also the right of appeal to an appeal committee that will consist of a magistrate— although they have no confidence in our magistrates any longer—with at least ten years’ experience, and two persons who have a thorough knowledge of welfare work.

Then the hon. the Minister can make the same decision again, without an appeal board.

One of the great shortcomings of the present Act is that no proper record of registered organizations is kept In terms of the present Act, registered organizations are not obliged to inform either the national board or the regional boards of any branch organizations. That is why it is necessary that there should be an efficient system of records at all branches of organizations, and this is precisely what is being called for in this legislation. Furthermore, provision is made for registration certificates that to be issued to every person and organization that may collect funds. This will also serve as a guarantee to the public from whom the funds are requested.

Therefore the public will have the guarantee, in the first place, that the money which they contribute will be used for the purpose for which they donated it and, in the second place, that a proper account will be given of how that money is spent. Everyone sitting in this House can probably quote some example of where money was collected for a specific purpose, but never used for it I want to quote one example. I know of someone who believed that he could receive treatment for paralysis which he suffered after an accident. Unfortunately, that person did not have the money to go abroad to receive the treatment which he had heard about, and a collection was then organized by people who had the best intentions in the world. It was done in spite of the warnings of medical practitioners that there was no treatment which could help him. A collection was nevertheless made and a fairly large amount was collected. Ultimately, however, the person dropped the idea of going for treatment abroad. However, no account was ever given of what happened to the money which had been collected for that purpose. Similarly, one can also refer to organizations that have collected money under the cloak of welfare work and then used it for entirely different purposes. If one takes a look at the Schlebusch Report, one will see that Nusas, for instance, collected money for so-called welfare services, but according to the finding of that commission, only a small portion of that money was actually used for that purpose. That is why I believe that the State has a duty to ensure that donors are protected against abuse, against misspending of contributions which they make. That is why it is only right for the State to be granted certain powers in order to ensure that no abuse and misspending takes place.

What about the common law of fraud?

Where are those dictatorial powers, those Draconian powers which the Opposition says are being granted to the director in terms of the Bill? In the first place, there must be control over who may collect and that is why a certificate must be issued to collectors. Do hon. members want to tell me that there is anything wrong with an organization having to ask permission and having a certificate issued to it which authorizes it to collect money for a specific purpose? Furthermore, the obligation rests on the State to ensure that organizations and persons give a proper account of the money which has been collected and of the way it is spent, and that they prove that those funds have been used for the purpose for which they were donated. The hon. the Minister is also being authorized to conduct inspections when he has reason to believe that malpractices exist or when he is requested by someone—such a person has to make a statement under oath—to ascertain whether the funds collected are in fact being used for the purpose for which they were donated. Finally, the hon. the Minister has the power to ban the collection of funds for or on behalf of a person or organization for certain purposes, should he consider it in the public interest This is quite right. What is wrong with it? After all, we are all aware of the total onslaught which is being made on South Africa, not by the outside world alone, but also by certain organizations which pose as innocent bodies here in South Africa. Is it wrong then, if permission is granted to organizations or people to collect funds and it appears that those funds are being used to finance subversive organizations, to ban those collections?

But it does not say so.

But the hon. member for Bryanston announced actually pointed to this, and began with this argument. If the hon. member would just give me a chance, I shall reply further to that.

Is there not already legislation to do so?

That hon. member reminds me very much of the children’s programme “Wielie Walie” where a ventriloquist speaks through a dummy. That hon. member is the dummy and there are the ventriloquists—a real “Wielie Walie”. The hon. Opposition must now say frankly whether they believe that an organization which has requested permission to establish a fund for the defence of accused people should then be allowed to channel that money to terrorists or banned organizations.

Take them to court.

Those hon. members must say whether they will be satisfied if funds collected for a certain purpose, for instance for the defence of accused people, are channelled to terrorists or other subversive organizations.

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

No. My time is very limited. Draft legislation was published as long ago as July 1977 and people everywhere were requested to comment upon it. Comments were received and there were also objections to some aspects of the legislation. We do not hold this against anyone. After all, everyone has a right to raise objections to any proposed legislation. There were also some objections from this side of the House to certain aspects of the legislation and we spoke to the hon. the Minister about it and changes were then made to the legislation. What is more, lengthy discussions were held with many welfare organizations, and I have reason to believe today that those bodies that are engaged in welfare work only and have South Africa’s interests at heart are all satisfied. I find it strange that public objections now and in the past mostly come from leftist organizations and from the liberal English Press. I want to quote one example in this regard. Hoofstad of 23 February 1978 quotes a report from Businessman’s Law in which a so-called advocate alleges that the proposed legislation is unnecessary. Hon. members must now listen to the inane remarks made by this advocate. The report reads—

What a ridiculous statement to make. Finally, this advocate comes to the conclusion that the courts may expect a particularly busy time if the Bill is passed. I wonder what type of advocate he is. I hope he is not sitting in the ranks of the PFP, although it would not surprise me. This is the type of propaganda which has been spread to incite people and confuse them about this Bill. I have here a report from The Argus of 12 January 1978 with the heading: “Welfare State?”. The report reads—

This is the type of propaganda which is broadcast to the world. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, the hon. member for Pinelands is not here tonight, but I hope the hon. members of his party will take note of the questions I am going to ask tonight and that the hon. member for Pinelands will reply to them at some time or other. The hon. member for Pinelands also participated enthusiastically in this type of propaganda. The Argus of Tuesday, 11 April 1978, reports as follows—

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Houghton wants to chip in, she may have an opportunity to do so later on. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands to tell us sometime what bureaucratic strait-jacket he is talking about and what organization will be placed in a straitjacket. The hon. member must mention this organization here by name.

What is more, the hon. member for Pinelands probably knows and probably is in close contact with the Rev. Peter Storey of the Methodist Church, who also happens to be vice-president of the South African Council of Churches. According to the Voice of 18 April 1978 he said—

That is the South African Church Council—

Now I wonder whether the hon. member for Pinelands, or any of those hon. members, for instance the hon. member for Houghton if she wants to speak, will tell us more about this Dependence Conference and Asengeni Fund.

I wonder whether they will be prepared to tell us where those organizations get their funds from and how they spend them. We should very much like to know this because I heard quite by chance that the S.A. Council of Churches had received nearly R5 million from abroad in less than two years. I wonder whether the hon. member will tell us where these two other organizations get their money from and how they spend it.

So you are gunning for them.

There is something sinister in the remark by Rev. Storey that I quoted. We have many churches in South Africa that have welfare organizations. Why then do none of our other churches fear this legislation? Why is there any fear that these funds of the Rev. Storey will be threatened? I am convinced that no organization which does only welfare work need fear anything.

Interestingly enough, an extract from a study entitled “Southern Africa Study Project” appeared in Beeld of 19 January 1978. It was a document published in New York. My time is running out, but I nevertheless want to make a few quotations from the report—

The report goes on to say that those church groups are now being asked to mobilize their forces in the short time which remains to prevent this Bill from being piloted through Parliament. It is strange that overseas organizations are so interested in the welfare work done in South Africa. I want to ask the PFP in all reasonableness—I think they owe the House a reply—whether they have acceded to the requests made by this document and have been mobilized to try and prevent this Bill from being piloted through Parliament. This document asks some churches and organizations to mobilize themselves to prevent this Bill from being passed. Has the PFP also been mobilized by them? Is the PFP one of their organs here in South Africa? Furthermore, the question is asked in this report—

Now I wonder whether one of those hon. members can tell us whether, in response to that request, certain pockets will be created to which the funds can be channelled. I want to ask them to stand up and tell us what their attitude is towards this request to the South African Council of Churches, which now has to take over the work of banned organizations, and towards the fact that they must create certain pockets to which funds should be channelled in advance as a precaution against being banned under this legislation. I am sorry the hon. member for Pinelands is not here now. He is a clergyman of the Methodist Church, just like that Rev. Storey, who in addition is a member of the S.A. Council of Churches, which in turn is affiliated to the World Council of Churches. Will the hon. member for Pinelands tell us whether we should come to the conclusion that those funds are being sent over in advance and accumulated in South Africa for use later on when funds from outside can no longer enter the country? As long as this question remains unanswered, the S.A. Council of Churches will be under suspicion.

Time does not allow me to deal with other aspects of the Bill. Other hon. members will talk about war and disaster funds.

In conclusion I should like to appeal to those welfare organizations that are exclusively concerned with welfare work and have South Africa’s interests at heart, and to our public, which ulways contributes so generously to welfare services, to enable us to continue and expand the fine partnership which exists between the State, welfare organizations and the public.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Boksburg has dealt with a variety of matters pertaining to the Bill which is before us. He has indicated that certain provisions can be discussed in the Committee Stage. We on these benches intend taking a full discussion at Committee Stage on a large number of the clauses of the Bill.

I should like to say at the very outset that we on these benches have given careful consideration to all the aspects of this piece of legislation. We believe one has to be guided to a certain extent, concerning the principle involved in the Bill, by the long title of the Bill, which reads—

In that respect we consider that the principle which is involved, i.e. the control of the collection of contributions from the public, is indeed one that should be supported. However, I immediately want to say that there are provisions in the Bill to which we take exception and to which we are opposed. Some time ago, when the first Bill was introduced—and we have since given notice of further amendments in respect of the Bill presently before the House—we stated that we intended opposing clause 29. We also indicated on the Order Paper that we intended moving substantial amendments to clause 30, because we believe that in this respect there is an aspect of “overkill” as far as the control of funds from the public is concerned. That is to be our attitude with regard to the Bill now before the House. I should like to motivate to a certain extent why we have come to that conclusion.

First and foremost, the raising of funds from the public is a matter which has been subject to control for many years. We know that in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965, provision is made that an organization must register as a welfare organization so that it may appeal to the public for funds. We know that there have been certain shortcomings in that regard. I also know from investigating some matters that were brought to my attention, and subsequently brought to the attention of the Government, that there have been many instances of people abusing the right to raise funds from the public, sometimes unfortunately for their own benefit. In some instances the welfare organizations concerned have received very little indeed from these various efforts, although the public felt they were making contributions to a cause which they believed was a good cause. The South African public is a generous public. The hon. the Minister and also the hon. member for Boksburg referred to the vast sums of money that are raised from the public for welfare organizations. It is therefore important to see that the public have confidence in these welfare organizations, and that the funds are indeed used for the purposes for which they were donated by the public. In this connection we have had instances of misappropriation of funds. I know personally of a person who organized a crossword competition, a competition offering a vast prize, on the authority of a welfare organization in order to raise funds. He then found that the raising of these funds over a period of time brought in a good deal of money, and left the country altogether with a good deal of the money that he had collected from the public. Unfortunately we do have instances where the people concerned use welfare organizations to raise funds from the public, sometimes vast sums of money, under false pretences. This is a difficulty, particularly when a person leaves the country, but in terms of the legislation which is now proposed any agreement that is granted has to have the sanction of the Director of Fundraising. Although welfare organizations may have well-meaning management committees, they may be misled by a person who can speak well and fast. Such a person who has been granted authority by that registered welfare organization may raise funds for his own financial benefit. In terms of the new legislation an agreement of this nature will now require the sanction of the Director of Fund-raising, and this may to a certain extent protect some of those welfare organizations that have been misguided in this regard.

There are also professional organizations that raise funds for welfare organizations, and here too there have been instances of fundraising which leave a lot to be desired as far as the welfare organizations are concerned, in that they have not actually received the financial benefit which has been donated by the public. Consequently, various matters have been raised over the years with regard to the control of funds from the public. Indeed, if one looks at the latest reports of the National Welfare Board, covering a 2½-year period, one finds that mention is made of this very point One of the four commissions in existence in terms of the legislation which is now to be repealed by the Bill now before the House, was the Welfare Organizations Commission. On page 15 of its report this Welfare Organizations Commission also draws attention to the fact that there is a need for greater control as far as fund-raising from the public is concerned. I quote from that report—

That was contained in the latest report of the Commission on Welfare Organizations. We find too that the Government has appointed a commission—reference has already been made to this in the debate—known as the Van Rooyen Commission, and this Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Collection from the Public of Voluntary Financial Contributions, which is a voluminous document, makes very interesting reading indeed. From the recommendations and findings published in this report it is clear that the commission finds it necessary that control should be exercised and that the position of financial control should be reviewed. I am glad to say that the Government has not accepted all the recommendations contained in this report, because some of them go even further than the proposed legislation now before the House. From other aspects of this report it is apparent that the Government has not fully accepted all those recommendations. However, the report contains important observations in connection with the question of funds received from abroad. The hon. member for Boksburg also dealt with this aspect. Having investigated the question of funds received from abroad the commission has indicated that it is necessary to have control in order to see to it that moneys received from abroad are used for the purposes they are claimed to be used for, whether it be for religious, for educational or for whatever other purposes.

On page 29 of the report the commission deals with the political side. The hon. member for Boksburg and the hon. member for Bryanston indicated a political motive here. The commission makes the following observation under the heading “Accounting for money received from abroad”—

This then as far as the political aspect is concerned. However, as regards the question of funds received from abroad, if such funds are to be used for welfare services or for the benefit and the welfare of the people, then I believe it is only right that such moneys should be used for the same purposes for which money is also being collected within the Republic, viz. for the various welfare services. Therefore I think it is correct that a degree of control should also be exercised— and this Bill provides for that—over those organizations who are soliciting and using money obtained from the South African public, in the same way as control will be exercised over money coming from abroad.

If money is received for a need for which it is genuinely required, I fail to see how that can be threatened in any way, although the organizations collecting such money will have to declare their objects for raising such money.

They will have to state the purposes for which such money will be used. There is no reason to fear this provision and I cannot see why the matter should be dealt with differently in the case of an organization operating within the country, collecting money from the South African public.

The question of the attitude of the community is a vitally important one. When dealing with any welfare legislation, of course, whether we look at it as members of this House or whether we look at it merely as members of political parties, we should endeavour to ascertain that our welfare services and the interests of those who are to receive the benefits of the funds that are to be raised are actually being served by the welfare organizations concerned. We also have to see to it that the community takes an active participation in affairs of this kind. That is why there are aspects of this Bill, especially those in connection with the powers of the director, which do give concern. Indeed, the Van Rooyen report, where it deals with the question of the principle of co-operation—on page 17—clearly indicates that—

This is an observation made in the Van Rooyen report which should be basic to our thinking in regard to the legislation now before the House. That is why, in studying the Bill, we want to ascertain to what degree the provisions can interfere with the co-operation and participation of the public. We want to see whether provisions of the Bill are of such a nature that they will discourage the community taking an active part in the raising of funds and the collecting of funds for our welfare organizations in general and welfare purposes in particular. It is against this background that one must consider the legislation to try to ascertain the exact position, but in the hope that it will be found that the provisions will indeed encourage community participation rather than discourage it.

As I indicated at the commencement of my speech, the public must have confidence that the money which is being collected and the donations they are making are finding their way to the organization concerned and that the funds are utilized for the purposes they have been donated. That is why there has to be a degree of control.

When one looks at the proposed legislation, one can see that the Bill endeavours to bring about control, but particularly in so far as clauses 29 and 30 are concerned there would seem to be a measure of “overkill”. It is indeed unfortunate that the Bill is going to be used as a political tool in an effort to arouse the community against certain of its provisions. I say it is unfortunate because it is obvious that we should like to have the assistance and the full co-operation of the public outside. We should also like them to understand fully the provisions which are contained in the legislation.

I feel it is unfortunate that the designation “Director of Fund-raising” has been chosen. This designation will cause people to think that the director will be the overlord of everything appertaining to fund-raising. It is true that he has vast and wide powers. We know that provision is made for an appeal to an appeal committee against his decisions. Basically, however, his functions are those of a registrar. He is a Registrar of Welfare Organizations as we have had in terms of the 1965 National Welfare Act In terms of that Act people who are raising money from the public are required to register with the Registrar of Welfare Organizations. I should therefore like to suggest that the hon. the Minister give consideration to changing the designation from “Director of Fund-raising” to “Registrar of Fund-raising”. The functions which he has are basically that of a registrar. The powers for which the Bill makes provision are vast and we realize that these powers are going to be placed virtually in his hands whereas in the 1965 legislation provision was made for the Welfare Organizations Commission and the National Welfare Board. This board had to consider, inter alia, the various applications. In terms of this Bill we shall have the kingpin in the control of fund-raising in the director—to use the designation provided for in the Bill—and we in these benches are of the opinion that it would be better if he were to be designated a registrar rather than a director.

Such a change in designation would also help to give confidence in so far as the public is concerned that South Africa is not a welfare State, but depends on the co-operation of the community and the public at large to come forward to make a contribution to our welfare services. If we were to have an officer who is designated a director the public would tend to believe that that officer would take over that sort of responsibility. However, were it to be a registrar, we would have the position that the public would have confidence that the organization is genuine because it has been registered and since it has been registered, it must have been checked and it must have been found to have declared objectives and a constitution which meet with certain requirements prescribed by regulation. The public will have confidence that such an organization has passed the test and is an organization in which they can have full confidence.

Going through the Bill, one finds that the powers of the director are indeed considerable. One can see why a certain amount of concern has been aroused among some people in the private sector, in particular, and in some welfare organizations, at the fact that they will be hindered, hounded and hampered in their efforts. It would indeed be unfortunate if that attitude were to prevail. I believe that during the Committee Stage of this Bill we should endeavour to obtain further clarity on a large number of these clauses, and also on certain aspects, particularly in relation to clause 30, and to see to it that amendments are introduced so that that clause is not as repugnant as it is in its existing form, and here I am referring to aspects such as the powers of inspection and the various steps that might be taken in terms of that clause.

Then I refer to clause 29. This clause gives the hon. the Minister complete and absolute power, merely by publication in the Government Gazette, to prohibit the collection of funds for an organization by certain persons. There is no appeal, though on a decision taken by the director there is an appeal committee to which an appeal can be made. We are therefore opposed to the provisions contained in clause 29.

Bearing clause 29 in mind, one recognizes that there have to be powers of inspection. Powers of inspection, of course, already exist in terms of the 1965 National Welfare Act. To my knowledge I have not found any great difficulties that welfare organizations have experienced as far as inspections are concerned. If they register as welfare organizations, obviously they know that they are subject to inspection at any time if it should be necessary. A certain procedure has to be adopted, however. The procedure is that the organizations are given notice. They are told that an inspection is to be undertaken. They have certain rights in terms of that inspection. For example, they have the right to put forward their case. If any documents are removed, they must receive a receipt and the documents may only be retained for a limited and reasonable period. They also know that being registered welfare organizations, action can be taken against them.

The provisions in clause 30 of the Bill before us, however, go much further than that. Reading these provisions, one would be led to assume that there is some sinister manner of carrying out inspections. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give further consideration to the aspects contained in clause 30 of this Bill.

There are various other matters one could comment upon, and I should like to comment on one of them. The hon. member for Bryanston referred to the provisions of clause 12(1) in relation to the accounting of financial activities. He said that all aspects of a person’s personal financial position, etc., would be taken into account.

The “holder” in clause 12(1).

Yes, the “holder” in clause 12(1). That is so. Reference is made to “every fund-raising organization, registered branch or holder”.

The “inspector” in clause 30(6).

I think it is only fair to indicate, however, that in this Bill that is now before us the hon. the Minister did make an alteration to the legislation as originally introduced and later withdrawn.

A new clause 12(4) is now contained in this Bill, and we in these benches particularly welcome the fact that clause 12(4) has been included because, on page 17 of the Bill, the following is stated—

In terms of this new Bill before us, a provision which did not exist in the draft Bill and did not exist in the Bill which was withdrawn, has therefore been introduced in terms of which an exemption can be granted.

At the Minister’s discretion.

Yes, at his discretion. That was, however, not there at all before. Now we at least have the position that in his discretion an exemption certificate may be granted. I believe that that is an improvement as far as this Bill is concerned.

After 30 years you are still naïve.

Well, perhaps the hon. member for Groote Schuur does not like that subsection. Perhaps he thinks it should not be there. I, however, believe it is an improvement in the Bill. We are entitled to our point of view and we are expressing that point of view. It is an improvement to the position that existed previously. An exemption can now be given which could not be given before. I think it is only fair to mention that point.

The question of temporary authority is another important aspect. We have experienced in South Africa a period of unemployment and, indeed, we are still experiencing such a period, and in terms of the 1965 National Welfare Act it was possible to grant temporary authority to collect contributions in this respect In clause 6 of the Bill before us such temporary authority to collect contributions is provided for, but this is applicable for a period of 90 days which can be extended for a further period not exceeding 90 days in aggregate, i.e. over a period of six months. An organization can offer temporary financial relief to those persons who are unemployed and to their dependents. A fund is established for that purpose and the unemployed and their dependents receive assistance as far as rent is concerned and also other social relief like food, clothing, etc. It seems a pity that this temporary authority should be restricted to a period of six months. I hope that, in view of the circumstances that may exist concerning the practical application of the granting of temporary authorities, the hon. the Minister will consider granting such authorities for a period up to a year. This would enable provision to be made for relief until the situation changes or until the funds that have been collected are no longer required.

The various service organizations have expressed concern at certain aspects of the Bill. Many of them launch fund-raising projects. Such a project may run for a year after which it may be handed over to some organization. All such service organizations will in terms of the Bill require to be registered as fund-raising organizations should they be raising funds from the public. Similarly, there are sporting bodies and sporting organizations which raise funds from the public by a variety of means. In terms of clause 7(11) these provisions shall not apply to persons who assist a fund-raising organization or one of its branches with the collection of contributions in connection with bazaars, competitions, entertainment, exhibitions or other functions. I hope the hon. the Minister can give some indication as to whether sporting organizations that are raising funds from the public will be subject to all the controls contained in the proposed legislation.

There are numerous other matters one could raise, but they are matters of detail which can be discussed in the Committee Stage. I refer to the application of various provisions concerning the machinery that is now being created for the control of fundraising.

I should like to say a few words about chapter II of the Bill which deals with the Disaster Relief Fund, the S.A. Defence Force Fund and the Refugee Relief Fund. We on these benches welcome the provisions contained in chapter II.

It is indeed important to see that, where possible, funds having a similar aim be brought together to ensure that the public will know that, in respect of contributions they make to a particular fund, that fund is being administered on a proper basis. As far as the S.A. Defence Force Fund is concerned, we know that a great deal is being done for our men defending our country on the borders. The public have given generously and I am quite sure that they will continue to give generously to the fund provided for in chapter II of the Bill.

We know we have to take steps to control the collection of funds from the public. We know that a large number of people and organizations are involved in collecting those funds from the public. That is why a Bill of this nature has to be viewed with the greatest degree of circumspection, to see that the provisions contained in the Bill will not in any way adversely affect that situation to the extent that our organizations in South Africa which have a great reputation here and indeed internationally are not interfered with in any way. As far as the existing organizations are concerned, one has to take into account that fund-raising by these organizations has, of course, been under the control of our National Welfare Board. On page 5 of the last report of that organization an indication is given of what steps had to be taken for the registration of organizations or for the withdrawal of those registration certificates. In fact, the withdrawal or the cancellation of certificates of registration took place in very few cases indeed. It is interesting to note that a number of registered welfare organizations surrendered their certificates of registration to the board in terms of section 23 of the legislation and that cases of this nature numbered 123 within a period of two and a half years. Of those 123 organizations, 114 voluntarily surrendered their certificates of registration when the organizations became defunct. It meant that the registrar had to deal with a number of organizations who were, in fact, no longer in existence. Only nine had their certificates of registration cancelled over that two and a half year period.

As far as the financial returns are concerned there are many organizations whose management committees did not meet the requirements of the National Welfare Act of 1965. It is obviously very difficult for an overall planned welfare service to be maintained in the country when one has a considerable number of organizations which are no longer effective. I mentioned earlier that exemptions were granted in a number of cases in the case of the rendition of financial statements. Over the two and a half year period covered by the report 38 organizations were granted exemption from the requirement to render financial statements in terms of the 1965 Act There are therefore provisions being re-enacted in this legislation which are already in existence in the 1965 Act.

The principle of this Bill is one of paramount importance, and we must see to it that there is a situation in South Africa where people are not adversely affected to the extent where the public will react unfavourably to legislation of this nature. That is why we have to view this legislation in a constructive manner. As far as we are concerned this legislation must be viewed in a constructive manner to encourage people to come forward and render financial assistance to our welfare organizations. To do that they must have confidence that those organizations are indeed achieving their aims and objects as set out in their constitutions, that the money which the public is donating, is finding its way to those organizations, and that they are utilizing those funds wisely for the benefit and welfare of the people concerned.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Umbilo one is grateful that, as was the case in the discussion of the previous Bill, he acted here this evening with great responsibility when he discussed the Bill in a very realistic way and took part in the debate. One is grateful that there is still an Opposition in this House which can act responsibly. Actually, one longs for the time when they were still the Official Opposition in this House. In contrast to the NRP the Official Opposition once again acted with the greatest irresponsibility through their chief spokesman in this debate, the hon. member for Bryanston. Anything by way of good order and well-considered measures is opposed by them. One gains the impression that they are acting as puppets in this House, puppets manipulated by means of strings pulled by bodies and persons from outside. They are manipulated by those people and do what they are told to do. I think the time has come for the Official Opposition to accept the responsibility of the duty which rests upon a responsible Official Opposition, viz. not to oppose everything that sounds like order or that is geared to bring about an orderly society.

When the Government comes to this House with a measure and that Bill contains elements of good order, it is consistently slated and opposed by the Official Opposition. One has to ask oneself the question: What is the reason for this? In my opinion the time has come for them to tell us very clearly what they wish to achieve thereby. We are dealing here with a very delicate piece of legislation and I want to say at once that in my opinion, the measure will be welcomed by the general public and not only by the public but by the fund-raising organizations themselves.

We have already drawn a clear distinction between welfare organizations, their place and the fact that they have to register as such. The legislation at present before the House provides that everyone who wants to raise funds for any purpose has to register. There are certain exceptions, but I shall deal with them later. From the point of view of the donor, the man on the street, there are three categories of fund-raising. In the first place, there is the contribution to which one is committed due to one’s membership of an organization, e.g. the church, one’s contributions to a school as a parent, etc. In the second place one gets those contributions made due to moral and social considerations, viz. for child care, old age homes, the blind, etc. In the third place we have the incidental contributions relating to a non-recurring event, e.g. a tour, a project being tackled, a disaster or other ad hoc contributions made.

I want to dwell specifically on the first group, viz. the contributions people make due to their links with an organization.

Clause 33(1) specifies the exceptions to which the provisions of chapter 1 do not apply and in respect of which fund-raisers may be exempted from registration. In the first place this applies to the State and local authorities; secondly, for religious work; thirdly, schools and fourthly, political parties. I wonder whether the Progs—and here I include the Herstigtes—ought not to be excluded from these activities. After all, they are not political parties but merely political nuisances. In the fifth place, universities and CATE’s are made exceptions and, in the sixth place, anyone who raises funds in terms of some law. In the seventh place, it also applies to funds raised by a person by virtue of his membership of an organization. These are the exceptions, viz. those cases where an organization does not have to register. However, it is important to bear in mind that collections must be solely for the purposes of and for the furtherance of the exempted organization or body. A good example in this connection is the simple one of a school which wants to build a pavilion from funds raised from the parent community. That school can obtain exemption from registration. This can be arranged by way of ordinance by the education authorities concerned. If, however, the school should decide to collect funds for the Cancer Association, for example—collections of this nature occur fairly often at schools— then that school has to register in order to obtain a temporary authorization or to operate as a branch of the main organization with their written permission.

I also want to dwell for a moment on the collection of funds by schools. Schools are largely dependent for their expansion programmes on voluntary funds from the public, parents and other well-disposed persons. Consequently, schools make growing use of these sources to obtain additional funds. However I think there are two “don’ts” which must be spelt out very clearly in regard to the raising of funds by schools. The first is that the school should confine itself chiefly to its own “feeder” areas, viz. should only request contributions from its own local community in the school’s immediate surroundings. Every school would like to obtain funds but a resistance is building up among the public because they are being approached for contributions from all sides. It sometimes goes so far that schools seek to raise funds in towns and suburbs far beyond their own areas. The public is the giver, the donor, in this framework and the fund-raisers must not, therefore, cause a resistance to build up among the public.

In the second place, I want to appeal to schools not to send pupils into the streets to collect from all and sundry. Apart from the safety risk involved—we have had examples of this recently—it cannot be justified educationally that children, sometimes primary school children, are sent into the streets to collect from door to door. On the contrary, it is in conflict with the official policy of the Transvaal Education Department that children should go from door to door asking for donations for school funds. However, this nevertheless happens, and I want to make an earnest appeal to schools to rectify this state of affairs. I have no objection to a child coming home with a request or a note from the school for his father to contribute to, say, the pavilion fund. The father can then assist the child to raise funds. The principle that a schoolchild, and more specifically the younger schoolchild, should become directly involved in the raising of funds is not educationally correct and should be frowned upon and discouraged as far as possible. I want to make an urgent appeal to headmasters not to send children into the streets with collection lists.

I now want to deal with the second type of donor, viz. those who contribute to funds or the coffers or organizations on the basis of moral or social considerations. In this connection it is necessary to determine the aim of the Bill. The primary aim of the legislation was clearly expounded by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech. Its aim is disclosure, divulgement to the public. The donor, the contributor, must have the right to know how his money is to be applied. This consideration is surely so logical and simple that one wonders why the Official Opposition opposes this Bill and what the basis is for this opposition and resistance. Surely this is a simple and elementary principle that is built into this Bill, viz. the registration of an organization as a fund-raiser and the provision that these organizations must tell the people who have contributed, how the money is spent Is that not a reasonable request? Surely the public is the primary and pre-eminent element without which funds could not be raised. The public therefore has a right to know what has become of its contributions and that information must be readily available. That is primarily what this Bill lays down.

Furthermore—and to me this is very important—the Bill will succeed in breaking down the built-in resistance among the donors which has developed over the years. It will then once again, be possible for the public to contribute with renewed confidence to funds and institutions. At the beginning of my speech I said that the Bill would be to the advantage of both the donor and the fundraiser. I want to repeat that the confidence between the giver and the receiver will be restored by this legislation and I believe that in the future, the donor will be more prepared to give more because he will know that it can be ascertained what has happened to his money. The principle of disclosure has been a principle of our society for many years, e.g. in the Companies Act, in terms of which financial statements are made available.

There is argument concerning the appointment of the Director of Fund-raising. One asks oneself why this is so because surely one has then to object on the same grounds to the Registrar of Companies and the Registrar of Financial Institutions, for example, who act as watchdogs for their specific institutions. Surely it is also the purpose of the Director of Fund-raising to act as a watchdog in his particular area of operations. The fund-raiser has the right to appeal in terms of clause 10. This is already spelt out here. The appeal court comprises a senior magistrate and two persons appointed by the Minister.

I cannot understand why the Opposition criticizes this appeal procedure. Apparently they regard a senior magistrate as an unqualified person who will not be capable of passing judgment in an appeal case. That is typical of how they want to handle matters. We know that the initial procedure to obtain WO status, is not always so easy. The present board only sits twice a year and there have at times been endless delays in obtaining approval. A full-time official can therefore only expedite disposal of the applications. The fund-raising organizations should therefore regard this as an improvement and not as an attempt at scare-mongering, as the Progs see it. This is purely a step to ensure that matters are facilitated and that approval can be granted more promptly and easily.

Clause 30 provides for the appointment of inspectors to inspect the books of collectors. The Opposition is now arguing about this clause. The hon. member for Bryanston made a big fuss about it. One asks oneself why they do this. Why are they attacking this clause?

What is their reason, and who do they want to protect? What collector is going to be afraid—the Official Opposition has sufficient time to reply to us on this point—of an investigation by an inspector? I want to say categorically that it could only be those who want to conceal unholy things. Those, on the other hand, that have nothing to conceal will not object to a visit by an inspector.

In conclusion, I want to dwell for a moment on non-recurring, temporary or ad hoc collections. A temporary authorization can be obtained from the Director in such a case. I want to request the hon. the Minister to make the handling of temporary authorizations as streamlined as possible. Delegation of power will really be welcomed in this connection so that everyone will be able to obtain a permit promptly and without difficulty. In practice it could occur that an organization or body might suddenly want a permit without delay for a specific fundraising campaign, and delays in connection with the acquisition of a permit could embarrass the organization. We should appreciate the assurance from the hon. the Minister that there will be no delay when a temporary permit is to be issued.

We on this side of the House should like to support this extremely important legislation, and we trust that it will motivate the public once again to make their contributions without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Gezina has painted a very simple picture of what he believes is intended by the Bill now before the House. He began his speech by congratulating the hon. member for Umbilo and his party for their attitude to the Bill and by expressing his disappointment at the attitude of the Official Opposition. I do not want to get myself involved with the hon. member for Umbilo or with his party. As the hon. member himself has said, they are perfectly entitled to adopt whatever attitude they wish in regard to any particular legislation. The only comment I would like to make is that I believe it speaks volumes when a Government so often and so effusively congratulates an Opposition party on the attitude it adopts in debate. However, we on this side of the House are here as an Opposition party to scrutinize the Government’s legislation against the background of the Government’s record and then to express ourselves and take our own decisions as to what we think of that legislation. When we look at the Bill before the House we believe that in its style and in its extent it is a totally unwarranted intrusion into the fund-raising activities of welfare and voluntary organizations in South Africa. No one says that there should be no control over the collection of funds. I think most people recognize that there can be abuse in these matters. I listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister introducing the Bill in order to try to ascertain what the real motivation is for a Bill which gives the Government and its officials such very extensive and excessive powers. I listened with great interest in the hope that there would be motivation which would justify this type of measure at the present time. The hon. the Minister told us that there was a need for two things. Firstly, he said, there was a need for accountability to be stipulated in regard to funds raised. In the second place, he said, it was necessary, in the control of funds, that this should be done in the open because the public’s money is involved. This is very interesting, but I must say in passing that I find it very ironic that all of a sudden now, this week, the Government is so conscious of the fact that monetary matters have got to be controlled in the open while last week still we were told about secret funds. We know that this has become a very fixed attitude on the part of the Government. So much for that in passing.

We find that the Government overreacts in the case of so many problems. This appears to have been the case also in regard to the necessity for this legislation. We have found so often in the past, and we find it again here, that the Government seems to be unable to resist the temptation to involve the legislative arm of government in trying to resolve any problems which may exist in South Africa.

If there is a problem, the attitude of the Government simply is that we must pass a law. And it must not be a simple law. The tougher and more far-reaching the law is, the better to deal with whatever the problem is. I do not want to use the word “ominous”—the hon. the Minister said there was nothing sinister in the Bill—but it certainly seems to be somewhat sinister when the Government introduces legislation which, in our view, imposes totally unreasonable control by the Government on normal and philantrophic activities of people in South Africa. We believe that there is a real danger that this Bill will achieve the opposite of what hon. members on the Government side say it intends to achieve. We believe that there is a real danger that this legislation will discourage ordinary people in South Africa from participating in these welfare and charity activities. We believe that there is a real fear …

Why?

Because I believe that people in South Africa are getting sick and tired of a control-mad authoritarianism which is creeping into almost every sphere of our national life. We are becoming a nation of form fillers, of permit receivers and of permit givers. We are becoming a nation dictated by applications for this and by applications for that. I believe that in the ordinary simple activities of collecting money for charity and for social welfare matters, to subject people to the sort of provisions as those contained in this Bill, indicates once again a super consciousness of the needs for control. People are going to have to make applications. People are going to have to apply for registration. People will have to have certificates issued to them. There will be a withdrawal of certificates. All these matters, in a word, indicate a totally excessive attempt on the part of the Government to deal with possible and reasonable control in the public interest against abuses in the collection of funds.

We are living in a harsh and a fast-moving world in which it becomes more and more difficult, I believe, to appeal to the conscience of the people to respect the plight of others, a world in which the trend is probably all too often for people to be selfish when they are confronted with the hardship of others. I believe, in this sort of situation, we are dealing with circumstances in which there is a need to encourage people to involve themselves in fund-raising activities for charities and for welfare institutions. I believe it needs full encouragement. I want to ask the Government and the hon. the Deputy Minister whether they really believe that the provisions of this Bill are going to result in encouraging people to take part in these activities. Rather than encourage them, the Government is placing further obstacles in the paths of people. They are enmeshing them in a red tape world of permits, of applications, of controls, of directives and of matters of this kind. I believe there is a need for the control of these matters to be kept to a minimum. I also believe that the Government should never lose sight of the fact that for the most part, in these welfare organizations, in all other organizations involved in fund-raising activities, they are dealing with voluntary people. For the most part these are not people who are paid to do these things. They are people who are doing it out of a feeling of charity, out of a feeling of wanting to do something for the community. They are people who are doing it for the sake of doing it, for the sake of wanting to do something good. Therefore, I believe, it behoves the Government, in matters of this kind, to make the activities of those people as easy, as acceptable and as simple as possible.

As I have said, we recognize that it is appropriate that there be some form of control to protect the public against indiscriminate collections of money by unauthorized individuals.

We have had that sort of legislation so far. One wonders just where that has gone wrong. The hon. the Minister says he has not been able to improve fund-raising activities outside of social welfare organizations. Again, however, we believe that if one looks at this Bill it is clear that it is excessively stringent, and we believe that it will adversely affect the participation of people in fund-raising activities, and inter alia, in the functioning of welfare organizations. Dealing specifically with welfare organizations, I should like to plead again that—even in terms of this legislation—there should be no duplicate registration for a welfare organization as both a fund-raising and a welfare organization. There is no need for such duplication. Where, in the other legislation we dealt with this afternoon, there is need for the registration of a welfare organization, why must that same organization be asked to register in terms of this Bill as a fund-raising organization? We will take the view that welfare organizations should be included in the exemptions which are referred to in section 33 of the Act. I would like the hon. the Minister to react specifically to that when he replies to the Second Reading debate.

Looking now in general terms to the Bill, there are a number of comments which can be made and which will sustain our objection and the objection moved by the hon. member for Bryanston on behalf of the Official Opposition in regard to the principles of this Bill. I shall return to some of them in greater detail later. In general terms, however, I would say firstly that one would object to the excessive powers given to the director who is created as some sort of super official to look after the affairs and activities of organizations involved in fund-raising.

Secondly one would look at the definition of the word “collect” and the definition of the word “contributions” in the definitions clause, these being so wide as to include collecting and accepting material assistance of any kind or any other kind of help. The definitions are ambiguous and I believe they will lead to great difficulties. I shall not bore the House by quoting them because one will have an opportunity of dealing with these definitions during the Committee Stage. I do believe, however, that when one refers to the actual collecting of funds, to contributions, one must make very clear indeed the extent to which one is acting on the contributions which are made and the extent to which one is referring to the control in respect of those contributions.

A third objection one would have to the Bill has been referred to before. I am speaking of the immense powers which the inspectorate has, powers of entry upon premises without warrant and powers of search which are totally indiscriminate. These are matters which again cannot be tolerated by voluntary organizations which are going to be subjected to the threat that at any stage their premises can be entered and the premises and records searched. This is hardly an aspect which is going to encourage people to involve themselves in the activities of those organizations.

There is another question I should like to comment upon. I am referring to the functions of the Disaster Relief Fund, the S.A. Defence Force Fund and the Refugee Relief Fund which are brought within the ambit of this Bill, functions which appear to be both executive and advisory. Obviously welfare work will be undertaken for all these organizations by other registered welfare organizations. It seems to me that there is something lacking in this Bill in the sense that there is no provision that would have the effect of co-ordinating the activities of those other welfare organizations which will be participating in order to contribute to any one of these three funds. One wonders what the hon. the Minister’s intention is, or whether he has any intention of in any way co-ordinating the activities of ordinary welfare organizations around South Africa which are going to be involved in contributing and collecting money for the Defence Force Fund, the Refugee Relief Fund or the Disaster Relief Fund.

Now I come to the fifth objection to the Bill, and this relates to the Director of Fundraising. He appears to have no relationship whatsoever with existing welfare organizations. One would think that there should be some sort of relationship between the director and the regional welfare boards, the S.A. Welfare Advisory Council and the Council for Social and Associated Workers. Does the hon. the Minister have any intention of seeing to it that there is proper liaison or association between the super-official, the director, who is going to be appointed in terms of this Bill, and those organizations? I believe that that is an important matter.

In the sixth place one could look at the matter which has been referred to by other speakers. I am referring to the powers of prosecution in terms of this Bill, powers which are very wide indeed. There is also the fact that the appeal provided for is a limited appeal to a board appointed by the hon. the Minister.

There is another matter that I know has concerned fund-raising organizations and welfare organizations around South Africa. I am referring to the ignorance about what is going to take place, in terms of this legislation, in regard to the regulations provided for in the Bill before the House. The welfare organizations and the fund-raising organizations have said that they are not only concerned with the actual contents of the Bill, which are frightening enough in the extent to which they go, but are also concerned about the fact that once the Bill becomes law regulations can be promulgated which will affect the operation of their organizations on a very wide-ranging basis indeed. I just briefly want to quote some of the provisions of clause 36 of the Bill. I quote clause 36(1), which reads as follows—

1. (a) the form of any application, authority, temporary authority, special authority, permission, special permission, notice, … required in carrying out the provisions of this Act;
2. (b) the information which shall be included in any report, return or statement to be furnished in terms of this Act;
3. (c) the financial year of fund-raising organizations or registered branches;
4. (d) any other matter which is required to be or may be prescribed under any provision of this Act;

So it goes on.

I will publish the regulations for comment before promulgating them.

That will certainly be of some assistance, but it is a matter in respect of which the organizations concerned have wanted reassurance. I hope the regulations will be more reasonable in their scope than the terms of the Bill, because if the Bill is to be taken as advance notice of what one may expect in regard to regulations that are to be published, I think that the fears of the organizations concerned will hardly be allayed.

The Bills were also published.

In general terms, one sees the Bill as a bad Bill in principle. Welfare organizations and the public will see it as a departure from the partnership principle. There has been reference by other speakers to the partnership between the Government and the private sector. I believe that this will be seen as a departure from the principle of partnership between the State and the private sector. Funds are collected only from the private sector and the manner of collection of such funds is in terms of the Bill going to be unnecessarily restricted by the State.

I want to look for a moment at the excessive powers that are going to be given to the Director in terms of this legislation. I have said that he is a super-official. In clause 3 of the Bill his authority is described in these terms: “The Director … shall exercise such powers and perform such functions as may be conferred or imposed upon him by this Act.” It goes on to say that the Director may, in addition, generally or in any specified case—

It goes on to refer to his power to grant authority to the management of any fundraising organization to collect contributions. That authority is a very interesting and very extensive authority. What sort of authority it is that can be granted to an organization? In the first place it is going to be authority that will be subject to conditions to be prescribed by the Director. Secondly, it is going to be subject to such other conditions as may be specified. Thirdly, the authority shall specify the area in which contributions can be collected. Then it shall specify the purpose for which contributions can be collected. Then it will specify the period over which they can be collected. The Director is the person who is going to determine the extent of this authority given to fund-raising organizations. The Director, too, has authority in terms of the legislation to receive objections to public notices regarding applications. He has authority to direct organizations to furnish such further information as he may deem expedient. He has authority to cause any application to be investigated. He has authority to cause organizations to give such further information as he may deem necessary. The Director has authority to register the branch of a fund-raising organization. He has authority to issue certificates. He has authority to prescribe the period of validity of such a certificate, the area to which it will apply and its purpose. Then, of course, he has authority to withdraw the certificate if he should deem this to be necessary. It is therefore an all-powerful official we are creating in this legislation. Let there be no illusions about that. We are creating a super-official with massive authority to deal with any one of the fund-raising organizations in terms of the operation of this Bill.

Reference has been made by the hon. member for Umbilo, the hon. member for Bryanston and others to the inspection rights in terms of clause 30. These are not minor rights of inspection. The Director or his inspector may at any time and without prior notice enter upon the premises of an organization or person without warrant and search such premises for money, documents, etc. He may demand delivery of securities, or of records, of such an organization. He may remove documents for examination. He may seize them if in his opinion they provide proof of any offence or irregularity. So it goes on. He may demand from such organization or person explanations of any entry in the records as he may deem necessary. He may interrogate people under oath or accept an affirmation from them. Sir, as I have said, this concerns people who for the large part are working as volunteers in organizations doing charitable work. If they know that they are going to be subjected to this sort of interrogation, to this sort of witch hunt on the part of a Government official, a single director who is given massive powers by this Government, the real danger is that people will say: Rather than get ourselves involved in the entering of premises, searches and interrogation, let us sit on the side-lines and do nothing. This is, I fear, the danger of this sort of legislation.

Are you afraid of that?

Yes, I certainly am afraid of it. An ordinary law-abiding person who wants to involve himself with charitable organizations does not want to get himself involved in a situation where he is going to be subjected to this sort of treatment by an official. If hon. members do not understand that, they will never understand anything. As I have said, these are voluntary workers who are giving their time to do good work in the communities wherein they live. So much for the provisions of clause 30, which I believe is a draconian measure. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not like the word “draconian”, but if these are not draconian provisions, I do not know what is.

We believe that this is a Bill which is not going to encourage people to participate in these activities and we oppose it because it gives the Government excessive powers and is more likely to hinder fund-raising in South Africa than help it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to examine more closely a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Boksburg. He dealt with the whole matter very thoroughly, but I feel that there are still a few points which could be further emphasized. I should also like to discuss the Disaster Fund. Before I come to that, however, I want to come back to what was said by the previous speaker. He asked a good many questions, and I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to him in full. In introducing the legislation, the hon. the Minister referred to the very thorough Van Rooyen report. In fact, I wonder whether there has ever been legislation in the past which could be based on such a thorough report. I wondered what the hon. members opposing the legislation were going to say. I told myself that they would be reduced to talking nonsense. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Musgrave, asked: “What is the real motivation?” He went further and repeated words which the hon. member for Bryanston had used. I can quote some of his words, although I have written down only some of them. He used words such as “sinister”, “strait-jacket”, “authoritarian”, “interrogation” and “Draconian”. These words must serve to frighten the whole outside world. This is the attitude which those hon. members have adopted here. He asked: “What is the real motivation?” One cannot help asking oneself: What is the real motivation of the Opposition in opposing the proposed legislation? One is entitled to ask this question, because we are dealing here with legislation which has been requested by the people involved in these matters, although it has been necessary to make minor amendments. It is well-considered legislation, but when one looks at some of the statements made in the Opposition Press, one sees where they originated. The hon. member for Bryanston raised a hue and cry. The hon. member for Musgrave did not make quite such a fuss, although he too made many allegations. It is very clear to me that that party’s opposition to the measure will serve to clip its wings. They cannot really do anything else, because certain things have happened. One asks oneself: Where did these things originate? I think it is sad that an Opposition should oppose a piece of legislation, not from conviction, but because they have been told to do so by their newspapers. Let me prove that this is the case here. In this connection I refer to the report which has already been referred to by the hon. member for Boksburg, the one in Beeid of 19 January. The report comes from the USA and concerns the Southern African Study Project. The report appeared in Beeid in January and read as follows—

Later on in the report it says—

In the light of this, one asks oneself: What right do these bodies in the USA have to dictate to us? In this report, the Van Rooyen report, we see that in the USA, too, welfare organizations are being called to account with regard to these aspects.

Let us look now at the general insinuations which are being made, for example, in The Argus of 10 April. I shall only quote a few extracts so that hon. members can see where the hon. member for Bryanston gets all his ammunition. To put it differently: Do these people not perhaps get their information from that hon. member, because how did it get to the USA in the first place? What do those people have to do with our legislation, a perfectly innocuous piece of legislation aimed at introducing a few disciplines? I quote the following sentences from The Argus—

Another passage reads—

So this is where he gets it from—

Further down in the report it says—

The report goes on in this vein. The following headline also appeared in The Cape Times of 29 March: “Boraine attacks Fund-raising Bill.” The report reads—

On the contrary. I state that this should encourage donations by the public. I could also quote what Dr. Oscar Wollheim said in The Argus of 10 October. He said—

This is the kind of propaganda which is directed against the legislation. Where did it start? Reference is made here to the Southern African Study Project of New York. One then gets the same kind of reference as the one made by the hon. member for Bryanston. One cannot help questioning their motives in this case.

I should like to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Boksburg in respect of certain aspects of the legislation. I think the question of the people who undertake fund-raising and the fact that it is not only done by welfare organizations must be emphasized. Several speakers on the other side have referred to welfare organizations. The hon. member for Musgrave said repeatedly: “These are voluntary organizations.” It is true that these people are doing this work voluntarily, but they have been subject to the discipline of registering under the welfare legislation in any event, and surely it is obvious that the way their funds are spent must also be subjected to that discipline. Surely, if someone wants to collect money voluntarily, he cannot be given a carte blanche; surely it does not mean that that man can be exempted simply because he is doing this work—as the hon. member put it—on a voluntary basis. There are other organizations, after all, such as educational, cultural, sporting, religious and political organizations, which have to be taken into account. One sometimes wonders whether these two hon. members of the Official Opposition perhaps neglected to read the Bill and the report properly and are perhaps under the impression that political organizations are also going to fall under this legislation, and whether this is perhaps what they are opposing.

I want to come to the question of the co-operation between the State and the public. I do not doubt for a moment that donators have withheld their contributions—we have sufficient proof of this—because the control by the State has not been sufficient. Many people want the assurance that the State exercises control. Surely it is clear that the rest have not been subject to any regulation. If the hon. members would look at the report, they would see that some of these organizations raised large amounts of money. Cultural organizations alone raised more than R4,5 million in one year.

As far as accountability is concerned, one asks oneself: Is it not fair towards the public that these organizations should be subject to this? Then there is the question of disclosure. After all, we know of so many people who have collected money under false pretexts and who have misled the public. We know that it would encourage people to contribute if we were to provide that the way in which the funds are spent is to be made public.

A further aspect which has been mentioned is the question of duplication. This is related to the cost aspect. The question of duplication and the cost which can be saved by eliminating it is a very important factor, as appears from this well-considered report.

There is also the question of vitality. There are more than 2 600 registered welfare organizations, and almost 40% of them did not take the trouble of replying to the questionnaires sent out by the commission of inquiry. This shows that there are organizations which are registered, but lack the necessary vitality. One sometimes wonders whether such organizations should not be subjected to greater discipline so that they may go under in the process and leave the field to those organizations that really can and want to do the work. I want to point out that almost 40% of these organizations have an annual income of less than R2 000. This testifies to a lack of vitality and to unsatisfactory organization.

Then there is the question of liability which is referred to in the report and has also been mentioned by the hon. member for Boksburg. Surely it is quite clear that there were many loopholes which had to be closed.

I should also like to refer to the Disaster Fund and to convey my personal thanks to the hon. the Minister and the commission. I do not want to discuss the other funds. Perhaps other hon. members will refer to them. As far as the Disaster Fund is concerned, we are now seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. Anyone who has lived in an area where there has been a disaster will be able to testify to the chaos there can be in such an area, and one of the reasons for this is the fact that there has not been one central disaster fund.

There are so many organizations which get involved in a disaster area, such as the Defence Force, the Police, the local town councils, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, agriculture, etc. I was involved in a great flood disaster in 1959. In the Van Rooyen Report the following crucial statement is made on page 101, in paragraph 10.08—

According to the Van Rooyen report, disasters are divided into three categories or degrees in some states of the USA. I think it is important to incorporate these categories into the regulations controlling the Disaster Fund. A modus operandi has to be worked out for this Disaster Fund, i.e. the action to be taken after a disaster. I understand on good authority that even three years after there had been a flood disaster and the area had been declared a disaster area and money had been collected, there were people who had still not been paid out. Immediately after a disaster—I am referring to the report again—there is the phase of emergency aid. Who is involved in this? The Red Cross, The First Aid League, the Police and the Defence Force, if they find themselves in the area, must act at once. Today there are civil defence units as well. These people may act. Then there is a fundraising phase when money is made available to people. Afterwards there is the rehabilitation phase, to which this report refers.

However, I should very much like this Disaster Fund to consider very carefully how it is going to act, whom it is going to involve and who is going to do what in the various phases. After a flood disaster on the Natal South Coast in 1959, a welfare official was appointed to evaluate the damage that had been done. I was asked to evaluate the agricultural damage which had been done mainly in Port St. Johns and on the Natal South Coast. People who had suffered tremendous losses were not helped. A Disaster Fund was started by the public and a large amount of money was contributed to it. People who did not apply were not helped, because they did not know about it. There were people who should not have been assisted and who nevertheless received large amounts of money, while other people got nothing.

I feel that this legislation will lead to a more disciplined approach and that all the organizations will be involved. During the recent floods in the Margate area, the Margate town council suffered enormous losses. Just one small piece of pipeline cost them R60 000 to replace. The people do not know whom to turn to. Actually, they do not want a disaster area to be declared. That is why I say it is important that we should think in terms of three categories so that it may be possible to consider the extent to which the people should be assisted. Can town councils be helped? What should they do? I can assure hon. members that at this stage, town councils do not know what to do, for only last night one town council asked me what their approach should be. I have seen in the newspapers that the assistance could perhaps be rendered through the province.

All things considered, we can only welcome this legislation. We fully support it. For my part, I think that it has already been discussed in detail by other hon. members on this side of the House, but I just wanted to mention these few matters in respect of the Disaster Fund.