Mr. Speaker, after the Forest Amendment Bill has been disposed of today, the House will continue to deal with the Order Paper as printed. Tomorrow the House will also deal with legislation.

†On Friday the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations will be discussed. On Monday we shall deal with legislation here in this House, while the Standing Committee will discuss the Votes of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in the Senate Chamber.

*On Tuesday the House will again deal with legislation, when the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill and the South African Indian Council Amendment Bill will come up for discussion.

The House will not meet on Wednesday, 31 May. Since it will not therefore be possible to announce the business for the ensuing week on that Wednesday, I shall do so now. On Thursday, 1 June, the House will continue to deal with legislation, while the Public Works Vote will be discussed in the Senate Chamber, if the Senate Chamber is available. On Friday, 2 June, we shall proceed to discuss the Education and Training Vote, and on Monday, 5 June, the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will come up for discussion. We hope to commence the discussion of the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill on Tuesday, 6 June.

Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee gathered a wealth of information and heard evidence covering every sector and subdivision of the timber industry. To those who heard the arguments, there was no doubt that between 80% and 90% of the industry as a whole was opposed to the principle of price control. It became clear that price control is in fundamental conflict with the free market mechanism and that price control will inevitably lead to greater control over the industry.

I want to say that price-fixing must inevitably lead to the establishment of quotas in the industry. To support this point I want to quote a question and its reply from the report. A question was asked of Mr. Liebenberg, a member of Satga, by the chairman of the committee. The question was—

Mr. Liebenberg’s reply was—

In South Africa, experience has taught us that the determination of quotas accompanied by price-fixing seldom leads to a more efficient application of production methods. Practically every witness who appeared before the committee, expressed the hope that the timber industry would not be subjected to ministerial control, because it is believed that price control will inevitably lead to total control of the industry, and very strong opinions were expressed opposing this.

If we look at other agricultural industries— I consider the timber industry to be part of the agricultural industry—and we look at those agricultural industries that are controlled to a large extent, we see that they are not without problems. In this regard I want to remind hon. members of industries like the meat industry and the dairy industry. Control and price determination definitely did not result in these industries becoming terribly profitable. We are all aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to whom he was actually referring when he said that between 80% and 90% were opposed to price control? Of what does that 80% form part of the volume of timber or of the number of growers?

I was referring to the industry as a whole. Therefore, I was not referring exclusively to the timber growers, but to the entire timber industry in South Africa. That is what I said. When we look at the question, we must go back in order to determine why the Malherbe Committee recommended that price control should be established. We must look at the complaints, the problems, mentioned by the growers. I think there were four main complaints.

Firstly, they alleged that they could not always negotiate profitable prices against the buyers. I think that this was one of the first reasons. Secondly, they alleged that in times of over-production—as is the case now—the market was not equally divided between the various people who were exclusively growers. Thirdly, it was alleged that since the timber processors also have their own plantations, they fall back on the use of their own timber during times of over-production. Fourthly, they felt that there was not always a fair division of profits in the industry, i.e. that the share of the growers’ profits in the timber industry as a whole, was too low.

I want to allege that the real problem is actually that of over-production in a shrinking economy in South Africa. I think this is the real problem and that we should look at it. In my opinion, the solution does not lie in determining prices, but rather in attempting to expand the use of timber. New uses for timber must be sought. New export markets must also be sought. From the point of view of the smaller grower, the person who is exclusively a grower, I feel that the solution may be found in co-operation between these people. I do not think I am alone in advocating this standpoint. I want to quote once again from the report what Mr. Ginsberg, who is also a member of Satga, said in reply to question 125—

Then the Chairman asked (question 126)—

Mr. Ginsberg’s reply was—

Then I want to quote from the evidence once again in order to support my viewpoint. Mr. Anderson—I think he is the chairman of Satga—replied to question 132 as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is a trend in South Africa, when profits begin to shrink, to flee to the Government or the Minister for assistance. This is an unhealthy situation that prevails in South Africa. I feel that many entrepreneurs and farmers should try to help themselves by organizing themselves. I want to put it clearly that the co-operative movement is by no means in conflict with the free market mechanism. On the contrary, it fits in very well. I believe that in this case, where there are problems in connection with overproduction and also shrinking prices, that is where the solution is to be found, rather than in the fixing of prices.

A final aspect that I want to raise in this regard, is that there is a belief in the industry, even among those that are exclusively growers, that arbitration may be able to solve the problem between the buyer and the seller. Proof of this can also be found in the report, and I want to quote the following very short extract in order to illustrate it—

I feel that the answer to these problems was given to us by some of the members, and particularly the members of Satga, in the course of the investigation by the Select Committee.

Just before I resume my seat, I want to raise a final aspect, i.e. the question of arbitration. Last night the hon. member for Ermelo apparently did not quite understand the difference between arbitration and the fixing of prices by the hon. the Minister. I do not want to quote directly from his speech, but I want to put it very clearly that the power of the hon. the Minister of Forestry to fix a price very clearly does not constitute arbitration. Granted, it is the final decision by one person on the basis of information provided to him by the industry. However, it is clearly not arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member: How else does an arbitrator determine the price on the basis of information submitted to him?

The arbitrator gathers information on an absolutely independent basis and in this case both the buyer and the seller would have the right to state their case. For the rest, use will be made of all information that the arbitrator might need. The arbitrator is absolutely independent, however, in the decision he takes. In this case it cannot be said that the hon. the Minister is absolutely independent within this situation.

Why not?

Because he is a Minister.

The answer is that in the first place, the hon. the Minister is also head of a department that is itself engaged in forestry. This is one very important aspect. Secondly, it is so because the hon. the Minister is necessarily a politician too—in this case I have no quarrel with the hon. the Minister himself. He cannot detach himself from this, and that is why I believe he cannot say he will be absolutely independent in the decision he must make. Sir, I have now stated all my arguments.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the speech by the hon. member for Wynberg, I wánt to refer briefly to a report that appeared in Die Transvaler of 17 May. It is clear from the report that the Parks Board is going to open some areas in the Kruger Park for hikes by people who visit the park. Since the Parks Board is apparently following the good example of the Department of Forestry now and also arranging hikes, I feel that one should be able to co-ordinate the efforts in this sphere a little more by linking up that service with our hiking way service.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, like the hon. member for Wynberg, referred in his speech to “the majority” of evidence before the Select Committee that was allegedly opposed to the price arrangement proposed in the amending Bill. The hon. member for Orange Grove expressed it as follows—

The hon. member for Wynberg, in turn, said that 80% to 90% of the witnesses were opposed to the idea of a regulation of prices. However, the fact remains that the majority of the witnesses that testified before the Select Committee, were representative of the secondary and tertiary sectors of the industry, and not of the primary growers. It is true, however, that those people are also large growers themselves. For argument’s sake, if we had two of them now and ten of the smaller growers, one would be able to turn that argument around and maintain that the majority of the witnesses were in favour of the price regulation proposed in the Bill. Therefore that argument definitely does not hold water. The majority of the people who gave evidence before the committee, were in favour of price regulation because they were in the majority, and not because they had a majority interest in it. Nowhere in their arguments have hon. members suggested that they have invested the major share of capital in the industry. They merely spoke about the preponderance of evidence and this is true because they were greater in number.

I want to come to other aspects of the criticism expressed. Another objection of hon. members of the Opposition was that if the hon. the Minister should determine too high a price as arbitrator, it would have a detrimental effect on the export market. Then the hon. member for Mooi River pointed out that difficult circumstances prevail as regards the export market in the forestry industry. We take it that if the hon. the Minister has to determine a price, he and his advisers will give careful consideration to the difficult circumstances in the export market, and therefore the hon. member’s argument too, before a price is determined.

Another aspect of the criticism which hon. member of the Opposition raised, is the detrimental effect on capital investment in the industry. But a price regulation will in fact promote capital investment in this specific industry in a certain sense precisely because it will encourage the smaller investor, grower or landowner to invest money in timber or planting forests because for the first time he would then be assured that he too would have a say in the price of his product. The dialogue concerning price regulation has come a long way. We had a witness, a witness whose credibility I regard as unimpeachable, who referred expressly to this aspect. He expressed it as follows on page 35 of the evidence—

This is the evidence of a man who has been in a leading position in this industry for more than 20 years. Over more than 20 years, these people have been unable to come to a satisfactory agreement with the buyers on price regulation. Now it may happen that this small investor, this small entrepreneur, may also afforest his land, knowing that there is a price regulation that can protect him in this regard too. We are then authorized to offer him this as well.

Another factor that was raised as criticism, is that a price regulation that places too high a price on roundwood, would discourage its use and lead to replacement material being used, inter alia, in the mines where concrete or steel structures could be used instead of wooden props. From the interview that the Select Committee held with the witnesses, it is apparent that one of the basic problems is the cost involved in the transport of material. If we draw a comparison between the transport cost of steel, concrete and timber, we find that timber is still the cheapest to transport. The mines will not soon change to using other material, since timber is more easily handled by the labourer in the mine, it is a cheaper material and so far it has been used with great success. I want to point out once again that this dialogue among the seller, the smaller grower and the large buyers has been in progress for a long time, but that they have not yet found satisfaction.

I now want to raise another matter. The smaller grower afforests marginal land, land which is actually intended or earmarked, or should be, for timber production. Those people do not afforest their good agricultural soil, that soil that is suitable for other agricultural crops. We have detected the tendency amongst the large capital-strong producers to purchase farms and afforest them completely. This is not in line with our agricultural policy. Territories or land suitable for agricultural crops, must remain available for food production. Nevertheless we find that these people place those areas belonging to them, entirely under trees, while the smaller producer is forced to keep his agricultural land for other agricultural crops. The good agricultural land therefore remains intact for agricultural production.

If we take into consideration the objections—which have already been referred to— of the larger producers, who are processers and deal with the further processing of timber, we find that there is a fear—this is also apparent from the evidence—that the price regulation envisaged by the Bill, will lead to control of the entire production.

If we read the evidence and listen to the evidence of the smaller grower, we see that they are not so afraid of a control board. This, again, may be deduced from the basic dialogue. Now one can use the old expression and say: “It is as plain as a pikestaff” that if these people can come to an agreement, the hon. the Minister’s intervention is not necessary. However, we gain the impression from, as those people call it, the bulk of the evidence, that the smaller man has never gained satisfaction over this long period of development from his conversations with those larger producers as buyers. He has never had the assurance that he would receive that share of the profit, the market and the industry that is his due.

In this climate we are making this arrangement and asking the people in the larger industry to lend a sympathetic ear to the smaller producer, the grower, so that they can agree on a basis of action. This is a fair arrangement. The hon. the Minister’s intervention is then not necessary. During the Second Reading the hon. the Minister said very emphatically that he was not going to abuse his powers. I do not think an hon. Minister has ever done so.

I should like to support the amendments in this Bill, because I think it embodies a sound understanding of this fine industry in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the arguments, particularly those concerning clause 5 of the Bill. It is of course regrettable if a Bill was referred to a Select Committee with the idea that the discussion there, and in the consideration of evidence and the hearing of various viewpoints, they would succeed in reaching an agreement, and this does not occur. Now we find that the arguments which were used there and which have been used in the industry for years, are being repeated in this House. But fortunately I can also state that the Select Committee succeeded in finding a clause that accommodates the conflicting interests of the parties to a large extent. There are still differences of opinion on the matter as we have heard here, but in my opinion the recommendations of the Select Committee seem to come closest to an acceptable compromise.

Consequently, I should like to begin by dwelling on that for a moment and saying that I agree with the arguments of the hon. member for Ermelo. It seems sensible to me that the concept which applies in clause 9, viz. arbitration, should in reality apply in this clause too. The hon. member for Wynberg says he does not agree with it because, he maintains, it is the Minister who is going to decide here. In the other case, an arbiter takes the decision. In this case the evidence is put before the Minister—another Minister or myself—and in the light of that evidence, from both sides, he takes a decision. Something else which applies in the case of clause 5, is that the Forestry Council is representative of the various groups, and the Minister only takes a decision after consultation with the Forestry Council. Therefore it seems to me that we cannot argue that where in one case the Minister accepts an arbiter when there is a dispute on prices between his department and private contractors, or people who buy timber in the round on a long-term basis from the department, it is in order, but as soon as certain growers feel that the Minister should act as an arbiter when there is a dispute between them and other buyers, this principle should not apply. I want to leave it at that, except for telling the hon. member for Wynberg that in most cases like these the Department of Forestry does not have any interests, as he indicated. The Department of Forestry has more of an interest in the bigger sawlogs and probably in pulpwood, but the disputes of the past have for the most part concerned interests which did not really affect the department or affected them to an extremely insignificant extent.

Furthermore, I have to point out that this matter has developed over many years and has not emerged now merely as a result of over-production. The dispute goes back a long way, as the hon. member for Standerton and other speakers pointed out. We have here a conflict of interests between a large number of small growers and the major producers and processers, and that is why I put the question to the hon. member for Wynberg when he stated that 80% to 90% of the industry is opposed to price control. It is a dispute between the smaller growers on the one hand and the buyers and bigger producers on the other. That is what is at stake. That is why I ask the hon. member whether he was referring to the number of producers. The position is then in fact, that the larger number of producers favour control because they feel that they have no bargaining power. When we talk about volume, however, it is those people who produce the greatest volume who do not want control and who are also opposed to price fixing because they believe that they could be adversely affected.

I also want to express my appreciation towards all hon. members who took part in the debate. I appreciate their objectivity. The hon. members who participated in this debate, were all members of the Select Committee as well. As I said at the beginning, I feel that as far as I am concerned we did arrive at a solution which could be useful in the future. The hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Wynberg hold the view, however, that it could lead to the establishment of a control board. I do not believe there was ever any mention of a control board—not in the Select Committee and not in the Bill either.

It is inevitable.

A control board is not inevitable. As far as I am concerned, it will not follow. I should rather say that the opposite is true. Once we have satisfied the smaller growers that arbitration will be available to them, that there will be an avenue open to them, I think those of them who are in favour of a different marketing set-up will be satisfied. Therefore I believe that quite the opposite is true. I also believe that the acceptance of clause 5 of the Bill will do much to prevent further agitation for a control board. The hon. member for Orange Grove seems to believe or to assume two things. Firstly, he assumes that the Minister will determine prices to the detriment of the processor. I want to tell the hon. member that just the opposite may be true.

It may very well be the other way round.

It could be either way. However, the hon. member cannot just accept or assume that the decision will favour the grower. The second thing the hon. member for Orange Grove seems to believe is that this could ultimately lead to a control board. I do not think one should jump to this sort of conclusion.

*I just want to reply to certain representations by the hon. member for Mooi River, although he is not here at the moment. He appealed for someone to take the lead with a view to the introduction of a single producer organization. I want to point out to the hon. member that my department and I have already taken the lead. I have written to the two organizations. It is very interesting to note, however, that the very fact that there are two organizations, the South African Timber Growers Association and the Forest Owners Association, is what this whole issue is about. A large number of small producers feel that they constitute the majority of the producers. They clash with the smaller number of growers who produce a larger volume and who are processers as well. That is why there is not a single body. Formerly they all formed part of one body, but because they clashed about the same matters that we are arguing about today, and that resulted in a Select Committee being appointed, they founded two bodies. So it is not that easy to get these people to agree. As I indicated yesterday, a Federation of Timber Growers Associations has now been established. It was established by these two interest groups. Unfortunately, however, these people talk about everything but those things on which they disagree. Consequently we are most probably not going to succeed in reconciling these conflicting interests in another way. I want to state clearly that there are two issues on which they differ. In the first place, the small growers want to be represented in accordance with their numbers on an executive or committee. They want to have a say in accordance with their numbers. The major growers want representation in accordance with the volume they produce. So there is a direct conflict as regards these two approaches. One group wants one man, one vote, while the other group wants to protect its interests. This is the kind of conflict we find all over the world. I do not know whether we will ever be able to bring about a reconciliation. For that very reason I want to thank hon. members who served in the Select Committee for succeeding in finding a middle way. This is a compromise which in my opinion should be acceptable to both sides.

A second aspect on which these two groups are diametrically opposed, is whether there should be control or not. I just want to mention in general that there are surely many different forms of control. When the Government puts legislation on the Statute Book to effect a measure of control, it does not necessarily follow that the Government must interfere to such an extent that private enterprise is adversely affected. As I said during the Second Reading debate I am 100% in favour of private enterprise. Nevertheless it is necessary, in the interests of the broader community, for the State to interfere to some extent every now and then. We did interfere in this industry. For example, we introduced quality control in the interests of the industry. Everyone appreciates that it is in the interests of the industry. We do not argue about it, but in a sense it is Government interference. We do not allow the individual to sell any rubbish. Certain standards must be met. Those steps were taken to protect the whole industry. As far as prices are concerned, I feel that there must be arbitration. In this regard we could make a contribution which would lead to confidence in the industry being boosted. Therefore we must not come to conclusions which are not quite true in practice. According to legal opinion there is a provision even in the existing Act which authorizes the Minister to control the volume and therefore to grant quotas. That provision has existed all these years, but the Minister has never yet made use of it. Nobody has objected to it and I assume that when this provision was incorporated in the Act at the time, the people involved must have been aware that certain powers were being vested in the hon. the Minister.

Sir, that is all I want to say about that. It does not seem to me as if we are going to benefit from any further arguments about this. I just want to point out to hon. members that the arguments which they submitted with regard to certain matters about which they are concerned, are not firmly based. As the Minister, I believe that we have found a compromise in this case which should be acceptable to both parties. It is important that hon. members should not regard this measure as a prelude to total control. In point of fact it represents an effort which will lead to people ceasing to agitate for general control. Finally, I want to express my appreciation once more for the positive contributions made during this debate and also in the Select Committee.

If it becomes apparent that a control board is inevitable, will the hon. the Minister be prepared to rethink this legislation?

If we want to create a control board, we shall have to introduce the necessary legislation in Parliament. One needs legislation in order to do that sort of thing. At the moment we are far from passing that kind of legislation. The reply, therefore, is very clearly that everybody will have the opportunity to consider it, should it come to that. In so far as I am concerned, I want to say frankly that I do not think it will work, since we are dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances than those pertaining to other agricultural commodities.

So, you are against a control board?

I think that in so far as other agricultural commodities are concerned, a control board is a solution. In this particular case, however, I do not think it is.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—109: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; 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.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, D.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pyper, P. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raw, W. V.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.;Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; 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, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wessels, L.; Wood, N. B.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—15: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; 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. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in lines 18 to 23, to omit definition (v) and to substitute:

1. (v) “national council” means any organization which in terms of its constitution has been established to organize and represent on a national or provincial basis welfare organizations pursuing objects which correspond substantially, and to promote, propagate and co-ordinate the interests, objects and activities of such welfare organizations and to act in an advisory capacity for such organizations;

1. (2) on page 3, in lines 5 and 6, to omit “Advisory Council” and to substitute “Council”;

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate on this Bill we put a number of very pertinent objections to the hon. the Minister and appealed to him to consider those objections. We also gave notice to the hon. the Minister that we would in the course of the Committee Stage introduce a number of amendments that we hoped would improve the provisions in this Bill. We are considerably disappointed that the hon. the Minister has not seen fit to introduce amendments of his own to meet the objections which we made and which were, in fact, a reflection of objections which were felt outside the House by those organizations and people who would be affected by this legislation.

Name them!

The hon. the Minister has given notice of one or two amendments which meet with our approval, for instance, the amendment which he has just moved to remove the word “advisory” from the name of the S.A. Welfare Advisory Council.

At this, the very first, opportunity I would like to refresh the hon. the Minister’s memory with regard to the major objections which we have to the Bill. The Minister in bringing this Bill before the House has set out to produce once again a vast new bureaucratic structure in order to control, in almost all facets of their activities, the social welfare work of the large numbers of organizations that operate in this field in South Africa. The hon. member for Sandton, in a previous debate, referred to the fact that the Public Service Commission had tremendous problems to staff the new bureaucratic structures which proceed from legislation introduced in this House every year. It is a problem which the commission has. Parliament is producing new bureaucratic structures like a sausage machine is producing sausages. Now this hon. Minister is contributing, to it by the production of a further new bureaucratic structure in this particular Bill. Our first objection is therefore against the fact that the hon. the Minister is creating and imposing a Government bureaucratic structure upon the social welfare structure and its work in South Africa. This structure will tend to over-control the activities of social welfare workers and organizations and thereby stifle initiative and enthusiasm which is so vital for the success of those organizations.

That is utter nonsense!

The second objection we have is the fact that the hon. the Minister frustrates all the principles of democracy in the structures that he is creating in this Bill. That is so because the organizations he is creating are organizations which will be created by the hon. the Minister by appointing people to serve on these bodies. We believe that this is counterproductive, because what the hon. the Minister is going to create is not bodies which are democratically elected and therefore representative of the social welfare organizations, but bodies which are created by the hon. the Minister of persons who will be responsible to him, who will be seen to be persons appointed by him and who will therefore lack the confidence, trust and credibility which is so necessary to make their work effective. Even as far as the appointment of staff and office-bearers is concerned, the hon. the Minister takes unto himself the right to make those appointments, while these organizations are denied the privilege and the right of electing their own office-bearers or of appointing their own staff.

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

Mr. Chairmán, that hon. member is wasting my time. If he puts his question in speeches across the floor I shall answer them when I speak again. A third objection is that the structures which the hon. the Minister creates fail totally to provide co-ordination between the various bodies and persons that have an interest in the application of the provisions of the Bill. Surely, co-ordination in this particular field is absolutely vital. What one, therefore, has, as in this case, is a vast number of organizations operating over a very widely dispersed field and one then sets up bodies to control those particular activities …

Do you realize that we are already in the Committee Stage and that we have finished the Second Reading debate in the Bill?

Yes. I am entitled, however, in my first speech to cover the broad principles in terms of which we would like to debate the Committee Stage. When one has to deal with organizations of this kind, whose activities are dispersed throughout the country, and if one creates bodies to control the work of those organizations, it is absolutely vitally important to see to it that the co-ordination between the various organizations should be effective. The various organizations should, in other words, be represented on those bodies in which they have an interest so that the efficiency that can be derived by proper co-ordination can be extended to the work which these bodies do. What the hon. the Minister is creating here, however, are a number of bodies which are isolated from one another. They are so effectively compartmentalized that it is doubtful whether anyone of them will know what is being done by the others operating in precisely the same field.

There are two more points that I want to mention briefly. We also have the strongest possible objection to the fact that the hon. the Minister is providing for the creation of an apartheid structure in respect of the provision of social welfare services in South Africa. This Bill is in fact not providing for common social welfare services to serve the people of South Africa as a whole with all the advantages which will flow from the efficiency which is derived from that, but is creating an apartheid structure with all the disadvantages which will flow from that. At a later stage we shall also make reference to the fact that the hon. the Minister does not provide for ah appeal to the courts when an organization is aggrieved by a decision of the regional welfare boards which are provided for.

I now wish to move the amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

A “registered branch” is defined in the Bill as—

We would like to avoid a “registered branch” being defined in terms of another Act. We would like to see it being defined and provided for in terms of this legislation. We have previously pointed out that the dual requirements of an organization of registering both as a welfare organization and as a fundraising organization, with all the red tape, work, cost and delays that are involved, should be avoided at all costs. Organizations that pass the scrutiny of the provisions of this Bill and which can prove that they are satisfactory in terms of the requirements as set out by the hon. the Minister in this Bill, should not have to re-register as a fundraising organization, but that it should be accepted that such a body is entitled to go ahead to raise funds and to do its work without the intervention or the interference of the very restrictive measures which appear in the Fund-raising Bill which is also before the House. We would therefore like to free those organizations of those provisions and we would like to deal with welfare organizations and their branches purely in terms of clause 13(2) of the Bill before the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston actually repeated his Second Reading speech this afternoon. I want to make a few remarks on the introductors part of his speech. He actually said very little about his amendment. In fact, the amendment on the Order Paper seems quite innocent, but after the explanation which the hon. member furnished, it is clear that it means much more. The hon. member alleged once again that this legislation was bureaucratic, that it frustrated democracy and that it impaired co-ordination between the private sector and the public sector. I very briefly want to place this aspect into perspective, although the hon. member has already received a reply in the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate. The real objection of this member and his party is that the regional councils and the National Welfare Board are appointed by the hon. the Minister and are not elected. Surely this legislation is the result of the findings of the commissions of inquiry, viz. the Van Rooyen Commission and the Auret Commission. In his reply to the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister pointed out that there were three members constituting the Van Rooyen Commission, two of whom represented the private sector, and only one of whom was a public servant. Seven members served on the Auret Commission, of whom five represented the private sector. In other words the private sector actually made the real decisions on these commissions and therefore, as far as the fundamental principles of the Bill are concerned, played a direct role. Therefore, the Bill is in point of fact the result of the opinion of the community.

Indeed I think the Bill is aimed specifically at stirring the community to perform welfare service once again by co-ordinating and regulating these efforts properly. However, at the same time the Bill is aimed at establishing discipline. The problem of the hon. member and his party is that as soon as one starts talking about discipline and proper order, they drag in all kinds of other spectres because it does not suit them. Some of these organizations use these people for purposes other than welfare purposes, and this is one of the big problems. [Interjections.]

What do you mean?

We are still going to have some enjoyable debating in this respect this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bryanston can keep us busy, but we will tackle them one by one. They can come with their arguments. In fact, we are looking forward to it because the hon. member started using this type of argument right at the outset. [Interjections.] The hon. members must remain calm; we are still going to tackle one another this afternoon.

The hon. member’s amendment concerns a definition, viz. the definition of “registered branch”. Clause l(x) provides—

I think this definition puts it beyond all doubt that the branch, and not only the main organization, should be registered as a fundraising organization. I now want to come to the definition in the Fund-raising Bill to which the clause refers. Perhaps the hon. member should read this in the meantime so that he can discuss it later. Clause 1(1)(vii) defines “branch” as follows—

Therefore it seems as though the hon. member is not distinguishing between a national organization and a registered branch of the national organization. Seen from this point of view, I do not believe that the hon. member’s argument makes any sense. The hon. member referred to clause 13(2) which reads—

Surely this does not define the term “registered branch”. The hon. member’s problem is with fund-raising organizations. The hon. member should at this juncture move his amendment in such a way that it will help him with his later amendments to clause 13. As far as fund-raising organizations are concerned, the hon. member and his party wants only an organization which does welfare work, and therefore the hon. member is trying to give effect to his party’s attitude towards this legislation, viz. that the legislation is moving away from private initiative in the direction of State control. The hon. member’s amendment will mean that a registered branch of the National Welfare Council will not also be registered as a fund-raising organization. I think the hon. member actually admitted this in his plea. This is the background to all the amendments to the Bill by the hon. member and his party. I do not think that the hon. member and his party are so opposed to this legislation; to them the real issue is the Fund-raising Bill, to which they have more serious objections. If we give way on this apparently innocent amendment, we would be forced to give way on other amendments as well. There can be no confusion concerning the definition of the term “branch” in clause 1 of the Fund-raising Bill. On the contrary, I think it affirms the connection between this Bill and the Fundraising Bill.

Mr. Chairman, at Second Reading we in these benches clearly stated our attitude towards this Bill, views which basically aim at comparing this legislation with the National Welfare Act of 1965 and thereby trying to ascertain whether an improvement is being brought about by this legislation. We came to the conclusion that there are improvements in many respects. However, we also indicated that we would seek further information from the hon. the Minister in the Committee Stage of this Bill. Clause 1, which is now being discussed, deals with definitions and does contain certain important aspects. The first amendment moved by the hon. the Minister proposes to omit the word “advisory” from the title of the council. This means that the council will not purely act in an advisory capacity, but will have certain specific functions in terms of which it will be able to exercise authority. We intend to discuss this matter further when we come to the clause dealing with the establishment of that council.

The second amendment of the hon. the Minister deals with the definition of a “national council”. One can compare his definition with the one contained in the clause before us, which specifically stipulates that a national council shall be recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, one finds that the amendment of the hon. the Minister does not stipulate the recognition of the national council as such. Consequently, because of the importance of these national councils—in the course of the debate the question of co-ordination has been raised—it has been necessary to amend the National Welfare Act of 1965 to try to improve the basis of co-ordination. We know that the national councils play an extremely important role in bringing about co-ordination. Organizations which have similar aims and objects will therefore form themselves into a national council. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, on the basis of his amendment, it will still be necessary for national councils to be registered as welfare organizations or to obtain some other form of recognition from him, his department or his Secretary, because his proposed amendment does not stipulate that any basis of recognition is necessary. That is why I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give an indication in this Committee Stage whether the fact that the definition he proposes will obviate the necessity for the national councils to register as welfare organizations or to be recognized by the hon. the Minister or the Secretary of the department as being a national council. Obviously the national councils consist of welfare organizations which will be registered as such in their own right. However, there might be occasions when national councils will employ professional staff and render certain welfare services as defined in clause l(xv). I want to ask whether, if they are engaged in that field of operation and employ persons who are subsidized by the Government, it is necessary for these national councils to be registered as welfare organizations.

The other matter deals with the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. In this regard I can see that there is a difficulty with regard to dual registration, as mentioned in the Second Reading debate. In terms of this clause “registered branch”, in relation to a welfare organization, means a registered branch as defined in clause 1 of the Fund-raising Bill, 1978. In this regard the difficulty of dual registration does arise, and, consequently, we in these benches would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give further clarity in regard to the question of dual registration, particularly where it has to do with registered branches of registered welfare organizations. This is obviously going to be a difficult matter as far as some of our welfare organizations are concerned, because, as far as I am aware, every welfare organization has to appeal for funds at some time or other and will therefore have to be registered as a fund-raising organization. This will necessitate a dual registration. The position as far as the registered branch is concerned, is one that does require further clarity from the hon. the Minister so as to indicate what the position is as far as registering is concerned with a registered branch.

As I have said, the definition clause is an important one and it is our object to obtain further information from the hon. the Minister on it. We shall also require further information on the other clauses and we shall also move the amendments of which we have already given notice.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston started in the same vein as during the Second Reading and immediately began casting suspicion on this Bill again. As he has made a number of statements, I should now like to take the opportunity to reply to them. The hon. member accused us of creating bureaucratic structures. We should like him to give us a definition of what a “bureaucratic structure” is. If he reads the legislation carefully, he will see that in the case of all these structures being created by this Bill, more than 90% of the people who will man the bodies, will come from the private sector. There will not be more than one official serving on a regional welfare board. For the rest it will be people from nomination lists, nominated by the welfare organizations themselves. When it comes to the National Welfare Board, it will be people with expert knowledge and people who have proved themselves as experts in the various fields. There is no question of officials manning these structures. These will be structures consisting of the top people in the welfare organizations. They will also have the opportunity to nominate people when it comes to the regional welfare boards. Therefore I am totally unable to understand the hon. member’s allusion to bureaucracy.

The hon. member also suggests that there will be too much control and he used the word “over-control”. Then, in the next breath, he says that there will be too little control, for with this decentralization, it will result in confusion.

I said there would be no co-ordination.

When I look at the hon. member’s amendments, he suggests a top structure which should exercise great control. He suggests structures with additional functions, apart from those suggested in the Bill. Therefore I should like to point out to the hon. member that one cannot have one’s bread buttered on both sides. He cannot say there is too much control and then introduce additional control in his amendments. The hon. member should try to understand the effect of this Bill. The effect of this Bill will be that there will be less control, in the first place because under this Bill, it is not compulsory for a welfare organization to register, and less control in the sense that duplication is eliminated. What is planned in a region, will now be implemented in that region. It will not be necessary to refer the matter to another board for approval. The people who draw up the plans, are also the people who will implement the plans. This is as democratic as you can get. The structures being established here, do not actually have controlling powers. The only power of control is the registration which rests with the regional welfare boards. The rest concerns planning, co-ordination, advice and the gathering of knowledge and information. I do not know why the hon. member is so worried about the control. We are not dealing with fund-raising legislation. The control aspects of the present Act have been transferred to the fund-raising legislation and therefore we can argue about control when we are discussing that Bill.

Then, in his customary fashion, the hon. member spat out—as I am tempted to describe it—the word “apartheid”. He does not even say it in an ordinary manner. He says it in a manner which makes it sound as though we are placing people in this country into compartments, into watertight cubicles, and as though no free exchange of knowledge takes place here. [Interjections.] He ignores the fact that I have told him that this welfare board will, in all probability, be multinational. Our intention is that this council should be multinational. I have put this very clearly to the hon. member. Therefore the situation is not as he says it is. Surely it is not true that everything is being separated into watertight compartments. Therefore I want to tell the hon. member that apartheid is not at issue here. I want to accuse him of using the word “apartheid” deliberately, while he is aware of the fact that this is a word which has become a caricature in the world, and that it is irresponsible still to talk of apartheid today. This is no longer a valid word. [Interjections.]

I wish to affirm that this Bill provides— and we intend implementing it in this manner—that there will be self-determination by the various peoples and population groups concerning the welfare of their own people. This is the direction in which we are moving. This is according to the mandate which we have from the voters. It is because the PFP does not perceive that truth that there are so few of them in this House. I do not want to hide the fact that we are here heading for a division of powers.

Rather use the word “apartheid”. We all know what it means!

We believe that the division of powers is a sound principle. However, now I wish to reverse the argument. Neither am I doing it merely for argument’s sake. When one reads the amendments of the hon. member for Bryanston, it appears that he wishes to enforce his philosophy of forced integration in this manner. I shall prove this. We can debate this point more fully when we come to it. Hon. members will see that the hon. member, in all his amendments, wishes to ensure that all the Black people in this country will have special representation on boards. By way of entrenchment the hon. member also wants to ensure that Indians and Coloureds will have special representation. However, he makes no provision for the special representation of Whites on those boards. The hon. member wants a certain minimum representation of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians on the boards. If one does a few calculations, it appears that the welfare board would consist of a majority of coloured people.

Therefore it is in a certain sense true that even in debating this clause we are measuring one philosophy against another. On the one hand we are dealing with the philosophy of forced and complete integration. Expressed in political terms, this means a Black majority government as proposed by the PFP. On our side we put forward the philosophy of the division of powers in a fair manner, as well as the opportunity for everyone to determine their own affairs. [Interjections.]

Talk of spectres!

I am not seeing spectres. When we come to it, I shall read the precise figures out to the hon. member. If he is incapable of adding two and two, I shall do it for him.

The hon. member for Bryanston furthermore complained about the dual registration. In his usual responsible manner the hon. member for Umbilo also mentioned this. What hon. members must see, is that this Bill deals with welfare organizations, and nothing more. Another Bill has already been introduced—a Bill which we shall debate fully at a later stage—which deals with fund-raising. The separation of these two Bills now means that all fund-raising will now be dealt with in separate legislation. Therefore everyone who raises funds, will have to register under that Bill. The registration is only the beginning, for apart from the registration, the main purpose of the other Bill is the question of the publication and release of financial statements, so that these can be inspected by the public. We cannot have a dual administration to administer one group of fund-raising organizations in terms of one Act and another group in terms of another Act. Therefore, as far as fund-raising is concerned, everyone must register in terms of the Bill and satisfy the conditions and requirements of the legislation regulating fund-raising. However, it is true that some of these fund-raising organizations are also welfare organizations.

Some.

Yes, not all of them. This is why dual registration is desirable, because these two matters, i.e. fund-raising and welfare, do not necessarily have anything to do with one another. For instance, a shopkeeper who, at the same time, is a general dealer and has a restaurant licence, must have two licences. I can quote many examples of this to prove that if one does two different things in terms of two Acts, one must comply with the provisions of each Act. There are no ulterior motives as to why there has to be dual registration in this case.

On the one hand, all welfare organizations raise funds, as the hon. member for Umbilo said. Therefore we deemed it practical to say that an organization which wants to register as a welfare organization, should also be registered as a fund-raising organization. If hon. members can name me five welfare organizations which do not raise funds, I shall investigate this matter again, but our experience is that, at some or other stage of their existence, all welfare organizations are involved in fund-raising. However, the opposite is not true. It is not even true that all organizations which raise funds for welfare purposes, will be interested in being registered as welfare organizations.

There are examples of organizations which raise money for welfare purposes, but which simply pay the money raised to a true welfare organization. They simply say: “Here is money; use it.” Such an organization will not have to register as a welfare organization, for it is not interested in welfare planning, the regional plan which is drawn up, etc. It simply wants to raise funds for a particular purpose. Perhaps it feels sorry for the old-age home in its town. It simply wants to raise money to give them a donation. That, Sir, is why dual registration is necessary. However, I wish to point out that dual registration is not such a bugbear as the hon. members fear it will be. This is a non-recurring registration. An organization will have to fill in a form only once to register as a fund-raising organization. On the same day they can also fill another form to register as a welfare organization. Once such an organization has registered, they do not have to re-register. Therefore there is not such a mass of red tape involved here as hon. members are trying to suggest. This is how simple it is. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment by the hon. member either. That amendment relates to the question whether to have dual registration or not, and is aimed at eliminating dual registration. In his amendment the hon. member asks more specifically that a branch of a welfare organization should not have to register as a fund-raising organization and that such a branch should only register as a welfare organization. I have said I do not know of any welfare organizations that are not also interested in fund-raising. Therefore it is practical and logical that such an organization should register in terms of both Bills. It would be silly to register a branch of an organization as a branch of a welfare organization in terms of the Welfare Bill and then not to register it in terms of the Fundraising Bill. The philosophy is simply that hon. members have to separate in their minds the two matters of fund-raising and participation in terms of the provisions of this Bill. However, the opposite can happen. A branch of an organization may feel that, because it is affiliated to a national board, it does not necessarily want to register as a welfare organization. Therefore it can register as a fund-raising organization only. Therefore variations are possible and because variations are possible, it is a good thing to separate the administration of these two Bills.

The hon. member for Umbilo has asked me whether national boards would have to register. This will depend on whether the national boards want to become involved in the rendering of and the active participation in welfare services as such. In terms of the Bill a national board is free to decide that they only want to register their branches as welfare organizations and that they themselves will undertake the co-ordination between the various branches. They are also free to apply for registration through a branch, but they themselves can of course apply. The third variation is that only the national board will register. Wherever it may then register in terms of the idea of decentralization, it can carry out its activities through the branch, while the branch itself is only a supporting organization. Therefore there are quite a few different possibilities. However, I should like to see all national boards interested in welfare services, and all branches actively participating in welfare services, also registering in terms of the Bill.

Finally, with regard to the amendment of the definition of the term “national board”, I wish to point out that we have received representations. I hope the new definition will give greater satisfaction. One could have a long discussion on the question of whether a better definition could be found, but the important aspect of the definition as it now stands to be amended, is that a national board can determine its own acceptability or otherwise in terms of the Bill by formulating its constitution correctly. If its actual activities match its constitution, it will experience no problems. It will be able to nominate and participate in the functioning of the Bill. The concept of a sort of recognition has lapsed and therefore it now actually rests in the hands of the national boards themselves.

I just want to add that a national board can of course do more than the minimum requirements stipulated in terms of the definition. What we have here, therefore, are minimum requirements and a brief summary.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister is not going to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. In so far as the question of the putting of groups into categories or water-tight compartments is concerned, I should rather discuss that under the relevant clause when we come to it. I should like, however, to say something about the hon. the Minister’s explanation regarding dual registration.

Let us consider the case of a social welfare organization which is accepted for registration and is therefore acknowledged as a bona fide social welfare organization. One should allow for the fact that there is no social welfare organization—certainly not one that I know of—that depends on its own funds. A social welfare organization therefore has to raise money. If that is so, surely the very fact that it has been accepted for the purposes of registration as a social welfare organization should automatically give it the right to raise funds for the work which is now recognized as being legitimate. Therefore, I think this is a further point which gives weight to our argument that dual registration is really a waste of time.

Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Pinelands still does not fully understand the whole matter when it comes to the question of dual registration. I will tell him how this will in fact operate. In the first place, it is true that no welfare organization is forced to register as a welfare organization. They only have to apply to be registered as a welfare organization if they receive funds from the State. An organization which raises funds, whether it be a welfare organization, an educational institution or a religious institution, must however register as a fundraising organization. In practice, therefore, this could mean that a welfare organization which does not receive a subsidy from the State, does not have to register as a welfare organization. However, because the organization raises money from the public, it must register as a fund-raising organization. This is the crux of the matter. It should now be clear to the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, it may come as a surprise to the hon. member for Bellville that I understand the system well. However, we are concerned with what will happen in practice; we are not simply discussing theories in the House. We are talking about organizations that have to operate outside the House. If a certain social welfare organization wants to collect funds, obviously it has to register, but any organization might also want to register specifically as a social welfare organization. We have to ask ourselves which should take precedence. Is it in the first place an organization that commits itself to social welfare work or an organization that commits itself to collecting funds. What I am arguing is that in essence a social welfare organization is in the first instance and by definition not an organization collecting funds but one which is given over to social welfare work. If that is true, such an organization will have to register twice and we do not think that that is necessary, that is all.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can argue the matter more fully when we come to the relevant clause. At this stage I just want to say once again that the hon. member must keep the two Bills apart.

That is very difficult to do.

He must realize that if I accept his suggestion a welfare organization registered as such will not be registered as a fund-raising organization and will therefore not be subject to the terms of the fund-raising legislation. Consequently, it will not have to render yearly accounts which will be open to public inspection. The hon. member must realize—this is the logical consequence of his argument—that if welfare organizations should not be subject to the terms of the fundraising legislation, they need also not render yearly statements and the public need not be entitled to see whether they have used the funds for the purpose for which they were collected. Furthermore, in the case of a welfare organization the public need not then be entitled to inspect the records and decide whether the money has been used honestly.

The present Act already provides for that.

If the hon. member feels that welfare organizations should be free of all this control, his argument is logical. However, if he agrees with me that welfare organizations, like other bodies, should render accounts which the public has the right to inspect to see whether the money has been appropriated properly and used for the purpose for which it was collected, it will have to register in terms of the fund-raising legislation. For that reason, because all welfare organizations are fund-raising organizations and because we deem it necessary that also in the case of welfare organizations the accounts should be made public, our point of departure is that they must register as a fundraising organization if they want to raise funds. However, they have an option in regard to welfare work to register or not. They need to register only if they want to be involved in central planning and if they want to use Government funds.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he envisages any possibility that an organization which achieves registration as a welfare organization will be refused registration as a fund-raising organization? Can this happen? Is this what the hon. the Minister envisages could happen, namely that an organization which applies for registration as a welfare organization could be refused registration as fund-raising organization?

Mr. Chairman, that situation cannot arise in terms of the Bills in question because as the Bills stand, an organization must first register as a fundraising organization. If an organization is refused registration as a fund-raising organization it cannot be registered as a welfare organization. If it is, however, registered as a fund-raising organization, it can register as a welfare organization, although it is possible that the regional board may refuse its registration as such. That is possible, and in such an event it will have an appeal to an appeal committee.

Mr. Chairman, let us put it in another way. Let us assume that a welfare organization has been registered as such. Is it not possible that its registration as a fund-raising organization could be automatic following ipso facto on the fact that it is registered as a welfare organization? That would remove a lot of difficulty.

Mr. Chairman, that will not necessarily be the case. That is in the first instance an administrative problem. We are now dealing with two separate institutions altogether. In the one instance the organization applies to be registered as a fund-raising organization to the Director of Fund-raising. In the other case the organization must apply to the regional board, which is in another place altogether. If we have to adopt that suggestion, it will result in a lot of red tape, which we want to avoid. For example, there will be the problem of communication between the 12 regional boards, or whatever number there may be, and the Fund-raising Director will have to sort out the information being forwarded to him. Moreover, he will have to insert names in the register and in some instances he will have to note that a particular body is already registered. From an administrative point of view, that would not be the right thing to do.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 40, to omit “ADVISORY COUNCIL” and to substitute “COUNCIL”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 42, to omit “Advisory Council” and to substitute “Council”;
3. (3) on page 5, in lines 45 to 47, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute:

1. (a) The council shall, apart from the members referred to in paragraphs (b) to (f), consist of 12 members, elected by the members of all registered welfare organizations from among candidates nominated by—

1. (i) the national regional and branch managements of registered welfare organizations;
2. (ii) the executive authorities of institutions for the training of social and associated workers;
3. (iii) the managements of professional associations of social and associated workers,

and of whom at least—

1. (aa) three shall be from the Black population group;
2. (bb) two shall be from the Coloured population group;
3. (cc) one shall be from the Indian population group.

1. (4) on page 5, in lines 48 and 49, to omit “The members of the council shall be appointed by the State President” and to substitute:

1. (5) on page 5, after line 52, to insert:

1. (c) The council may co-opt up to three members from persons who, in its opinion, have expert or special knowledge or experience of social problems and who are able to make a substantial contribution to the combating of such problems.
2. (d) Each regional welfare board shall appoint one member to the council.
3. (e) The Council for Social and Associated Workers shall appoint one member to the council.
4. (f) The Director of Fund-raising shall appoint one member to the council.
5. (6) on page 5, in line 53, to omit “be appointed” and to substitute “serve”;

1. (7) on page 5, in line 57, after “reappointment” to insert “or re-election”;
2. (8) on page 5, in lines 59 and 60, to omit “State President” and to substitute “council”;
3. (9) on page 5, in line 62, after “appointed” to insert “or elected”;
4. (10) on page 7, in line 1, to omit “State President” and to substitute “Council”;
5. (11) on page 7, in line 3, after “appointed” to insert “or elected”;
6. (12) on page 7, in lines 4 to 6, to omit subsection (5) and to substitute:
7. (5) The members of the council shall elect a president and a deputy president from among themselves.
8. (13) on page 7, in line 7, to omit “at least twice per annum” and to substitute:

1. (14) on page 7, in line 11, to omit “prescribed” and to substitute “determined by the council”.

Clause 2 provides for the establishment of a S.A. Welfare Advisory Council. In our first amendment we ask for the deletion of the word “advisory” so that the council may be known as the S.A. Welfare Council. This is accepted by the hon. the Minister. When we talk about the functions of the S.A. Welfare Council it would appear that although the hon. the Minister has removed the word “advisory” from the name of the council, he has actually not amended the functions of the council to bring it into line with the new name of the council. The council will remain purely an advisory body although the word “advisory” has been removed from its name.

I would now like to talk about the composition of this council.

I believe that the S.A. Welfare Council should carry out and be responsible for a very, very important task as far as the rendering of social welfare work in South Africa is concerned. It should be the body at the head which co-ordinates the activities and the responsibilities of all other bodies at a lower level, bodies responsible for the carrying out of work in this field. It should be the body that initiates ideas and programmes. It should be the body that co-ordinates the activities of organizations, that disseminates information amongst all the organizations and that forms the link between the State on the one hand and society on the other hand. It should be a body which is democratically elected by the organizations, or members of the organizations, operating in this field. It should be a body which is seen to be fully representative of the social welfare field and on which there are representatives of all other organizations which work in a close relationship with this particular body. If we look at the body which the hon. the Minister proposes, one finds that the council is to be a body exclusively appointed by the State President, obviously on the advice of the hon. the Minister. Here will be a body, appointed by the State President, consisting of a maximum number of 21 persons who, in terms of the Bill, are qualified in order to carry out the work of the council. It does not include persons who are elected by the members of social welfare organizations. Immediately the hon. the Minister creates a problem for this body in that he underlines the fact that all the members of this body are appointees of the State and not people who are elected by the members of social welfare organizations. He therefore creates the problem for them that they will not have the full confidence and the full trust of the people operating in the field. They will not have the highest possible credibility which would have been the case if they were elected by the members of the social welfare organizations themselves. We believe that it is absolutely vital that they should have that credibility and that they should enjoy the confidence of the people who do the social welfare work in the field. We therefore have, by Way of an amendment, suggested to the hon. the Minister that the National Welfare Council should consist of a number of people of whom 12 should be elected by the members of all registered welfare organizations from amongst candidates who should be nominated by the national, regional and branch managers of registered welfare organizations, the executive authorities of institutions for the training of social and associated workers and the managements of professional associations of social and associated workers. By following this procedure, one has the advantage, in the first place, of knowing that the managements of all these organizations are well-versed in the work which they are carrying out and that they are responsible in the carrying out of their activities. These managements know the abilities, the qualifications and the experience of suitable nominees, they will nominate suitable people and when nominations for candidates are put to the general membership of those organizations who carry out the actual work in the field, those people will then have the fullest democratic right to elect representatives of whom they believe will best represent their interests, the interests of their organizations, and who will have their full confidence. One will therefore have 12 people there who will be representative of and who will have the confidence of the people in the field. The hon. Minister can be satisfied that since they are nominated by the managements of the organizations, they will be capable people qualified and experienced in the work that has to be done.

The hon. the Minister pointed out that we in our amendment are attempting to force him to see to it that there will be Black, Coloured and Indian representatives. It is necessary for me at this stage to point out that we would have preferred a situation where, in a normal non-racial South African society, people are elected for positions irrespective of colour, but that these people obviously will be representative of the various Coloured groups purely because they operate and because it is a consequence of a normal society. However, we are not living in a normal society.

The word “apartheid” has suddenly become the most unpopular word in the terminology of the NP. It is no longer part of their vocabulary. It is a word and a system which the NP have created and which have brought the most unbelievable damage and harm to this country. [Interjections.] I agree with the hon. the Minister that we should do away with the word “apartheid”, but it is no good removing the word from our vocabulary while retaining all the practices, measures and effects of apartheid in our daily life and the work of the Government. It is no good just changing the terminology; one has to change the entire system, the entire philosophy, if one wants to achieve any result. [Interjections.] We say that if South Africa had a normal society we would not try to ensure that certain minimum representatives of other race groups are elected. However, because we are an abnormal society, we say that in order to make a start and to ensure that a body is multiracial, one has actually to provide that there will be certain limited numbers of Black, Coloured and Indian representatives. I see that even in the NP there is now a desperate desire at the eleventh hour to move our country from an abnormal society to a normal society. As we move from an abnormal to a normal society, it will become unnecessary to specify that one has to have a particular number of Black, Coloured and Indian representatives, because in a normal society people will be elected on the basis of merit and merit alone. [Interjections.] The word “merit” has suddenly made its appearance in the vocabulary of the NP. We are all of a sudden hearing that merit, something for which we have been fighting for decades, is, as the only measure of worth, to be the philosophy on which they are going to base their policies in the future. They are obviously attempting to replace the word “apartheid” with the word “merit”.

In addition to the selected members we also suggest that the hon. the Minister should in his discretion also appoint three people. This will meet certain requirements from the point of view of the Government. We say that the council should have the right to co-opt three additional members, once again people whom the council feels have the experience, the knowledge and the ability to make a particular contribution to the work of the council. We further believe that each regional welfare board should be allowed to appoint a member. This is one aspect where there is no co-ordination with the regional welfare board. If one wants effective co-ordination, it is essential that at least one member from each regional welfare board should be appointed to serve on the national council, so that one has that effective bridge, that effective communication, between the national council and that regional welfare board.

Let me also say that because the Council for Social and Associated Workers to be created in terms of legislation still to come before the House will play such a vital part in the social welfare work in South Africa, it is important that they should have one member on the National Welfare Council. Furthermore, because the Director of Fund-raising, to be created in terms of another piece of legislation on the Order Paper, is going to play such a vital part—we fear a disruptive and restrictive part—in the work of welfare organizations, he too should have a representative on that council. A council which is composed in this way will meet all the requirements of a representative, democratic and effective body, a body which will be in a position to promote efficiency via effective co-ordination. A body composed in this way will meet all the objections which the social welfare field in South Africa has against this legislation and this particular provision in the legislation. The hon. the Minister knows this as well as I do, because he has been told by numerous representatives … [Time expired.]

Order! I have to rule that I am unable to accept amendments (3) to (9) and (11) moved by the hon. member for Bryanston as they are in conflict with the principles of the Bill as read a Second Time. Consequently I cannot allow any further discussion on any of these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the first amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 52, after “problems” to insert:

It proposes to insert a proviso as far as the constitution and the establishment of the council are concerned. This clause is indeed a very important one as it provides for the establishment of the S.A. Welfare Council, which is going to be the whole basis on which the success or otherwise of this legislation will depend. It is therefore vitally important to see to it that the best available persons are nominated and are available to be appointed by the State President to serve on this council. This council is obviously something which has caused the hon. the Minister some concern. In the original draft membership was restricted to 11 members. Now the membership is to be increased to 21 members. We believe this is an improvement on the original draft because it is important to ensure that the council will be balanced and truly representative of the welfare services and the organizations presenting those services in the country. We have heard that the regional boards, which are to be constituted in terms of a subsequent clause, are to have a very important function in regard to their programme, the organizing thereof and the conditions prevailing in their various regions. It is therefore important that the State President is able to appoint people to serve on this council ensuring that each of the regions is represented. At present there are ten regions, and this will mean that then regional representatives will be appointed to the council. All of them will be able to assist in the co-ordination of a welfare service and to formulate general policy as far as welfare services are concerned. The most important task of the council in terms of clause 3, which defines the functions of the council, is perhaps to ensure that the Government is advised on general policy as far as welfare services for all the inhabitants of the Republic are concerned. That is why we believe that it is important to try to create a situation in which all the regions will be represented. Indeed, if we look at the Act of 1965, which is to be repealed in terms of this legislation, we find a national board consisting of 16 members of whom ten are from the various regions and one a professional officer appointed from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In addition to that four commissions were appointed. That board had specific functions, particularly in regard to the four commissions and the registration of welfare organizations. It also had specific administrative powers provided for in the 1965 Act. Now we are creating a council which will apparently advise the Government in regard to policy and the various other functions as set out in clause 3. However, it is important to ensure that this council is a truly balanced one. We think it is also necessary to ensure that provision is made for people of other race groups—the Coloureds, the Blacks and the Indians—so that they will be assured of some representation on that council.

The hon. member for Durban North, my colleague, will move an amendment along those lines. We are endeavouring to establish a council which is going to render the very important service of being able to formulate policy, of being able to come forward with programmes to assist in the general welfare and the planning of welfare in South Africa. It also replaces the Welfare Planning Commission as this commission is to be abolished once the 1965 Act is repealed. This means that planning is perhaps going to be one of its greatest tasks, and for that purpose it is imperative that there is a council which is fully representative of the people who are concerned in the welfare field and will be experts.

From time to time there will be people with an expert knowledge in the field of welfare services, and the State President should be free to appoint such persons to the council. Consequently, as a result of our suggestion that the regions should be represented by 10 members, the other race groups—in terms of an amendment still to be moved by my colleague—by another five, six posts still remain to be filled. The State President will therefore still be able to nominate persons entirely on his own accord and on the grounds of their expert knowledge. However, it is highly likely that all the persons coming from the regions will be persons with expert knowledge. They have been appointed to the regional boards on that account in the first place, and we realize the regional boards are to have additional responsibilities. Therefore the amendment that I have moved proposes a proviso to ensure that the regions will have representation.

I should now like to move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) On page 7, in line 7, to omit “twice” and to substitute “four times”.

This deals with the times that the council shall meet, as defined in subsection (6) of this clause. In view of the amendment which the hon. the Minister intends moving to clause 3 and which states—

an amendment which we in these benches will support, in view of the additional responsibility which the council will have and in order to ensure that the council is fully effective, I think one has to anticipate that the council should meet at least once a quarter; in other words, at least four times during the period of one year. That is the motivation behind my amendment requiring the council to meet more frequently.

I think one of the problems we had with the old National Welfare Board was that it did not meet quite as often as one would have hoped and, consequently, there was a considerable time lag in dealing with many matters, particularly the registration of welfare organizations, because where an application missed one meeting of the National Welfare Board it invariably had to wait for a period of more than six months, or even longer, before the board could meet again so as to consider that particular application. In terms of this legislation we are creating an advisory council whose main object is to advise in regard to policy and to measures that have to be taken to improve our welfare services. Therefore we believe it is important that the council should meet regularly and that it should be able to submit to the Government its views on a large number of matters affecting the welfare services for all the race groups concerned in South Africa. For these reasons we hope that the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to the amendments which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I heard the hon. member for Bryanston breather a sigh of relief after he had been saved by the bell, and particularly after his amendments Nos. (3) to (8) and No. (11) had been ruled out of order. If you, Mr. Chairman, did not rule them out of order, we would have told the hon. member that …

Order!

The hon. member for Umbilo suggested that the composition of the national Welfare Council should be changed somewhat. We understand the arguments advanced by the hon. member. Basically, what this amounts to is that the hon. member wants co-ordination between the regional welfare boards and the national Welfare Council. This in itself is not an idea which should be dropped without further ado. But we should really take a close look at the functions of the national Welfare Council. In the first place, the functions of this council are of an advisory nature, and not without reason.

When we come to the field of welfare work, a clear distinction can be drawn between general national welfare policy on the one hand, and specific welfare efforts in the various regions on the other. It is unnecessary—I cannot agree with the hon. member here—that a bridge need necessarily be built between regional welfare boards and the national Welfare Council. I shall state the reason why this is unnecessary. By the way, there is nothing to stop the State President from nominating a chairman or a member of a regional welfare board to the national Welfare Council. There is nothing to prohibit this. This, however, will not be the rule. The contribution which a representative of a region can make on the national Welfare Council is limited, because such a representative has gained experience only from the region from which he comes. Should 10 representatives of the 10 regions, as they exist at the moment, serve on the national Welfare Board, I find it difficult to imagine how the representative of, for instance, the Northern Transvaal region, can take a decision and actively participate in a discussion on what is happening in Cape Town and its vicinity, and what should happen, with regard to welfare matters. Therefore, I do not regard co-ordination between these two bodies as essential. However, co-ordination between the regional welfare boards and the Secretary is essential.

On the other hand the suggestion by the hon. member for Umbilo is not practical either. If his suggestion were to be accepted, it would give rise to the establishment of a large and cumbersome board, an unwieldy national Welfare Council.

The council will consist of only 21 members.

No, it will not. Let us look at this. Let us just take a look at this. The hon. member for Umbilo proposes that the council should consist of 21 members. However, he also proposes that each regional welfare board should be represented on the national Welfare Council. At the moment the board consists of 10 members. In other words, this means that we already have 10 representatives. In terms of clause 22 of the Bill, regional welfare boards for Coloureds, Indians and Bantu may also be established.

[Inaudible.]

We shall come to that later. In other words, a total of 40 regional welfare boards may be established. Each of those regional welfare boards would have to be represented on the national Welfare Council. This will definitely result in a unwieldy body, a body which, from an administrative point of view, will be difficult to control. Therefore we cannot, to my mind, support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment very briefly on the idea put forward by the hon. member for Bellville. I think he has a slight problem in understanding what the hon. member for Umbilo has in mind. In his amendment the hon. member for Umbilo recommends that the regional welfare boards should also be represented on the national Welfare Council. The reason for this is not so much the argument which the hon. member for Bellville uses, that, for instance, the representative of the Northern Transvaal region would not know what the requirements were in, for example, the Eastern Cape. When one looks at a professional advisory body such, as this one will be—a co-ordinating body—one realizes that it is in order to get to understand the needs of those areas, that the people get together in the first instance. They then decide what co-ordination and planning should take place. I do not think his argument is really valid in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo.

Sir, I rise primarily to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

In moving this amendment, I have not lost sight of the comments which the hon. the Minister made during the Second Reading debate. I know that a gentleman’s word is his bond, and no doubt an hon. Minister’s word is as much his bond, but unfortunately legislation does not always operate in that manner of good faith and understanding, and in moving this amendment to this clause our intention is to ensure that representation is given to the different population groups. During the Second Reading debate I mentioned my reasons for choosing these particular numbers, so I shall not deal with that aspect again. I would rather like to motivate this amendment by pointing out to the hon. the Minister that one should take cognizance of and have due regard for the functions envisaged for the national council, in order to understand why it is necessary that the different population groups should be represented on the National Welfare Council. In this connection I refer to the next clause due to be debated, viz. clause 3, which sets out the functions of the council. Clause 3(1) reads, inter alia, as follows—

1. (a) the general policy which should be followed to promote and ensure the social stability of the inhabitants of the Republic …

We cannot escape the reality of the situation in South Africa. Welfare services are primarily directed at the less privileged in our society, and for historical reasons, that means that the planning and organization of welfare services will be directed inevitably at the Coloureds and the Indians and, predominantly, the Bantu. There is a certain percentage of Whites who require this type of assistance, but predominantly it will be the less privileged members of our society whose needs will have to be interpreted by this council from a planning point of view.

In motivating my amendment I should also like to refer to a problem highlighted by the Auret Commission, and that is the paucity of qualified social workers among the three non-White groups. The average number of social workers qualifying per annum is approximately 332. The ratio of White social workers to White members of the population is roughly 1 to 1 500. If we use this as a satisfactory ratio, we find that the shortage of qualified social workers for the other race groups at the moment stands at 12 500. There is an intake of only 332 new social workers per year, and there is no reason to expect that this number is going to increase in the near future. Therefore the bulk of the social work is for practical reasons going to be undertaken by qualified White social workers. It is these people who must liaise with the members of the other population groups to reach a better understanding of what the needs are. If the National Welfare Council is going to be an advisory and co-ordinating body, then it must be in close touch with those people who will form the bulk of the recipients of the welfare services of South Africa. Furthermore, I am a great propounder of the principle of joint responsibility by all the race groups in South Africa for a service which will affect all of them. I do not think it should only be incumbent upon the White population group to accept responsibility for creating plans for the future. Joint decision making would also be of tremendous advantage amongst the various race groups in South Africa.

I believe that in order to avoid a duplication of effort and cost as far as a profession is concerned which knows no race barriers— this goes for most of the professions in South Africa—it is totally unnecessary to create further and additional advisory or co-ordinating boards for each race group, particularly when cognizance is taken of the number structure of the qualified social workers in South Africa.

I believe, as my colleague the hon. member for Umbilo has said, that the legislation is an improvement on the 1965 Act and I do not think that we want to detract from the effectiveness of the Act by now coming along to create separate advisory councils for the separate race groups in South Africa. I do not think that would be in the interests of the welfare services of South Africa and I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to consider in all seriousness the amendment which I have moved. I should also like to point out that I have said at least one. In other words, there is no prescription or limitation on the fact that I visualize that perhaps more than one or two or three persons can be appointed for the different communities of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk to the hon. member for Durban North about the amendment printed in his name on the Order Paper. I should like to tell him frankly that we are very disappointed in him. When he came here, he made a fine, responsible impression on us, but today he is moving an amendment which sounds so much like the policy of the Progressive Party as to be barely credible.

Now you are finding that he is not quite a Nat.

We are disappointed in him. We want to tell him that he should be careful, for he should have a long spoon who sups with the devil. He should be very careful in this regard.

Let us look at the amendment introduced by the hon. member. We are experiencing serious problems with that amendment for, as I have said, this is Progressive Party policy, a policy which we on this side of the House are not prepared to implement. This is what is at issue. The hon. the Minister said at the outset that it means forced integration and nothing else.

You misunderstood the amendment.

No, I did not misunderstand the amendment. In fact, I want us to look very carefully at the amendment. It is surprising that the hon. members who are always accusing us of discrimination, have come up with such an amendment. In essence, the amendment is nothing but statutory discrimination. Let us take a look at it. The hon. member says that we should, inter alia, appoint three members from the Bantu population group to the National Welfare Board. Does anyone in this House, in these times we are living in, meant to tell us that there is only one Bantu population group in South Africa? Surely that is too ridiculous to be true! From which Bantu population group should these members be appointed?

On merit.

You can appoint more than one.

The hon. member obviously did not think before introducing the amendment. Let us look at the three population groups he mentioned. He referred to the Indian population group, the Coloured population group and the Bantu population group. The population group which was not mentioned, sticks out like a sore thumb: This is the White population group. We can, of course, add another small population group, for there is also a Chinese population group in South Africa. Therefore I think we can say without hesitation that the rights of the Chinese and the Whites are being shamefully ignored in the proposed amendment. We can go further and say that if ever a racist amendment was introduced in this House, it is this one.

In contrast, let us look at the provisions as proposed by the hon. the Minister. When we read these, we find what the test is (Clause 2(b))—

Therefore the council will consist of members who, in his opinion, are experts or have special experience of social work and can therefore make a contribution. What is more, this may be anyone. The hon. the Minister has already indicated that they can also be members of other population groups in South Africa. If there has ever been an open clause, it is this clause, for it puts it so widely that the State President can, on recommendation, appoint people of colour to the board. However, the hon. member wants this to be limited again. He wants us to discriminate. This is discrimination in the other direction. He suggests that we should accept this today! As the hon. the Minister has put it clearly, there is nothing to prevent this national welfare council from being a multinational board. The amendment by the hon. member and the philosophy on which it is based, we reject with the contempt it deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to react to the reasoning—I do not want to speak of logic—of the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. It seems to me that either the hon. member for Verwoerdburg did not listen carefully to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech, or he alleged that the NP is not consistent in its reasoning. I should very much like to refer the hon. member to the Nursing Bill which we discussed in this House recently. On page 9, line 31 of that Bill, it is specifically stated how the S.A. Nursing Council will be constituted. It is specifically stated that of the 10 registered nurses in the council, five shall be Whites, three Bantu, one Coloured and one an Indian.

And now!

Either the hon. member is not consistent, or the NP is not consistent. At this stage I believe it is most probably the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

I agree with him that there is nothing to prohibit it from being as suggested in my amendment; however, we want to make sure that this will be the case. In my amendment only a minimum number is given. Neither is there anything in the amendment to prohibit the appointment of more than one representative of the Bantu. The word “Bantu” also means a number of people. If the hon. the Minister wants to appoint a representative of the Zulus, the Vendas, the Tswanas and of the other population groups, this will not be contrary to my amendment. In any case, I should like to know what the hon. the Minister has to say about my amendment, taking into account, too, the consistency of the NP with regard to the Nursing Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary for us to state at this stage that, obviously, we are disappointed that the composition of the council envisaged by the hon. member for Bryanston cannot be put to the House. Apart from the question of members being elected or appointed, as far as the question of the composition itself is concerned, the principle of having other groups represented is of paramount importance. For that reason we feel obliged to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North.

That is very wise.

What he has proposed is essential.

Are we getting through to you?

We are not here to score political points. We are busy with legislation.

I want to remind the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that the hon. the Minister dealt with the question on this basis in his Second Reading speech. He said (Hansard, 8 May 1978, col. 6291)—

In other words, the hon. the Minister has, in fact, accepted the principle. I want to emphasize the importance of the principle because I think the hon. the Minister went on to say further that there will probably be no representation at the regional levels by the other groups at all. In terms of clause 3 the policy, as far as the council is concerned, goes even further. The hon. member for Durban North stated to this House by way of illustrating his party’s policy, the measures generally necessary to combat and prevent social problems.

What we need today is not a nebulous statement such as I have quoted as was made by the hon. the Minister during his Second Reading speech to the effect that there is room for this measure and that they will have discussions but they have not really decided yet. What we need from the hon. the Minister today is a clear and unequivocal undertaking that he will consider it his bounden duty to see and recommend that the State does grant representation to each of the groups referred to. It is more necessary than ever before because in the whole field of social welfare work in South Africa today there are problems which are peculiar to the various groups.

As far as the Black population, the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned, it is common knowledge that all the know-how, advice and information that these groups get as to how to run the organizations, etc., comes from White persons who have the White know-how and White professional skills that go into welfare work today. There are problems which are common to all the groups, for example the drinking problem and the dagga problem. It is the White group who, through their skill and experience and the information they get from overseas countries, have learnt how to deal with these problems and are now passing this know-how on to the other groups as to how to use that information to help those groups to help themselves to cure the social evils that welfare organizations try to cure. If one takes away this liaison and the information and knowledge that can be passed on from a National Council whose duty it is to frame policy to deal with the various problems, one is going to put social welfare work on a very weak footing as far as the other groups are concerned. This will be the only body left in the country. The three new Bills will have a co-ordinating effect, not at branch level alone but on the different colour groups in South Africa itself. It is therefore absolutely imperative that we do not decide for ourselves what is good for others as this must be done by way of consultation. If we are not able to have representatives of those groups on the National Council to establish what their problems are, what their failings are and how they can be assisted, we are going to deny to the Coloured, Black and Indian groups the know-how acquired by White skill as to how they are to solve their problems. One will therefore cast them adrift and cast them off completely from what we have gained and leave them alone to battle for themselves. This means that they will not have the information, the knowledge or the skills which we can pass on.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, we will support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban North and we call upon the hon. the Minister at this stage to give us an unequivocal undertaking that he will use his influence to see that a member of each group is appointed.

Mr. Chairman, after listening to the hon. member for Hill-brow I think the hon. member for Durban North must have second thoughts as to whether he has done the right thing here today because of the support the PFP is giving to his amendments. I think the hon. member for Durban North will agree with me—because he sat in this House right through the session—that the Official Opposition plays race in South Africa for political gain on a scale it has never been done in the history of our country before.

Except by the NP.

He must surely know that the whole approach of the PFP to legislation can be described throughout—I may not touch on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston—as nonsensical. However, Mr. Chairman, you already ruled that amendment out of order. If one looks at the trend of the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, he clearly takes a racialistic approach to the question of welfare in South Africa. That is the hon. member’s whole approach. I am sure that the hon. member for Durban North, or the party that he belongs to, does not want to make himself guilty of racial politics in South Africa.

What about the Nursing Bill?

I would like the hon. member to take a look at the clause again. The hon. member used, as the basic argument why there should be a Coloured, and Indian and a Black man in the council, the functions of the council as described in clause 3(1) of the Bill. The functions of the council are described as advising the hon. the Minister on—

it is quite clear that the hon. member has a complete misunderstanding of that objective or function of the council, because he described it as looking at the position of the underprivileged members of society in South Africa for whom the council will then have to plan. Surely the hon. member for Durban North’s approach to social welfare does not only relate to the underprivileged citizens. Surely the functions of the council, in regard to evolving patterns of social development in South Africa, should be to develop a situation where there will be no underprivileged people in South Africa. That is one of the functions of the council. I say the hon. member’s approach is incorrect, because if there is one piece of legislation in South Africa in which there has never been any mention of race whatsoever, then it is the welfare legislation of our country. And if we adopt that attitude now, that, in the light of the high motives and the entire functions of the council, it has to be considered on the basis of race where it has never existed in our legislation before, then I say it is a backward step.

What about the Nursing Bill?

I am talking about the National Welfare Bill now. I can come to that one in a minute. [Interjections.] Hon. members need not be worried, I shall still come to that; we are not running away from it.

If the hon. member looks at what the hon. the Minister’s rights are, he will see that the hon. the Minister can appoint a council consisting of three members. He is not compelled to appoint a council consisting of 21 members. The council can consist of two members. It is simply the discretionary right of the hon. the Minister to decide how many members the council should consist of. In the light of all the bureaucratic talk of the hon. member for Bryanston, it is quite interesting to note that he has not objected to that. It is most amazing. The more one listens to the hon. members, the more one realizes that they simply talk without any study of the legislation before them. The hon. member for Bryanston should go home tonight and do his homework before he moves his other amendments, because he will find that many of them are in conflict with legislation now on the Statute Book, legislation which has functioned quite effectively for a number of years. To the hon. member for Durban North I want to say that such an amendment is entirely unacceptable to this side of the House for one very simple reason: It brings the aspect of race into legislation, and we are not prepared to accept it. The hon. member should realize that in the discretionary rights that are given to the hon. the Minister in regard to the council that might be appointed, the hon. the Minister in looking at the various functions of the council can in his discretion appoint a Coloured, five, six Indians or five Blacks. Why should it now be specified? The needs of the Indian population—to take that hon. member’s constituency—might increase fourfold. Must they then be restricted to one member on the council? Those hon. members are so dominated by the aspect of race that they cannot look at a piece of legislation like this in an objective manner in the interests of the welfare and the social development of our country.

Mr. Chairman, it is not clear to me whether the hon. member for Bryanston has moved his first and second amendments. Has he moved them?

Yes.

I accept the hon. member’s first amendment. I have been advised that it is not really necessary, but I nevertheless accept it because it is in keeping with my amendment to clause 1. In view of the fact that it has been moved, I shall also accept the hon. member’s second amendment. This amendment corresponds verbatim with an amendment of mine which appears in the Order Paper in respect of clause 2. I mention, by the way, that my amendment was moved before that of the hon. member for Bryanston. But as the hon. member has already moved his first and second amendments, I shall accept them.

Mr. Chairman, you have ruled amendments (3) to (9) and (11) to be out of order, and I am not going to make it difficult for you by trying to reply to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Bryanston in this connection. But I do think the hon. member will get a good indication of how I would have replied, if he will now listen to me while I reply to the arguments by the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban North. What is at issue for the hon. member for Hillbrow is the entire question of representation of national groups on the S.A. Welfare Council. The hon. member for Durban North thought he had a very good argument when he held out the example of the S.A. Nursing Council to us. Has the hon. member no sensitivity? Can he not see, then, that all the population groups as such are represented on the Nursing Council? Not only is there an entrenchment of Brown, Indian and Black, the Nursing Council is, in the first place, a representative council on which different population groups are represented. The White group, too, is mentioned and representation. [Interjections.] If the hon. member had also mentioned the White group in his amendment, we should not have levelled the charge at him that his amendment is statutory discrimination in reverse. But even if he were to add that, I should still not be able to accept the amendment; not because it is wrong that it applies in respect of the Nursing Council, but because the National Welfare Council is not intended, in the first instance, to be a representative council in any way. The council is not intended to be representative of the regions, or of welfare organizations, or of the various population groups. It is intended to be a council with the best brains and knowledge of welfare matters.

To do what?

To perform all the functions set out in clause 3.

To advise the Minister?

We can debate about that when we get to clause 3. The hon. members errs when he says that the only function of the council is to advise the Government. The council also has certain independent functions, and those functions will be supplemented by the amendment in respect of clause 3 which appears in my name on the Order Paper. It is therefore not merely an advisory council.

As I have said, this council is not intended to be a representative council. I want to repeat what I stated in my Second Reading speech, namely that if suitable people can be found and if the necessary co-operation can be obtained everywhere, it should be a multinational council. My primary consideration is, however, that it should be a council of authoritative people. There are therefore other additional factors, and I should therefore not like to bind myself to a specific population distribution. If we were ever to consider a population distribution, it would be an absolute prerequisite that the rights of all population groups should be defined and that the Whites should not simply be ignored, as the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Bryanston did in their amendments—which have been ruled out of order.

In view of our constitutional development, I can envisage a time in future when division of functions will be complete and when the council will not only advise this Government, but also other Parliaments such as the Coloured and Indian Parliaments. I am referring to the constitutional proposals for the new dispensation. If we feel at that stage that it is advisable to give the Cabinets of the various Parliaments the opportunity of also making appointments to this council in order to create scope for their nominations—and they want to do so—it is something we can then discuss. However, at this stage I am satisfied with the constitution of the council as I now envisage it. I should like to make it clear that it is my intention to involve people of other population groups in that process, provided I obtain proper co-operation everywhere and provided I can find suitable persons. But I should not like to commit myself to numbers.

The hon. members for Hillbrow and Durban North have stated that there will be no representation of people of different colour on these regional welfare boards. They should read clause 22. We trust that regional boards will also function successfully for the Black group, for the Coloured group with their own regional boards, and for the Indian group. The hon. members also stated that there will be no liaison. There will be liaison at several levels. In the first place, there will be liaison by means of the activities which the welfare council may undertake. Clause 3(1) lays down that the council may arrange symposiums and conferences. Subsection (2) provides that the council has an informational function. In terms of clause 3(2), it is also given the function, subject to the approval of the Minister, to arrange conferences in connection with social problems or matters relating to its functions. By means of my amendment I intend to add an informational function. Furthermore, there is nothing which prevents any national council or welfare organization in the private sector from supplying information and from undertaking liaison. Have the hon. members already forgotten that I read to them from the new circular? I quote from paragraph 5—

Those hon. members do not have the exclusive right to believe that interaction, dialogue, mutual assistance, influencing, counsel and advice are essential. We also believe in that. The circular goes on to state—

Surely these things ought to be done by the private sector. Surely those hon. members do not want control. We also do not want to exercise control. We do not wish to cast every welfare organization into a little mould and prescribe to them when and how and with whom they must take talk. They should take the initiative themselves. Paragraph 6 reads—

I am pleased that I added that last warning, because the longer I listen to this debate, the clearer it becomes to me that the hon. members of the Official Opposition are intent on dragging politics into welfare matters— something which we should not like to do at all. The entire structure of the scrapped amendment by the hon. member amounts to something which I cannot assimilate. I simply cannot understand how the hon. member can propose that all members of all welfare organizations should be elected to the National Welfare Council. Who is going to compile the voters’ lists? It could be a list of almost as long as the voters’ list on which this House was elected. The hon. member also proposes that they should vote on the list of nominees. It is surely an inhuman structure which he wants to establish. If a vacancy arises among the people who have been elected by a broadly-based group of members of all welfare organizations—and, I assume, of all races in South Africa—that vacancy should not be filled by means of an election, but in some other manner. It is the most ill-considered proposal I have ever heard.

It ought now to be clear that the Government is determined also to ensure that the welfare work of the different population groups functions smoothly and in an organized manner, but that there will be sufficient interaction. We merely want to improve the standard of welfare work and give the welfare organizations the opportunity of doing their own planning. That is the spirit of this legislation, and consequently I now want to appeal to hon. members to stop trying to make political capital from this.

The hon. member for Umbilo moved two amendments. One of these is that he proposes that the council should meet four times per annum. In this connection, I also want to refer to an amendment by the hon. member for Bryanston which reads that the council should meet as often as may be necessary. The clause as it is now printed, reads that they must meet at least twice per annum. The four times suggested by the hon. member for Umbilo, are, in our view, too many at this stage. The members are people who also have their own work to do, and to whom it is a disruption to attend a meeting. They may have to come from all over the country, and cost factors are involved. There are numerous practical considerations why we set the minimum at two. But once they have got going and feel that it is necessary, there is nothing to prevent them from meeting more often than the minimum of twice per annum. Purely practical considerations are involved.

The most important amendment by the hon. member for Umbilo is that the various regional welfare boards should be represented on the S.A. Welfare Council. Firstly, we do not want to make the council too unwieldy. I think perhaps the hon. member did not take account of the fact that we shall in any case, have people on the National Welfare Council who are also active in their respective regions. When the National Welfare Council is constituted one would simultaneously, or even beforehand, priorly, have finalized the process of considering the different regions. All the nominations for regional boards of all the welfare organizations for the entire country will be before us. Surely, in that list of names—in that respect, I agree with the hon. member—some of the most outstanding welfare people in South Africa will be included. In view of my intention to staff the National Welfare Council with the top brains in this respect, there will certainly be duplication and there will be such members. But if we were to commit ourselves to a regional representative, it might happen in theory that in one particular region there are two quite outstanding people both of whom I need, while in another region there may not be a single person who could be regarded as the best in his field.

The amendment says at least one; so you could appoint two.

That still restricts us in appointing the best people.

I could just give the hon. member the assurance—and I trust that will set his mind at rest—that in my view it would be desirable that this council, although not bound to a regional board, should not be confined to one place, but that people from all the various major centres should serve on it. They will definitely serve on it, because most of the top people are concentrated in all the large centres.

I should also like just to tell the hon. member for Umbilo in this connection that his amendment too again paints a picture of a council which is representative of the regional boards. As soon as one does that, one creates the impression of a pyramid, one creates the impression that the National Council performs an over-arching function and in effect is in charge of the regional boards. That is not the philosophy of the Bill. That is another reason why I do not specifically want regional representation. The hon. member can, however, rest assured that there will indeed be a measure of regional representation.

If I now return to the amendments of the hon. member for Bryanston which he has been permitted to move, I want to refer to his twelfth amendment. Therein it is requested that the members of the council should elect their president and their vice-president. I think that this motion of his was connected with his idea of an elected council. In the first place it is a council which is appointed, a council consisting of experts. The experts are selected by the Minister. They are considered on the basis of various factors. The relevant factors are, for example, the position they occupy and the question of whether they will have the time to attend all the meetings. Several practical questions will be considered in this respect. When it comes to the president and the vice-president, one is up against the same question.

The president will perform a more important function than a member of the council. He will have to devote more of his time to the council. For that reason I suggest that the hon. member should confidently leave it to us to appoint as president of the council the person who is best equipped and whose circumstances are the most suitable. This does not mean undemocratic action. I have already explained how the basic organization, viz. the regional boards, is basically constituted in a democratic way. What is important here, is functionality. The council should be functional. It is not a representative council. As soon as a council becomes representative, the element of election arises. But this is a functional council.

I stated during the Second Reading—and I want to refer to it again—that judges are not elected by the Bar Councils, although they are drawn from the members of the Bar. Judges are not elected because their appointment is functional. I can quote many such examples which confirm that when one is dealing with the functional body or office, such a person is appointed, and not elected.

The final amendment by the hon. member for Bryanston, which I have not yet dealt with, is his fourteenth amendment. In it he requests that the procedure, the quorum, etc. of the envisaged council should be determined by the members of the council themselves, and that it should not be prescribed by way of regulation. If it is done by way of regulation, the procedures of the council will also be known to all welfare organizations. The regulations will be promulgated and made known. The interested parties will therefore know when and in what manner the council will function. I believe that is sufficient reason why it should be done by way of regulation. But I want to reassure the hon. member. All regulations in terms of this legislation will first be published in the Gazette for general notice and comment by welfare organizations and by the public. Only when their comments have been received and processed, will the regulations become final and will be promulgated.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to delay the Committee, but I want to react very briefly to some of the remarks made by hon. members opposite, in particular those made by the hon. members for Verwoerdburg and Von Brandis. It is seldom that one hears such a cynical approach as we have heard this afternoon. When one is discussing matters which are very serious and which affect so many people throughout the country of all race groups, it is a great pity that one should hear from the hon. members for Verwoerdburg and Von Brandis their reasons for arguing against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban North. They stated very strongly that the reason why they were opposed to the amendment was that they did not want discrimination in the legislation. If the hon. member for Von Brandis is to be consistent—and one would expect him to be consistent—one would hope that he would use the same argument in respect of all the legislation which has been passed over the last 30 years. We have never heard that argument from him before, but now suddenly, because he does not find it convenient to vote for an amendment, he uses this kind of cynicism. We have no time for that at all. I cannot speak for the hon. member for Durban North, but the reason why we support his amendment is that we believe that even if we accept the Minister’s explanation and definition of the council, we must still take into account the amendment which he will move to clause 3, to extend the functions of the council. If those functions are to be extended, one must have on the council the best brains, and we accept that without reservation. I must say, however, that this is something strange, coming from that side of the House. For so long the emphasis has never been on merit, but has been based on racial considerations. That is why we find it ironic that that sort of argument should now come from that side of the House. But, Sir, let us accept that the hon. the Minister is genuine in his desire to have a fully representative body in the sense of its having all the skills, although not in the sense of its being representative of provinces, etc.

If we are going to have a council which amongst other things provides information and guidance to welfare organizations— which is the intention of the hon. the Minister—then I believe it must have a character representative of the whole of South Africa. That is why we have been so anxious that this council should be seen to be representative in this way.

Why do you assume, in the light of the fact that the Minister will have a discretionary power when it comes to the size of the council, that the Minister will not appoint a Coloured, an Indian or a Bantu?

Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to answer that question. In all seriousness, we must say that the track record of that party leads us to believe that this will not be done on the basis of merit. Look at the existing board; it is all-White. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in all humility whether he suggests that in making representations to have a Coloured, an Indian or an African appointed to the council, we are making this a political issue. Does the hon. the Minister really regard that as a political action? I should really like to know what his attitude is. We had a debate with regard to community councils. We were dealing with Africans and their affairs. Was that political in itself? The moment we say something which those hon. members do not like, they say it is political. The hon. the Minister has, I think, let the cat out of the bag to a certain extent. In the previous debate he referred to certain “belanghebbendes”, and I am sure that that has to do with the new constitution, which he mentioned today. We get the impression that the hon. the Minister will now wait to see how the new constitution and the other Parliaments develop before he decides whether representation can be given to them. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this respect. If that is his policy, I cannot stop him from doing so but I do want to point out that that is going to take some time. It may take a year and it may take two years; we do not know. He will probably know better than we how long it will take. However, there is obviously going to be a time-lag between the date this Bill becomes an Act—I imagine it will become an Act within the next two months—and the date on which the new South African Constitution will come into effect. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should during this time-lag see to it that when the council is established, representation be given to these groups. I should like him to state today that he would be prepared to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I raise to briefly say that I have been extremely disappointed as well as extremely encouraged by the comments made by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg and his colleagues who spoke after him. If, as the hon. member for Pinelands has said, this is a genuine statement of conviction by the NP, then I think this will become a red letter day in South African politics.

Now prove your acceptance of that by withdrawing your amendment.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Von Brandis never does what he says. We asked him here to comment on legislation in regard to the nursing profession, and although he said he would, he sat down without ever commenting. He asked us why we should distrust him, but I think we have had evidence of that here.

I should like to address myself to the hon. the Minister. He said to us during the Second Reading debate as he said to us in very clear terms today again that the Bill contains nothing to prevent him from appointing members of the other race groups provided there is available the necessary skill or qualification. We know full well that the necessary skill or qualification is available on the part of the other race groups. Although we stand by our amendment, I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that that again would be an expression of the red letter day of change in the basic thinking of the NP. We would be extremely encouraged if, in fact, he did better with his suggested ideas of making these appointments without the amendment being embodied in the legislation. If he could do better than that which we suggested by means of our amendment, we would be the first to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Government.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take up much time with my reply. I want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow in brief that he must not drag another red herring into this. He should keep the two issues separate. I said that later on, as the new dispensation developed and evolved in practice, we should have to take another look at the constitution of the council. That has nothing to do with the intention I have expressed of appointing people of other population groups to the council even at this stage, provided certain conditions can be satisfied. I also want to point out to the hon. member that it will not be possible to implement the Bill in practice as soon as the hon. member expects. Regulations still have to be drafted and published for comment. For that reason I expect that we shall be able to implement the Bill only during the first half of next year, that is, if the Bills are placed on the Statute Book.

The hon. member was extremely humble— it was of course not necessary—when he asked whether he was not permitted at all in this House to propose that a person representing the Black population group, the Indians or the Coloureds, should be appointed to the council. I do not think that such a thing is necessarily regarded as politics. But when it is accompanied by the venomous statements and the virulent attack which came from the hon. member for Bryanston, it is done in a spirit which very clearly has one single object: A political object.

Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to me that the helter-skelter dismantling of policy and the rapid and panicky movement away from traditional standpoints and terminology on the part of the Government today, call for an ability to waffle and temporize. The hon. the Minister has proved himself a post master at doing this. He is very capable when it comes to this. Hon. members should not blame us when we are astonished at what the Government says when a matter of this nature is being discussed in the House, for during the last half an hour we have heard standpoints from the opposite side of the House which were not only astonishing, but also in conflict with the traditional standpoints of the Government. It is very difficult to accept their sincerity at its face value.

I just want to say that we in this party will support both the amendment by the hon. member for Durban North and that of the hon. member for Umbilo in view of the fact that you, Mr. Chairman, have ruled our amendments on the same subject out of order. The hon. the Minister realizes that it is our object to ensure that he will indeed create a multiracial council, and that it will not merely depend on a vague undertaking which the Minister has given this House. In other words, we want to ensure that when this council is constituted for the first time, representatives of other race groups in South Africa will definitely serve on that.

We have had the peculiar remark from the hon. member for Verwoerdburg that he rejects that amendment with contempt. That is very difficult for us to accept. Apart from that, the hon. member for Von Brandis made the peculiar statement that the Government is in no way prepared to accept an amendment if it seeks to bring any aspect of race into the Bill. However, the Government has a tradition of 30 years behind it—a tradition according to which virtually all the legislation in the South African Statute Book has, in the first place, had primarily a racial basis. Because we are now presenting an amendment to ensure that multi-racial features will be built into legislation, the hon. member says all of a sudden that they want nothing to do with anything which has to do with race. We find it very difficult to believe in the sincerity of that standpoint. Consequently we shall support the other amendment by the hon. member for Durban North as well. We trust that the Government will come to see the matter in a different light and accept that amendment.

I just want to point out that subsection (3)(c) provides that—

I maintain that the discretion as to whether or not the period of office of a member of the council should be terminated, should rest with the other members of the council, and not with the State President.

Go and read the present Act.

I am not interested in the present Act. It is my purpose to suggest amendments which will contribute to placing an effective new Act on the Statute Book.

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

No, Mr. Chairman, I am busy now. If the hon. member wants to put questions to me by way of a speech, I shall reply to that. We have plenty of time. August is still far in the future.

You are the people who talk about public money: See how you are wasting it now.

I believe that the right to terminate the period of office of the member of the council for whatever reason, ought to rest with the other members of the council. In other words, I believe that a majority of the members of the council should decide on that, and not the State President. I can really not understand why you ruled my eighth amendment to be out of order, because that amendment is directed at transferring to the council the right of terminating the period of office of a member.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to question your decision?

Order! The hon. member must not question the decision any further.

It is provided that if a vacancy on the council arises as a result of a resignation or the death of a member, the State President will fill that vacancy. Once again, we feel that the responsibility for that should rest with the council. I feel that the council—once they have had a few meetings and have learned to know one another better—will be able to determine what type of person they should like to have as a member of that council, and what experience and qualifications such a member should have in order to make a contribution. They are in a better position than the State President to determine what type of ability and qualifications are lacking on the council, and because they know the people in that field, they will be able to decide what person will best comply with those requirements. I therefore believe that this legislation will improve if the hon. the Minister leaves that right to the council instead of placing it in the hands of the State President.

The hon. the Minister has already replied to the argument that the members of the council should themselves elect the president and the deputy president. But I do think that if it is the intention that the members of the council should have the fullest confidence in the president, they should be given the right of electing their own president. Then it is an elected president, a president who acts on behalf of the entire council. The hon. the Minister advanced the argument that it is necessary to have a president who can devote virtually all his time to this work. However, the members of that council will be fully aware of that requirement when they elect a president in a democratic way. In other words, there is no reason why the hon. the Minister should reserve to the Government the right of appointing a president. If one wants the best possible candidate elected, if one wants to have in that office a person who enjoys the confidence and the support of all the members of the House, and who will have prestige and who he can know and state that he has the full support of his council, then the council should be permitted to elect its own president. One need not be concerned about the question of whether an elected president will have sufficient time to devote to all his tasks and responsibilities, because the full scope of his responsibilities and tasks will be known to a candidate who aspires to this office before the election takes place. In that way, he will accept the responsibilities and tasks if he is elected.

I believe that it is completely unnecessary, when it comes to the question of when the council ought to meet, to lay down a minimum of two meetings—or as the hon. member for Umbilo has said, four meetings— per annum. Surely the council would be a responsible body with a proper understanding of its responsibilities and functions, and the council will be best able to decide how many times a year it ought to meet. In fact, judging by the amount of work which the hon. the Minister has given to the council, it will never be necessary for it to have meetings. However, the council will know whether it is necessary to have a meeting once a year or ten times a year. Hon. members need not be concerned about whether the council meets too seldom or too often. I think that is a responsibility which might well be left to such a council.

Now I come to the quorum. Why should it be necessary to prescribe to the council what the quorum should be at its meetings? Why should such a decision not be left to the council itself? Why cannot the council, after it has had one or more meetings, and after it has had the opportunity of analysing its responsibilities, its actions and procedures, decide for itself what the quorum of the council should be? Why should the hon. the Minister prescribe even that to the council?

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply to everything again, but I should like to make just three observations. The hon. member does not read the entire subsection. One reads in the subsection—

This concerns not only the quorum, but the entire internal regulation of the council. For that reason this is done rather by way of a directive, as in the case of all statutory councils. I have already explained to hon. members how democratically this will be done.

There is another matter I should like to rectify. The hon. member gives out that the mere appointment of people of other population groups to a council constitutes a brand new policy. For three years an Indian and a Coloured have been serving …

I did not say that.

The hon. member did say that, as did the hon. member for Pine-lands. It is not a brand new policy; it has been the policy of the NP for a long time to appoint members of the other population groups to statutory councils in which they have a special interest.

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg agreed to.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. R. B. Miller put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24: Bamford, B. R.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and P. A. Pyper.

Noes—103: Albertyn, J. T.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; (Dickers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; 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, 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 Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Amendment negatived.

Amendment (10) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (12) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (13) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (14) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the functions of the council. During our discussion on the previous two clauses reference was made to clause 3. Clause 3(1) stipulates that the functions of the council shall be to advise the Government. The hon. the Minister has given notice of an amendment which will add certain words to paragraph (g) to give the council the additional function of providing information and guidance to welfare organizations in connection with social welfare services. If the clause is to be amended along those lines, it will not really read right, because the first portion of the clause stipulates that the functions of the council shall be to advise the Government. The amendment of the hon. the Minister proposes that the council must provide information and guidance to welfare organizations. It is not quite clear as to how the proposed amendment will fit in with the first portion of this clause which stipulates that it is to advise the Government in relation to certain aspects.

I wish to move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Clause 3(3) reads—

The question of the submission of reports is indeed important when we are dealing with a council which is going to have such a considerably wide sphere of operation. We know that the National Welfare Board which was established in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965 and which is to disappear when this legislation has been adopted, submitted reports at very long intervals. As far as I could ascertain, the last report which was submitted by it was for the period 1 July 1971 to 31 December 1973. Now it is already 1978. So it would appear that there was a big time lapse between the submissions of reports.

What about the reports of the commissions?

The four commissions are to be abolished in terms of this legislation. The reports of the four commissions were included in the National Welfare Board’s report. The point I am trying to make is that we should like to see that the new council submits reports on an annual basis. The life of the council will be three years. In terms of this Bill they will twice submit a report during its term of office. We on these benches would prefer to see the annual submission of a report so that we can ascertain what are the work and functioning of the council. It would appear desirable that because of the importance of its task, it should report at least annually on its various functions to the Government.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to table these reports. We as members of the House would obviously be interested to know what progress has been made because it is to be the overriding council as far as welfare services in South Africa are concerned. Consequently we would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is his intention to table these reports or whether these reports will merely be submitted to the Government. We on these benches should like to know whether we will have insight into the reports. We believe this is important in order to ensure that the council is functioning along the lines intended by this legislation. We hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 deals with the functions of the S.A. Welfare Council. When we were dealing with the name of the council, the hon. the Minister made a concession and removed the word “advisory” from the title in response to representations which were made to him by a large number of representative organizations who felt very strongly that the council should not be restricted purely to an advisory responsibility, but should have other responsibilities as well and a higher status. The hon. the Minister in responding to these representations made the concession and removed the word “advisory” from the title. However, what the hon. the Minister did not do, and what is far more important, is to change the functions of the council and the responsibilities of the council in such a way that it should move away from its narrow advisory capacity and become a council with other responsibilities, a council with the necessary powers and functions to co-ordinate and to direct the social welfare services of South Africa effectively and efficiently throughout the country. That is what the representatives of the various organizations asked the hon. the Minister to do. That is the real substance of the representations which were made to the hon. the Minister. However, the hon. the Minister did not accede to these representations in so far as the functions and responsibilities of the council are concerned. I would therefore like to move amendments, which I hope—if the hon. the Minister accepts them—will extend to this body those responsibilities and functions which will give them the status and character which they themselves want. The first responsibility which I feel this council should exercise is the function of evaluating the regional welfare programmes to be drawn up by the regional welfare boards that are envisaged in the Bill. As the position stands at the moment, a regional welfare board which drafts a regional welfare programme submits that programme directly to the Secretary or to the Minister, and they decide whether to accept or reject the programme, to accept part of it or to refer it back for further attention. I believe that the South African Welfare Council, because it is the central co-ordinating body and because it will have knowledge of what is happening in all the other regions, should in the first place be the body that evaluates regional welfare programmes. The council will have drawn up, on the basis of their knowledge and experience, a set of norms against which it can evaluate such programmes. It will be in the best possible position to make meaningful and helpful suggestions for changes that can be brought about in such programmes. Once they have negotiated and discussed these programmes with the relevant regional welfare boards, once they have improved them, once they have brought their knowledge and experience to bear on these programmes to improve and strengthen them, it should in my opinion then be the body that negotiates with the Minister about the acceptance of programmes, the necessary financing of the programmes or any other activity which is required on the part of the State. I think that is a function which is very important.

A second function which should rest with this body and not with the Minister is that of appointing committees to hear appeals. If a welfare organization is aggrieved by the decision of a regional welfare board, a provision is made in the Bill for an appeal committee to be appointed by the Minister. That appeal committee will then hear the appeal of the welfare organization concerned. I believe that if we want the welfare organizations to have confidence in the appeal mechanism, it would be better if that appeal mechanism is not a product of the Minister, but of the profession itself. It should be a product of the most senior body, viz. the South African Welfare Council. I believe that they should be allowed to appoint an appeal committee of three members from amongst their numbers, people who are in no way associated with the regional welfare area from which the appeal comes, with one of their members as chairman of the appeal committee—that does not appear in my amendment; so I will move an additional amendment to this effect. That committee must hear the appeal, adjudicate upon it and then report their findings to the South African Welfare Council for that council to take whatever action it deems to be necessary.

The third important function I believe is this. We will find, and the hon. the Minister will experience, that where the same organization, the same national welfare body, is required to register in a number of different regional welfare areas and with a number of different regional welfare boards, that because there is no co-ordination, and because different circumstances exist in the different board areas, conflicts and inconsistencies will arise in respect of those registrations. I believe that the National Welfare Council can play a very effective part in seeing to it that such conflicts and inconsistencies do not arise. Where such a welfare organization has to register in different regional welfare board areas, it should, in consultation with the boards that are affected, and with the welfare organization that is affected, see to it that these problems are removed before they arise.

I think the fourth activity for which the council should be responsible is one of overall co-ordination. First of all it should co-ordinate the activities of the various regional welfare boards. Provision is not made for that, but that is vitally important because there can be an effective cross-fertilization of ideas. Experience gained by one regional welfare board could be extremely valuable in other areas. However, there is no mechanism to co-ordinate the activities and the experience of the various regional welfare boards and to provide liaison between the welfare boards on the one hand and the hon. the Minister and his State department on the other hand. Also to co-ordinate the activities of the welfare boards the council must inform the associated workers and the director of fund-raising where such activities and interests overlap.

One of the most glaring shortcomings in this trilogy of Bills which the hon. the Minister has brought before the House is that whereas one has three Bills which are creating a number of different bodies, all of which will, to a greater or lesser degree, be active within the social welfare field, and where the activities of those organizations must overlap, must come into conflict with one another, the hon. the Minister has at the same time not created a mechanism to co-ordinate those activities, to iron out difficulties and to provide that very important medium of communication. Obviously, the S.A. Welfare Council is by far in the best possible position to do that work provided the hon. the Minister allows it to do it. It is interesting that the S.A. Welfare Council is obviously not seen as being all that important. For one thing, they are only required to report twice during their term of office. Surely, anybody with this status and with these responsibilities must be required to report at least once a year to the Minister and to Parliament. That is the least that one should expect from a body. My first amendment, therefore, asks that this body should report not twice during its term of office, but at least once a year.

I therefore now move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 40, to omit “twice during its term of office” and to substitute “once a year”;
2. (2) on page 7, after line 43, to insert:
3. (4) The council shall, in consultation with the respective regional boards, evaluate regional welfare programmes, recommend any changes that are considered necessary and negotiate, in association with the respective regional welfare boards, the acceptance of the programmes by the Minister.
4. (5) Should a welfare organization feel itself aggrieved by a decision of a regional welfare board, it may appeal to the council, whose members shall appoint from among themselves an appeal committee of three members, who may not be associated in any way with the regional welfare board concerned and of whom one shall be appointed chairman, to hear and adjudicate the appeal and report its finding to the council.
5. (6) In cases where a welfare organization is required to apply for registration by more than one regional welfare board, the council shall, in consultation with the welfare organization and the regional welfare boards concerned, ensure that no conflicts or inconsistencies arise.
6. (7) The council shall—

1. (i) co-ordinate the activities of the regional welfare boards;
2. (ii) provide for liaison on a national level between welfare organizations and the Minister;
3. (iii) co-ordinate its activities and interests and those of the regional welfare boards, the Council for Social and Associated Workers and the Director of Fund-raising where such activities and interests overlap.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Bryanston, in the hope that he will reveal some glimmering of understanding of the contents of this Bill. I listened most intently to the hon. member. However, it is very clear that he does not have even the first appreciation of the structure of this Bill and of the structure which is now being developed in regard to our welfare services. I wonder, listening to the hon. member, whether he has even read the whole Bill. If the hon. member for Bryanston looks at the provisions relating to the functions of the regional boards, he will find that in those provisions are embodied the very points he made in relation to the national body. What has happened is that the various aspects relating to the control and functioning of welfare services have been devolved upon the regional boards. The functions of the council are specifically set out in clause 3. In terms of the hon. member’s amendment, he wants to delegate to the national body the functions of all the regional boards. That is what his amendment boils down to. He wants the National Welfare Council, which is a body to deal with matters of high policy and to evolve future planning in regard to welfare matters, to become an administrative body, taking over the functions of the regional boards in the various areas. When one looks at the hon. member’s amendments, one is driven to the conclusion that the hon. member has not read the subsequent clauses of this Bill relating to the functions of the regional boards. The hon. member has not read the Bill, and it drives one to a state of frustration when one tries to discuss the matter objectively with the hon. member. One can deal with a person when he has some knowledge of the subject, but when a person, in utter ignorance, talks a lot of platitudinous nonsense, it is impossible to argue with him. Hon. members will remember the hon. member for Bryanston’s Second Reading speech. He referred to “draconic” legislation.

What kind of legislation?

“Draconic” legislation.

You mean “draconian”.

Yes, “draconian” if you like. He referred to a whole bureaucratic set-up and made various wild statements. Now he moves an amendment which, were it to be accepted, would result in a whole new type of bureaucracy in the Department of Social Welfare being set-up. There is no substance to the hon. member’s arguments and one cannot even take notice of them.

Well, sit down then!

I want to come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umbilo. I have great respect for the hon. member’s knowledge when it comes to welfare matters. He is a specialist in this field. Nevertheless, I should like the hon. member to give some consideration to a point I am about to raise before he presses for his amendment to be accepted. The hon. member knows that the council will be appointed for a period of three years. In terms of the Bill the council is required to report twice in its lifetime. That means it has to report once every 18 months. Bearing in mind that such reports will be concerned with policy and the broad issues which this council will deal with, I think that is sufficient. The hon. member referred to the reports of the existing National Welfare Board. I admit that it would appear that there was a vacuum in its reporting, but the reports of the existing board took another direction in that voluminous reports were produced by the various commissions which functioned under the welfare board. I would like to ask the hon. member to tell me honestly and sincerely whether he has ever bothered to read any of those reports of the commissions.

Yes.

They are very extensive. I have one here dealing with family issues which alone consists of six volumes. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever bothered to wade through those reports.

I referred to the National Welfare Board.

Yes, but these reports form part of the National Welfare Board’s reports. I believe that there are volumes of these reports on the shelves of the Department of Social Welfare. If this council is going to deal with matters of strategy and policy regarding the social requirements of our country, as set out in clause 3, then I submit with respect that for this body to be called upon to report every 18 months is a reasonable request. I am sure the Minister will reply to the suggestion by the hon. member for Umbilo that such reports be tabled in this House.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, what the hon. member for Bryanston has said on our behalf is that this should be brought on to a national level. It should be brought on to that level in order to provide for that measure of co-ordination which, with great respect, is not being prescribed anywhere in the Bill itself. We have a series of regional boards to be established. Each of them is going to do its own thing. We have already heard during the Second Reading debate that the policy of one board may differ from that of another board. In fact, I think the hon. the Minister intimated that no harm would be done because of such a difference between two boards. I think, however, where one has national organizations which have branches which in turn will fall under the various regional boards, it is necessary to have that cohesion on a national level. It is also necessary to have the liaison to which the hon. member for Bryanston has referred. If we bear this in mind, it is clear that it is also necessary to have some form of review in regard to the programmes propagated by the various regional boards. There should be some authority who can take these programmes under review. How would one otherwise know that the regional boards fulfil their functions 100%. Who is going to control whether the regional board in area X is doing exactly what it is supposed to do? Who is going to establish whether such a board is not failing its duties in that it is falling down badly in regard to certain social welfare work that has to be done in that area? Who is going to establish whether its programme is working properly? Here we have an advisory body. We have people who are experienced and they are chosen because of their special knowledge and this is the sort of thing which they should review. With great respect, there is a great amount of merit in what the hon. member has proposed.

There are two other points I should like to raise. In the first instance I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to something. In this connection I am sorry that I have not put the amendment earlier on the Order Paper, but allow me to explain. The clause reads—

My difficulty is that “the Government” is not defined in the Bill. I therefore do not know who the Government is, with great respect. I have not seen any other legislation—I have consulted my colleagues who are more learned than I am—wherein provision is made for the Government to be advised. In actual fact, when we look at the National Welfare Act, 1965, we see under section 4 that provision is made for the board to advise the Minister. It is clearly intended that the advice should be given to the Minister and I cannot understand why we do not have the same wording in the Bill. “Government” is a nebulous description seeing that there is no appropriate definition in the legislation to cover it. I think the legislation will be improved were we to substitute “Minister” for “Government”.

I should like to put a further question to the hon. the Minister. I refer to clause 3(1)(f) where we read—

I take it that it is not going to be the function of the council itself to carry out research work. It may well find that research should be done in a certain field such as family planning to take but one example. Since the council itself will not undertake research, how in fact will the council implement its obligation and who will they get to carry out research? Who is going to do the research? I think it is a question of appointing people on account of their special knowledge so that they can give advice. When it comes to the function of research, some vehicle enabling such research must be created.

Let me, lastly, re-emphasize the point made by the hon. member for Bryanston, namely that we find it a little disappointing that, although a body is being established to give advice, the word “advisory” has been removed completely from its title. What is more, we would expect it to have more teeth. By and large it will still only be an advisory council as the position is now.

I now move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo asked me a few questions and I should first like to reply to them. He asked whether it was my intention to table the reports. If we define “report” as it is defined here, my answer is yes. In other words, I am referring to the overall report. However, if he intends by his question to suggest that I should table all documents emanating from that body, it is not my intention to do so.

That was not what I meant.

It is my intention to table the reports. Unfortunately, however, I cannot accede to the amendment that the report should be an annual report. The same amendment has been moved by the member for Bryanston. The reason why I cannot accede to that is simply because, especially at the beginning, it may be difficult at the end of the year to furnish a substantial report I think we should give the body time to get going and to organize itself. Therefore I think a report once in 18 months should be sufficient. That is not so very different from an annual report Twice every three years can be regarded as regular. Therefore there will, in accordance with the Bill, be regular reports which will be tabled. I appeal to the hon. member to accept that He must also note in this regard that this is a minimum requirement. I foresee that in due course a yearly report will be published. I would welcome it if they found their work so extensive that it would be necessary to do that.

The hon. member for Umbilo was also worried about the grammatical effect of the amendment in my name on the Order Paper, which I now move, as follows—

I think one must bear in mind that the words I propose should be inserted will not form part of subsection (1)(g). These words will stand on their own. Subsection (1) will now read—

Then follow the existing paragraphs (a) to (g)—

It will be better as a separate paragraph.

We will consider that from a grammatical point of view and, if the legal advisers agree, we can attend to that in the Other Place.

*The hon. member for Bryanston motivated his other amendments fairly extensively. I want to tell him that his amendment is based on another philosophy than the philosophy which is fundamental to this Bill. His amendment is based on the philosophy of centralization, while the philosophy of the Bill is a philosophy of decentralization. The hon. member for Von Brandis hit the nail on the head when he said that the hon. member for Bryanston wants to turn this into an administrative body while it is not an administrative body. It is not intended to be such a body. I do not want to see it being given the function of a tribunal or a kind of court which has to make final decisions and be the great watchdog of welfare work in South Africa That is not the idea. The idea is, in fact, decentralization. The idea is, in fact, that the people of the Western Cape, for example, should put their own stamp on welfare work according to their own circumstances. They might have a community chest, while others do not. This is not necessarily a good example, but a factor like this might have an influence on how a regional welfare council feels about certain matters. In another region there might, on the other hand, be a shortage of certain services, services which are abundantly available in the Western Cape. In this way certain circumstances can differ from one region to another. Therefore decentralization is the correct philosophy. The hon. member complained in his Second Reading speech that we are not making sufficient provision for local authorities. He is a great champion of local authorities, because he believes that local authorities should have powers. So why cannot there be decentralization in the welfare sphere as well? Why should there be a central co-ordinating authority in that sphere which acts as the welfare dictator of South Africa?

The decentralization of welfare work entails many advantages, and therefore I cannot accept his amendment I believe that some of the matters in regard to which he had reservations, are eliminated by the amendment I have moved, because this council is not only an advisory council, since it can also provide welfare organizations with guidance. That is why an overall, co-ordinating function is being built in here. Furthermore the council advises the Government. The fact that the council advises the Government does not exclude the right to advise the Government with regard to co-ordination as well. In terms of clause 3(1)(g) the council may advise the Government in relation to any social welfare matter referred to the council by the Minister or about which the council deems it necessary or desirable to advise the Government. If the council advises the Government, the Government will be able—depending on which department the advice refers to—to effect the necessary co-ordination. If it is in the sphere of welfare only, there will be a representative of the department in every region with a regional welfare council who can advise very effectively on matters which should be tackled in the same way. This can then work through to the various regional boards. Therefore I think that my amendment makes ample provision for co-ordination. I also think that the central function which the hon. member wishes to give to the council is absolutely unnecessary. What the power he wants to give the council boils down to is that he is in fact proposing that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions should also be eliminated, just like that, because the department then will no longer have any function. He wants the Government to provide the money so that the private sector, with the State’s money, may have the right to take decisions on its own. This is what his amendments boil down to.

The hon. member for Hillbrow moved an amendment and asked why the Government should be advised and not the Minister. If one looks at the functions of the council, it is clear that it can make recommendations on a variety of matters. If, for instance, the council makes recommendations with regard to married life, the Department of Justice will be affected by this. That is a first reason why the Government is involved. The council’s advice and the area in which it may function, is not limited to the narrow area in which the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions functions. In the second place there will be decentralization on population level, and because there are going to be separate regional councils for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, it might affect other departments. Therefore the Government has to be involved. This is a general term written into many laws. It is, therefore, nothing new to refer to the Government, nor does it have to be defined.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said there was a philosophical difference between his approach and my approach. He said that the approach of the Government was aimed at decentralizing powers and rights from a central basis to the regional councils. He argued that my point of view meant that there must be centralization. In other words, the hon. the Minister said that I wanted to deprive the regional councils of powers and rights and place them in the hands of the S.A. Welfare Council on a central basis.

You are making those councils subordinate.

No, the hon. the Minister is quite wrong when he says that. If hon. members look at the functions I set out for the S.A. Welfare Council, it will be clear that none of those functions is a function which is being taken away from the regional council and given to the central council. These are functions which, in terms of the legislation as the hon. the Minister introduced it, are going to be discharged by the Minister. Therefore, what I am trying to do …

They may appeal to the council.

… is to take away the powers exclusively exercised by the hon. the Minister when an organization or a person feels aggrieved and does not have the right to appeal against decisions of the Minister. It is not because I do not trust the hon. the Minister, but I want to take those powers and rights exclusively exercised by the hon. the Minister on a centralized and not on a decentralized basis away from him and give them to the S.A. Welfare Council because it is more representative.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, in the light of the arguments the hon. the Minister put forward when he rejected my amendments on clause 3, it is clear that his rejection of the amendments might be based on a misunderstanding, considering the real intention of these amendments. The hon. the Minister argued that it was his intention, as far as the social welfare services in South Africa were concerned, to decentralize the powers and responsibilities. He then added that these amendments frustrate that aim of his and that he, because they frustrate his aim of decentralization, was forced to reject them. I should now like to illustrate to the hon. the Minister that those amendments will definitely not frustrate the possible decentralization which the hon. the Minister is trying to bring about. The amendments I moved will not take away any powers or rights which are being given to the regional councils in terms of this legislation, nor will it obstruct their implementation in any way. The powers and responsibilities to which I refer in this connection—the hon. the Minister may as well listen to this—are rights and responsibilities which at the moment, in terms of the provisions of this legislation are in the hands of the hon. the Minister. The responsibilities referred to in the amendments are responsibilities which are being taken away from the hon. the Minister and placed in the hands of the S.A. Welfare Council.

The motivation for this is that to put those responsibilities in the hands of a body of which the members would be elected, responsible and able representatives—if my amendment had not been ruled out of order—who have the ability, the proficiency and the experience to be able to make a responsible, balanced and credible judgment about the organizations on which a judgment has to be made. Therefore the credibility of the S.A. Welfare Council in this case has perforce to be greater than that of the hon. the Minister. Those organizations will then display a greater confidence in the S.A. Welfare Council than in the hon. the Minister and his officials.

This does not mean that the sense of responsibility of, or the respect we have for, the hon. the Minister is involved here. What happens here, is simply that those responsibilities are being transferred from the hands of the hon. the Minister or his Secretary— they are public servants who stand alone— into the hands of a body consisting of leading, responsible and, to a great degree, independent people whose judgment will be easily accepted by the organizations who will be affected by that judgment. They will accept it as a judgment coming from a group of people who are independent in their decision to pass judgment. This is the reason why this matter has nothing to do with centralization. No powers are being taken away from the regional councils on a decentralized basis and transferred to a central body. Powers are merely being taken away from the hon. the Minister and given to the central body, without affecting the powers of the regional councils in any way. The regional councils are merely being mentioned here as bodies who will liaise with the National Welfare Council. The National Welfare Council will have a co-ordinating function.

It will co-ordinate the activities, functions and interests of the regional councils. This co-ordination will take place between the various regional councils, between the National Welfare Board and the regional councils, as well as between the regional councils and other bodies who are going to be affected now and have a specific interest in the actions of the regional councils. I am referring here to bodies such as the Welfare Workers’ Council and the Director for Fundraising which are to be created in terms of legislation still to be introduced in this House. In other words, if these powers and responsibilities are given to the National Welfare Council, this council is being given the opportunity and the ability to fulfil a co-ordinating function, a function for which provision is not at present being made in the legislation. Furthermore, the National Welfare Council will have to fulfil other responsibilities which at present do not rest with the regional councils, but in fact with the hon. the Minister. Therefore, if the hon. the Minister’s rejection of the amendments is based on a misunderstanding, I want to appeal to him to give them his attention once again and to reconsider his point of view.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to indicate that we accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to the question of annual reports being required from the council. We agree that it may perhaps be difficult in the first year for the council to submit an annual report. The hon. the Minister has also indicated that it is his intention, at a later stage, to request that reports be submitted on an annual basis. Consequently we do not intend to pursue the amendment which I have moved.

The aspect concerning the position of the council re the,establishment of better co-ordination with the regional boards, is a matter which requires further discussion. Although I can see that the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bryanston have certain merits, as they endeavour to create some form of machinery to bring about that co-ordination, it would appear that it is not the intention for this council to be really a co-ordinating body between the regional boards. However, clause 3(1)(d) specifically provides that one of the functions of the council shall be to advise the Government in relation to—

This provision refers to the whole of the Republic and obviously it would mean that co-operation with the regional boards, which also have the function of arranging programmes, would have to be taken into account Clause 3(2) states that—

In this regard I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible, in terms of this provisions, to ensure that the regional boards, or at least the chairmen of the regional boards, be called together, so that a degree of co-operation and liaison could be established at least between the chairmen of the various regional boards. Such co-ordination is necessary, particularly when one takes into account that the S.A. Welfare Council has, as one of its functions, the function to take steps and arrange matters on a Republic-wide basis. It is therefore obvious that the regional boards will play an important role in this regard. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether it is possible that the chairmen of the various regional boards could be brought together on a fairly regular basis so as to discuss matters of common interest. I should like to point out that the regional boards only have to report to the Minister and not to the council. Up to now they had to submit reports to the National Welfare Board. In this case they only report to the hon. the Minister, and therefore it would be possible, at the hon. the Minister’s instigation, for the council to arrange conferences and for an organization to be established through which there could at least be co-operation and liaison between the various regional boards. The chairmen of the regional boards in particular will have to be the leading personalities in the various regions.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Minister’s reply that it is necessary that different departments of the Government must receive these reports, I will not pursue the amendment I moved to change the word “Government” to “Minister”. By leave of the House I therefore withdraw the amendment.

In regard to paragraph (f), which deals with the question of research, I only want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is able to indicate to the House how he intends pursuing the question of research when it is not within the powers of the council to do so.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last question of the hon. member for Hillbrow, it is of course impossible to say in advance who will do the research in every case. It will depend on the recommendation of the council. Surely the council itself will recommend that a matter be investigated by a commission of inquiry or an able expert or perhaps by a university. In any case, the idea is not that the council as such will of necessity do all the research, although the council is at liberty, with the expert knowledge it has at its disposal, to undertake studies itself and publish its findings. I do not want to commit myself to a specific method. In every case where an inquiry is recommended and deemed necessary, I shall definitely try to have the inquiry done in a functional manner in order to have the work done quickly and to publish a comprehensive and thorough report.

The hon. member for Umbilo’s suggestion that it might be a good idea, in terms of the powers of the council, to hold periodic conferences in which representatives of the regional councils may be involved, is, in my opinion, a good idea. If I remember correctly, I think I said during the Second Reading debate that I would consider something of that kind myself. In this regard, however, I do not want to commit myself finally to anything of this nature. We might feel that a conference is not the desired thing as a first step, but that all the regional plans received from the regional councils should rather be referred to the council itself first. I am free to do that. In the same breath I want to tell the hon. member for Bryanston that I did not misunderstand his amendment. My objections were twofold. On the one hand some of his amendments give administrative decision-making powers to the council, powers which will make the council the central authority. Subsection (5) in particular, which he wants to insert with his second amendment, stipulates that the council should be given the function of hearing and adjudicating on appeals from the regional councils. Every welfare organization’s complaints have to be investigated by a regional council, the appeals have to be heard and a finding has to be arrived at, a finding which should surely be enforceable. In other words, he wants to make the central council the master of the regional council in this regard. This is in conflict with the philosophy of decentralization and with the idea, which I made clear to him, that the South African Welfare Council is not a super body governing welfare organizations. There is no control as such over them. His own argument destroys the second argument he advanced. In one breath he said that he did not suggest that they should have real power and in the next he said that the Minister had too much power and he suggested that the council should be given the powers of the Minister. He said, in other words, that these people should have power because I have it. In reality the co-ordination which the hon. member is so concerned about, is in the first instance already present in the regional councils. That is where co-ordination takes place. The regional plan is the result of co-ordination. It is a reasoned plan which says that precedence will be given to a certain service in a particular region according to a priority list It is, therefore, co-ordinated plans which will be put forward. If there is a need for further co-ordination between the regions, such co-ordination will be exercised by my department and myself to the extent to which we are involved in it. The hon. member must remember that the department will be one of the largest sources of finance of all the plans to be executed.

It is not that we want power, but we do have a responsibility to Parliament with regard to every cent which is spent. How can we do this if we delegate all the powers in this regard and give our money to other people to make final decisions on? Therefore the Minister and the department have a definite part to play. In the process he will exercise a strong co-ordinating function. Furthermore, co-ordination between regions can be effected through the council within the framework of the provisions in clause 3 and the paragraph which I have added. Therefore I can give the hon. the member the assurance that I will definitely use this council for co-ordination without it being given administrative decision-making functions and without exercising authority over the regional councils, because that is in conflict with the idea of decentralization.

Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield negatived and amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg dropped.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, clause 4 deals with the appointment of a secretary for the S.A. Welfare Council. In the nature of the appointment we once again see an illustration of the way in which the democratic process is frustrated and where the Minister takes unto himself the right to make all the decisions with regard to the appointment and the functions of the secretary. Once again we have here a body which the hon. the Minister acknowledges, a body which will be a senior body with a high status, a body which consists of responsible people in whom the Minister has confidence. However, with regard to the appointment of a secretary to that body, a person who will have full responsibility for all the administrative functions of that body and who obviously will be a very senior and responsible official with an important task to fulfil, it is not the council who decides whom they would like to appoint, it is not the council that makes the selection and appointment of the secretary, but the hon. the Minister. The secretary of the Department, representing the Minister, makes a selection deciding who the secretary of this body will be. He appoints that secretary and the secretary of the council is directly responsible to the Secretary of the department of Social Welfare and Pensions. He is not directly and exclusively responsible to the council, but to the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions, and obviously, through him, directly responsible to the Minister. Our point of view is him quite simply that once again, in clause 4 of the Bill, the hon. the Minister frustrates the principle of democracy. However, far from only frustrating the principle of democracy, the hon. the Minister also frustrates the enthusiasm of the members of that council, because he says to the members of that council: “I cannot actually trust you to select the right man or to appoint the right man, or if you appoint him, to control him in a proper and effective way. Therefore, I have to do it for you.”

It means that the hon. the Minister undermines the status and the authority of the members of that council. Not only does he undermine the authority and the status of the members of that council, but he also undermines the authority and the status of the secretary, because the secretary will unfortunately, rightly or wrongly—whether it is right or wrong is not the point—always be seen to be a State appointment. He will always be seen to be an appointment by the Minister. He will always be seen to be the representative of the Minister in that council, instead of being seen as the official chief executive of the council.

[Inaudible.]

Obviously, the hon. member will disagree with me. However, there are numerous examples of bodies like this being created in the past …

Such as?

There have been many examples. I have experience of them.

Name us one!

Bodies like this have been created …

Name us one!

Because the official is not directly responsible to the council concerned the council and its members suffer by virtue of the fact that their status is diminished. We therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider the amendment I am going to move. I now move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 7, in lines 44 to 46, to omit subsection (1) and to substitute:

1. (1) The council shall appoint a secretary who shall operate as its chief executive.
2. (2) on page 7, in lines 48 and 49, to omit “and shall be subject to the administrative control of the Secretary”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston has, since this afternoon already, been casting suspicion on this Bill in a reckless way. Now the hon. member is again alleging that the hon. the Minister ostensibly does not trust the members of that council and that for that reason he does not want to give them the opportunity to elect the secretary themselves. Surely this is the greatest nonsense which a person can imagine. And for a responsible member of this House to say something like this, I find inconceivable. Surely it is not true. [Interjections.]

Let us see what the situation really is. Do hon. members of the PFP really want the members of this House to decide whether the secretary to the council is, for example, competent enough to fulfil his task? I do not think it is for them to decide such a matter. The hon. member for Bryanston does not want to listen to what the hon. the Minister is telling him either. The money the council is going to spend is public money. It is State funds. If this council itself should now elect a secretary, to whom is that secretary responsible? If that secretary is, as envisaged, a Public Servant, he is responsible to this Parliament. Hon. members of the Official Opposition have, during the past week, made such a fuss about reporting to Parliament with regard to what happens to the State’s money. The very thing they want in this case, however, is that the money spent by the State on welfare work should be handled and spent by someone who is responsible neither to the hon. the Minister nor to Parliament.

This type of argument is merely a waste of the time of this House. I think that hon. members of the Opposition should now put a stop to this type of practice. In my opinion this is a good piece of legislation, and hon. members of the Opposition should stop casting suspicion on it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. The hon. member for Bryanston has put the case from these benches very clearly, and we support him fully. We think it is only right and proper that the council should itself make the appointment. The hon. member for Verwoerdburg said that this official would be paid by the State and was therefore answerable to the State. That is not an answer to the question. In actual fact, the hon. member for Verwoerdburg has raised a matter I want to refer to as well, and that is the important aspect of finance. Under a previous clause we dealt with the appointment of the council, which will consist of 21 people. Those 21 people are going to be paid. They will not work for the State, but will be outsiders who are experts in various fields. They are not going to be beholden to the State simply because they are paid by the State. They will be able to exercise a free and independent judgment, as people who do not work for the State although the money which is paid them comes from the State.

This leads me to another question: Where is all the money to come from which will be required to pay the council? Obviously it is going to come from Government funds. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question relating to the financing of this new council and the appointment of the secretary. The secretary is going to be a State official, and therefore he will be taken from another department. He will already have reached a certain grade, and therefore the salary attaching to this particular post will have to be fixed, bearing in mind that grade. I want to ask the Minister whether he has in fact worked out what the cost implications of this legislation will be. Here I am thinking of the establishment of the council and all the ramifications which will follow from this new system. Is he able to compare the cost to the State of this new organization in relation to the cost to the country of the existing National Welfare Board, as established in terms of the 1965 Act? How much more is this going to cost the country, if we proceed with this legislation on this basis?

Mr. Chairman, we have now seen another example of the lack of knowledge displayed by hon. members on that side. The hon. members for Bryanston and Hillbrow are unable to understand this Bill or its workings. I can well understand the frustration of the hon. member for Bryanston, who is assisted by the hon. member for Hillbrow as the secretary of the secret fund of the PFP. [Interjections.] They will not deny it, Sir. I am therefore not surprised that the hon. member for Hillbrow should have raised the question of finance. If the hon. member for Bryanston had done any work at all on this Bill, he would have come across the following provision in the existing Act I should like to quote it for the benefit of the hon. member for Bryanston in his ignorance. It states clearly—

That provision has functioned since the passing of the Act of 1965. If the hon. member for Bryanston has any knowledge whatsoever of the workings of the Department of Social Welfare, he must surely know that the department acts as the secretariat in the case of this type of work done by the various boards that operate under the department.

That does not mean it is right.

If the hon. member for Bryanston could contain himself for a few minutes, he could possibly learn something.

It would be quite impossible to learn anything from you! [Interjections.]

Sir, one is driven to one conclusion, and that is that these hon. gentlemen and the party that that hon. member belongs to at the present moment do not understand these matters. I say “at the present moment”, because the hon. member has belonged to other parties in the past.

You have not done so badly!

As far as this Bill is concerned, those hon. members are holding up work that will be done for very many people in South Africa by the many thousands of voluntary workers. Many people in the country are dependent upon what this Bill will give them in the future. I think the public should recognize what these honourable gentlemen are doing in regard to the Committee Stage of this Bill in delaying its passing through this House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to refer to us as “horrible” gentlemen? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. member for Von Brandis say “horrible” gentlemen?

No, Mr. Chairman, I said the honourable gentlemen. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I understand that the hon. member for Hillbrow has on occasions some difficulty of understanding English as it is spoken normally.

The proposed amendment is in direct contradiction to the attitude the hon. gentleman adopted during the Second Reading of this Bill and as announced at length when we were dealing with the first clause of the Bill this afternoon. The hon. member says he does not want bureaucracy, but what is he trying to create? He wants a board which will set up its own bureaucratic pyramid to carry out its own operations and with the exact same functions at present entrusted to the department. The hon. gentleman wants a completely administrative organization. If that is not creating extra bureaucracy, then I do not know what is.

I think that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston shows a complete lack of any knowledge whatsoever on the part of these hon. gentlemen as far as social welfare aspects are concerned and the workings of the department.

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of the clause quite clearly indicate that it is apparent that the secretary of the Welfare Council could be a full-time post. If we look at the existing position, we see that the registrar of the Welfare Board has been a full-time post. I believe the secretary’s too will be a full-time post and in his reply the hon. the Minister can tell us whether it is going to be a full-time post or not I think it will be to the advantage of a smooth running Welfare Council should its secretary be appointed from the Public Service, as is provided for. In addition to that the clause indicates quite clearly that the secretary of the council shall perform his functions under the supervision and guidance of the council. As far as we in these benches are concerned, we believe that this meets the needs of a secretary who will be required to perform a function as the secretary of the council. For these reasons we do not see our way clear to supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston which endeavours to create a post for the secretary which is that of the chief executive officer. I think the creation of a post along those lines would be quite contrary to the intentions as to how the board should function. The functions of the secretary, as provided for in the clause as it now stands, should be left unaltered. We do not intend supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, as I agree with the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Verwoerdburg, Von Brandis and Umbilo, I shall not rehash those arguments. In addition to what they have said, I should like to say firstly to the hon. member for Bryanston that the question about the post of secretary and who appoints the secretary has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.

We are very glad that people like the hon. member for Bryanston are not in Government. He obviously does not know anything at all about administration. The logical consequence of his argument is that the board must appoint the secretary. Well, as a result of that I suppose that when the board goes out of office after three years and a new board is appointed, the secretary will have to resign and to reapply.

That is a ridiculous argument.

In the second instance I want to take the hon. member to task because he has made the statement that the secretary will be subject fully to Government control. It is not true. I should like to read the particular provision—

The expression “supervision and guidance of the council” means in literal terms that the council will be his boss. It is as simple as that. He will only be subject to the administrative control of the Secretary. That means questions such as whether he is promoted from that post to another post, disciplinary action in the event of his being late for work every morning, receiving his monthly cheque, etc. In other words, it is purely administrative control.

He who pays the piper calls the tune!

If one contrasts in the very same sentence the concepts of supervision and guidance on the one hand with administrative control on the other hand, it is clear what the intention is. It means that for all practical purposes he will be an employee of the board. The board will decide what he does and will give him instructions and he will then have to report back to the board. Only administratively will he be under the control of the Secretary. I therefore accuse the hon. member of ignoring this portion of the clause. I want to say that his presentation of what this clause says in literal terms, is an incomplete presentation. We are very, very unhappy that he resorts to such tactics in this debate.

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked me who will pay for what. Obviously, the Treasury will pay. We should like to hear what the views are of the hon. members opposite on this. Do they feel that public money collected for welfare purposes should be used for this?

No.

Well, obviously, the State will then pay for it. It will do so in terms of Treasury regulations. It is set out in the Bill how many meetings the council will hold after its constitution. This has already been decided upon. It is also clear that the council members will be part-time members. They will get an allowance for every day on which they are present at a meeting and they will get disbursements. This Bill will bring about a substantial savings compared with existing conditions. There will be a maximum of 21 members on the council whereas on the existing board, coupled with the commissions, there are 36 members. Therefore, from a financial point of view, too, this is a very good Bill.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move—

1. (1) On page 7, in line 52, after “may” to insert:

1. (2) on page 7, in line 53, after “establish” to insert “a maximum of twelve”.

Clause 5 deals with the establishment of regions. It provides that—

1. (a) establish regions, each of which shall consist of one or more magisterial districts, and determine the name by which such a region shall be known;
2. (b) increase or decrease the limits of any region or alter the name by which it is known or abolish any region or incorporate any region with any other region;
3. (c) amend or withdrawn any notice under this section by similar notice.

In other words, here once again we have a further example of the Minister giving himself exclusive, unchallenged authority to decide and announce by notice in the Government Gazette where regions should be established, what a region should be called, how the boundaries of regions should be altered, which regions should be incorporated with other regions, and when to withdraw any notice appearing in the Government Gazette. These are unchallenged powers that the Minister takes unto himself exclusively in terms of this provision. I believe, once again, that that is unfortunate. I think that that is the wrong way to deal with this. I think that, before the Minister decides where regions should be established, what their boundaries should be, what they should be called, etc., he should consult with the S.A. Welfare Council. I think that that is the least he can do.

There are regions in existence at the moment. You know that.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Deputy Minister would like to make a speech, I am quite sure you will give him an opportunity to speak. The law does not provide for consultation with the S.A. Welfare Council before those decisions are taken and before they are announced by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member aware of the fact that certain regions are already functioning?

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to take part in the debate and then we can debate that particular point. The hon. the Minister should consult with the S.A. Welfare Council and utilize their experience and their knowledge of the welfare structure in the country, the welfare needs of the various areas and obtain from them their views on what the optimum delimitation of these areas should be for the most effective provision of welfare services. I would also like to suggest that there should be a maximum to the number of regions that should be established. I suggest that the maximum should be 12. There may be some reasons why it should be a smaller or larger number but I believe that a maximum of 12 is a good figure to work on. In particular I believe that the hon. the Minister, before taking these decisions and making these announcements, should consult with this body as far as those decisions are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is worried about Ministers taking too much power upon themselves. If I, or any other Minister, wanted to have so much power, we need not have established regional welfare boards. They are boards that draft plans, and all their members come from the private sector, apart from one official. The establishment of regions is an administrative function. My first reply is that we want to eliminate unnecessary red tape. With regard to my second reply, we have repeatedly argued that the South African Welfare Council should not have any authority over the regional boards. Therefore, any liaison with the national council does not fit into the pattern of the Bill, the pattern of the principles already accepted or the pattern of the clauses that have already been agreed to by way of voting this evening.

How these regions are divided, will largely be determined by experience, and we have many years of experience. The hon. Deputy Minister did make one interjection and the hon. member for Bryanston, who surely holds the record for the most interjections made during this sitting, even begrudged him that. The only thing the hon. the Deputy Minister asked, was whether that hon. member was aware of the fact that there are regions that are functioning. Therefore, I shall give the reply in my speech, because there are regions in operation.

I am fully aware of that.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that I am not going to deviate radically from those regions. As new communities may develop and as large, new regional communities may arise at points of concentration, it may become necessary to add a region. It can also happen that one region becomes too big and then one might feel that it should be divided in two. The hon. member can, however, rest assured that there will be consultation with the regional boards affected by such a redivision. We really have enough confidence in our Ministers on this side not to want to prescribe such a trifle by law.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, we have now reached the stage where, having dealt with the easy part of this Bill, we now come to the more difficult and sticky part of the Bill. Whereas the hon. the Minister has had an easy passage up to now, I think he may have a more difficult one from this point onwards. The Bill before the House aims at enhancing the social welfare services of South Africa, bringing more order in the provision of those services and creating a system of control for these services. I think the hon. the Minister pointed out earlier on that one of his aims was the effective decentralization of powers and controls in respect of social welfare services. I believe that it is a very sound principle for the hon. the Minister to aim at decentralizing the powers and the responsibilities of social welfare services in South Africa. In order to decentralize those powers and responsibilities effectively, the hon. the Minister proposes in clause 7 of the Bill the creation of regional welfare boards in order to control the work which is done in each of the regional welfare areas that will be decided upon. When one comes to discuss the regional welfare boards, one is actually approaching the grass roots of the social welfare services of this country. We have now got down to the level where the various welfare organizations carry out a spectrum of services, at the grass roots level, in order to serve the community for which they are responsible and from which they come. This is in fact the nitty-gritty of the social welfare services that are rendered in the country. The idea is that regions will be decided upon, that all the welfare needs of the people within those regions will be studied by the regional welfare boards, that all the organizations will be involved, consulted and will be part of this process and that the regional welfare boards will draft what is known as regional welfare programmes in terms of the needs of those areas and in terms of the resources that are available there. Such welfare programmes will go to the Government for approval and the Government will then obviously become involved in that work and will, to a large extent, finance that work.

There are a number of issues that are absolutely vital in this respect. The first is that once again the Minister is proposing a very complicated procedure of nominations. From amongst those proposed he will decide who are to be members of the regional welfare boards. We would once more like to make the point that that is not a fully democratic procedure, because the final decision rests in the hands of the hon. the Minister, a single person. He decides who will go to those boards. Three-quarters of them will come from nomination lists submitted by the managements of the various organizations, but here one once again comes up against the same problem, i.e. that these members of the boards will unfortunately, whether one likes it or not, not be seen to be the democratically elected representatives of the organizations that are involved. They will not be seen to be truly representative of the organizations that are involved, but will unfortunately be seen to be appointees of the hon. the Minister. The moment a person on any body, board, or council becomes an appointee of a Cabinet Minister, he loses status and credibility. I am not saying that it is right or wrong; I am saying that it is a fact of life. If any hon. Minister appoints someone to a board or a council, whether it is right or wrong, that person immediately loses credibility and status. He is then not the democratically elected representative of the organizations whose interests he is there to serve and to represent. The people involved therefore immediately lose some of their status. Therefore, the body loses status because the people who compose that body lose status and I believe that is most unfortunate.

I should now like to come to the second aspect. In our amendments we propose ways and means of getting past the problem, i.e. by allowing the managements of all these organizations that are involved within that region to nominate people and by allowing all the members of the organizations within that region to elect from amongst themselves a certain number of people—we suggest 12—to the regional board. The hon. the Minister earlier on in the debate made a completely wild statement. He said that if one were to allow elections on this basis one would need a voters’ roll as large as the voters’ roll for the hon. members of this House, which I believe is something like 2 million voters. That is not true.

I was told by somebody that the total number of members of all social welfare organizations in South Africa was something like 45 000. I do not know whether that figure is right or wrong. Maybe the hon. the Minister has a more accurate figure. However, let us say that the figure is nearly correct. That number is equal to the number of voters in only something like three constituencies. In a regional welfare board area— let us say there are ten or 12 such areas in South Africa—I suggest there will only be a few thousand members of welfare organizations. Am I nearly right or am I wrong?

There are ± 4 000 welfare organizations alone.

Yes, but how many members are there? [Interjections.] It does not matter. I am suggesting that there will be certainly less than 10 000 members of welfare organizations within every regional area So, it is not a very big voters’ roll which has to be drawn up. Many other organizations, for instance university convocations, keep a voters’ list of that nature. These lists probably consist of 100 000 members of convocation. However, the point is that we suggest that there should be an election from amongst the nominations made by managements of organizations, and that the members of the bodies concerned should elect 12 representatives to that board. I want to come back to another aspect of this just now.

I should also like to say that in addition to that, the hon. the Minister should be allowed to appoint two members, the welfare board should co-opt two members and there should be a representative of the Council for Social and Associated Workers, as well as one for the Director of Fund-raising. This should be done in order to have once again a regional welfare board which has elected representatives on the one hand and on the other hand has representatives of all the interested parties, for instance the State and the other bodies who have a close and direct interest in the activities of that regional welfare board. These steps should be taken in order to get a balanced body which is representative of all the disciplines, expertise and experience, and which will be able to do a good job of work. Provision must also be made for co-ordination.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move all the amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I now should like to come to one of the most serious shortcomings of this particular clause. If there is one area in which one cannot apply apartheid or any one of the new fancy terms for apartheid, such as “verdeling”, it is in the provision of social welfare services within a regional community at grass roots level. If one tries to do that, one is going to undermine one’s social welfare services, increase tremendously the costs which are involved, disrupt those services, destroy the initiative and enthusiasm of the thousands of people who are involved in providing those services and, worst of all, one is going to deny to the services the advantages of co-operation between the various race groups in providing those services to all the people in South Africa at that level. In a society where a service is rendered by people for people and where that service depends on compassion and humanity, it is impossible, unwise and unfortunate to rush in with jackboots and enforce a process and a system of racial segregation in the provision of those services.

I think it is one of the most unfortunate aspects of this proposed legislation that at the very level at which one requires a service which is not based on colour or race, one is, in terms of this proposed legislation, providing the very opposite. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to say that the hon. member for Bryanston’s lack of insight with regard to welfare matters is amazing. I ask myself why the welfare sphere should become the proving ground for a failed and twisted integration. Does welfare deserve this type of argument?

To argue about this amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston, we have to weigh up the matter, as set out in this proposed legislation, against the hon. member’s amendment.

Clause 7 deals with the constitution of regional welfare boards. Clause 7(1) provides—

In his first amendment the hon. member for Bryanston proposes that these regional welfare boards should, in the first place—we have argued about this before—be multiracial boards and that they should consist—this is stated clearly—of a member of the Black population group, a member of the Coloured population group and a member of the Indian population group. The hon. member should explain carefully to me how this matter is going to work in practice. If, for argument’s sake, we want to constitute a regional welfare board for the Free State, how is the hon. member going to do it? [Interjections.] The hon. member can give me a reply to that. [Interjections.] In his manic obsession with democracy he has spun himself into a web from which he cannot escape. He is completely entangled in it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member’s second amendment actually verges on the ridiculous, but unfortunately it verges on the wrong side of the ridiculous. [Interjections.] The hon. member argues that the regional welfare boards should be democratically constituted. The welfare organizations of the region concerned now have to nominate candidates. According to the Van Rooyen Report there are 4 000 registered welfare organizations in the country. For example, in the Cape region one can expect to find at least 1 000 welfare organizations here that have to constitute the regional welfare board for the Cape. Now we tell these 1 000 welfare organizations that we should like to establish a regional welfare board and that they have to nominate candidates, but when they nominate candidates, they have to remember that a Black, a Coloured and an Indian have to be included. That is the argument the hon. member is putting forward.

Each nominates whom he wishes.

Very well then. These 1 000 welfare organizations now nominate perhaps 100 candidates. The hon. member does not state in his amendment how many candidates each welfare organization can nominate. In the end it may even be a list of 150 candidates, possible candidates who may serve on the regional welfare board. Now one has to go back to the members. Suppose each of these 1 000 welfare organizations has 20 members. That means that one would have to go back to 20 000 members and tell them that you want to constitute the regional welfare board and that they should nominate six members out of these candidates. That is practically impossible. The members who are nominated and the members who elect are purely names on a piece of paper. It cannot work this way. The constitution of a regional welfare board on this basis is completely impossible.

There are other hon. members on this side of the House who will take the arguments concerning the election and the elected members of the particular board further, but with regard to this part of the amendment, it is totally impracticable and totally unacceptable and it actually makes a mockery of the entire democratic process.

Mr. Chairman, I actually feel sorry for hon. members who had to wait so long for the opportunity of hearing a bit of common sense. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bellville said certain things to which I shall return later. At this stage, however, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 2, to omit “fifteen” and to insert “nineteen”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 3, after “may” to insert:

These amendments deal with the constitution of the regional welfare boards. The first amendment refers to the number of members appointed to the board, and in the amendment I propose that 19, instead of 15 members being appointed. It is only in regard to the maximum number of members that I am moving the amendment. The reason is quite obvious. We should also like to see provision being made for the appointment of representatives of all the population elements present in the area of a specific regional board. Of course, I am taking into account the arguments that were raised during the discussion of the amendment to clause 2 which dealt with the National Welfare Council. We are now talking about the regional welfare board. With this amendment our object is specifically to propose the increase and in this way to make it easier for the hon. the Minister to give all the population elements representation on a regional welfare board.

†Mr. Chairman, I should now like to deal with my second amendment. This amendment indicates that the hon. the Minister must make his appointments “with due regard to the composition of the population groups in the region concerned”. In moving this amendment I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the following aspects. First of all, I have refrained from mentioning a limited number of people. In fact, what I have done is not to fall in the same trap as did the hon. member for Bryanston. He in fact mentioned that one should be White and that two should be Coloured or Indian. I, however, should like the regional council to be representative of the composition of the population in that particular region. It follows that when one deals with a regional board, for example, in Natal, one obviously has to bear in mind—first and foremost—representation of the Indian population. To come back to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Bellville—perhaps it was a very clever argument—about the Orange Free State, one immediately realizes that, when dealing with the Free State, one immediately has to deal with completely different circumstances and different considerations. To insist that one member of the regional board for the Free State should be a member of the Indian community, while Indians do not form part of the population of that province at all, would be completely absurd.

When one deals with the regional board of, say, the Western Cape, then, apart from Whites, one will obviously have to give top priority to the representation on that board of the local Coloured community.

In clause 2 we dealt with the National Council. In that case it was quite simple because a minimum number of members constituting that council could be prescribed. In that case it is possible because it concerns a national body covering the country as a whole. However, when one deals with a regional board one has to make sure that such regional board is as representative as possible of the areas the social welfare interests of which it has to take care of. I want the hon. the Minister to know that I am leaning over backwards to make it possible for him to accept this amendment, because by accepting it he will improve this piece of legislation.

We have already had so many assurances of goodwill and so many promises from the hon. the Minister that we should now like him to allow for this to be written into the legislation as well, so that he can show it to the world telling them that this is the way we in South Africa deal with situations of this kind. I do not want to become involved in the argument of the election of members of the council. However, listening to all that, I am sure one has to consider the fact that there are roughly 4 000 welfare organizations in South Africa consisting of roughly 100 members each. That makes a total of approximately 400 000 members altogether. Thus it is quite clear that the election of a president and vice-president of the National Council will pose quite a problem. Therefore, I am quite prepared to concede that the hon. the Minister should make the appointment I want him to do that, but then he should realize that there is a legal responsibility resting on his shoulders. After all, that is what we are here for. We are here in this House to see to it that the hon. the Minister carries out his legal responsibilities. In this case it is his legal responsibility to ensure that these regional welfare boards will in fact be representative of…

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Any time.

I just want to know from the hon. member for Durban Central whether he is aware of clause 11 of the Bill in which provision is made for this very possibility, the possibility for which the hon. member is now making such a heartrending plea?

At the moment we are dealing with clause 7. [Interjections.] Clause 7 deals with the constitution of the regional welfare boards. Since clause 7 specifically deals with this, we need to take the constitution of the boards very clearly into account. That is what my plea boils down to. [Interjections.]

†I want to stress that I am of the opinion that social welfare work is colour-blind. In South Africa there is a growing tendency towards mutual concern in social welfare matters. We must start with basic race relations in this country, at the level of welfare work. This is the level at which one can build bridges across to people. This is not the place for strict compartments for the various groups. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Hillbrow said that because we had decided to support the principle of the Bill, we were supporting the Government’s constitutional proposals. This is not something I expected from an experienced politician like that hon. member. At that particular time my amendment was already on the Order Paper, and the sentiments I am expressing here today show quite clearly that our support for the Second Reading of the Bill can in no way be construed as being support for the grand constitutional plans of the Government.

The hon. the Minister can get up in this House and give us assurances and tell us what his intentions are.

*He can then discuss this matter in the same way as sporting matters are discussed. In that regard we hear that there is going to be an umbrella body of some kind and that everyone must be separate, but that when there has to be co-operation in certain cases, it will be allowed. Sir, we do not want confusion. We want to see the good intentions the hon. the Minister has in his heart, in this legislation as well, so that we can say to the world:

“Look, this is how we are doing things in South Africa.”

Mr. Chairman, the other day, during another debate I asked the hon. member for Durban Central when he was officially going to become a Prog. The hon. member came up with a much better argument than the hon. member for Bryanston, but nevertheless the hon. member for Bellville asked him a question he could not answer. That speech of the hon. member for Durban Central could have been delivered under quite a few other clauses of the Bill. He should first go and read clause 11 so that he can talk about it just now. [Interjections.] I see he is busy looking at clause 11 now.

An important point to which I want to refer, and of which the hon. member for Durban Central will be aware, is that the Indians do fine welfare work among their own people. The hon. member for Bryanston actually gave away the idea behind his amendment when he again became so emotional at the end of his speech. The problem is that in fact the hon. member for Bryanston and his party should keep their noses out of the welfare work done in South Africa. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Bryanston advanced such transparent arguments with regard to this first two amendments. What he is actually saying to the people of colour, is: “You cannot do your own welfare work. Give the Whites a say in that welfare work.” The hon. member for Pinelands is nodding his head approvingly. In other words, the hon. member for Bryanston actually wants to leave a back door open for them so that they can use these organizations, not so much for the sake of the welfare of those people …

What are you insinuating?

The hon. member for Pinelands agrees with me. He would like to work among those people.

Have the courage to say what you mean!

I said what I meant frankly. The problem is that in certain of these so-called welfare organizations there are people that the hon. members for Pinelands and Bryanston do not really want to bring to the fore officially. According to the second amendment by the hon. member for Bryanston, which concerns the constitution of the regional welfare boards, the people who should be able to vote, are the members of welfare organizations operating in the region or resident in the region. What does that mean? If someone gives a few old socks to someone else, is he suddenly a member of that organization and able to vote? He lives in that area. If the hon. member’s amendment is accepted, there will surely be no discipline and no order in the constitution of such a board. The hon. member should read his amendment again. If that amendment were to be accepted, this whole Bill will be deprived of its meaning. The hon. member should go and read this clause again slowly. If he were to read it and the subsequent provisions as well, we might be able to dispose of the matter. I should like to say that we vehemently oppose the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. That also applies to the amendments of the hon. member for Durban Central. He only wants to present it on a different basis. What the hon. member for Durban Central should tell us, is how many of each group he wants there, if we have to take the composition of each region into account.

But I am leaving that to the discretion of the Minister.

The hon. member’s problem is that where there is an existing organization in a particular region, other people have to be added in a forced way.

No, no.

I, on the other hand, say that we should give the clause a chance; I believe it will work.

Mr. Chairman, in his response to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. member for Bellville found that the only way to answer that was to refer to the Free State. There is immediately a contradiction in terms by the very name of the province. He referred to the fact that there are no Indians in the Free State. I want to say through you, Sir, it is high time there were.

Who are you to say so?

It is really high time there were because otherwise …

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

The only reply we have had from that side is that it cannot apply to the Free State. Let us accept that for the purposes of the debate. I am hoping the hon. the Minister will reply soon, because it is terrible stuff we are hearing from other hon. members on that side. Let us assume for the purposes of the argument that we accept the objection raised by the hon. member for Bellville. If that is so, then we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central. [Interjections.] If that is the case, I want to say to the hon. member for Bellville and other hon. members on that side, that they cannot possibly have the same objection, because there is no specific reference to the various groups, excepting to groups that are already resident in the area Do they agree?

Read clause 11.

Clause 11 deals with their powers and functions and it has nothing to do with their composition. We are now dealing with their composition. I wish the hon. member would try to remember that.

We have heard a great deal from several of the hon. members of the Cape regarding the place of the “sogenaamde Bruin Afrikaners in die Kaap, die Kleurlinge”. However, immediately you have regional boards, we have to decide whether we want White groups, Coloured groups and Black groups. The distinguished Dr. Erika Theron says of this particular clause—

Why?

Listen to me further and I shall tell why. Hon. members should listen to this—I agree with it—

By whom?

By White and Coloured. Therefore, if you are not going to help them together, then you are going to force them apart: Unnatural separation, totally unnatural.

Earlier we heard from the hon. member for Von Brandis that there was no reference to race whatsoever in the legislation. The hon. the Minister, however, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, said in direct reference to this clause, after we had raised the matter, that one could not, dare not in this stage of our history force segregation in social welfare. He said that it could not be done.

Who is forcing segregation?

Well, the hon. the Minister says he sees no reason whatsoever for the regional boards to be together. I want the hon. member for Von Brandis to get up and say quietly and nicely to the hon. the Minister that the Minister is wrong; he cannot do this. That would be inconsistent We cannot have this double talk all the time.

Listen who is talking! [Interjections.]

Either one wants to move in relation to the total needs of South Africa or one wants to go on to the precipice of apartheid in its new form. One cannot do it.

Tell us about your policy.

It is part of our policy that, when one talks about human need, it cannot be divided on the grounds of colour or race. It simply cannot be done.

But that is what you are doing here.

No, we are not doing that at all. What we are saying is that the regional boards should be representative of the human need and not of the colour of a man’s skin.

There is a last point I want to make.

What does the Rev. Storey say?

I will tell you what he is going to say. He will say exactly what I am saying now. If the hon. member would only listen, perhaps it might just penetrate, although I doubt it.

If one looks at the resources and skills of social workers, both here in the Cape and throughout the country, one sees that we cannot divide them. We do not have enough of them. Now we are going to have separate regions, but on what will those regions be determined? On human need? No! They will be determined on the colour of a man’s skin. One cannot do that anymore. Those days are gone. That is the caricature of apartheid of long ago the hon. the Minister was telling us about. I asked the hon. the Minister to take his courage in both hands and do what he knows is going to happen in South Africa whether he likes it or not. Let him move towards looking at human need in terms of loving one’s neighbour, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has put it. Your neighbour is the man who is closest to you—not the closest Coloured man, the closest Black man or the closest White man. There is no politics in this. We are simply asking that the regional work in the field of social welfare in South Africa be done in relation to human need.

But you do not want your Black neighbours to walk through Pinelands.

The hon. member is talking absolute rubbish and he knows it. The problem with that hon. member is that, when he knows he is beaten and he does not have a come-back, he starts with these “skinder-stories”. [Interjections.] It is true! I am going to sit down in the hope that the hon. the Minister will reply …

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

No, you may not. It is quite clear that the other side of the House has no answer to this at all. I hope that the hon. the Minister will reply by telling us that he has decided to have these boards on a representative basis in terms of need and not in terms of race.

Mr. Chairman, any outsider listening to this debate would think he was living with Alice in Wonderland.

No, in South Africa where there are many colours.

If you will allow me just a minute, I want to point out that the Sunday Times last week, I think, ran a little article in which they described the Official Opposition as the most wonderful Opposition South Africa has ever had, but said that they should learn to speak with one voice when they criticize the Government.

That was Sunday a week ago.

That is what we have had here. If I have ever listened to a racist speech made in this House, it was the speech by the hon. member for Pinelands and if I have ever seen a racist amendment moved to a Bill, it is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. What is the hon. member suggesting here? I would remind hon. members that they should read this clause together with clause 5, in terms of which the Minister has the right to establish regions as he deems fit, each consisting of one or more magisterial districts. The hon. member for Bryanston was thinking in terms of a round dozen of such districts. No reason was given for that figure. He simply said it should be a round dozen.

I want to put a question to the hon. member for Pinelands. If the hon. the Minister were to decide that Pinelands, for example, which has a couple of welfare organizations in it, should constitute a region, would the hon. member for Bryanston still say that the people of Pinelands must by virtue of the PFP’s policy and in terms of his amendment have a regional board in respect of which it will be compulsory that it will have one Black member, one man representing the Coloured population group and one representing the Indian population group although those three gentlemen would have absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the population of Pinelands? That is what this amendment asks for.

May I answer that question?

You have held a long speech. It is my turn now.

You asked me a question.

The members opposite must not run away now … [Interjections.] … from the effects of their amendments. I shall get up again, if necessary. I want to remind the hon. member for Pinelands, who keeps on interrupting all the time, that we were told at the commencement of the discussion on this clause that the hon. the Minister was now going to get it in the neck and that they were really going to fight like tigers about this. I have not seen much fighting, Sir.

Sit down and I will answer your questions.

Let us deal with this consequentially. Is it the intention of those hon. members to force integration of this nature on the welfare activities of our country? Is it their intention and their party’s policy that even in a matter of welfare there must be forced integration on the body controlling welfare activities in any magisterial district of South Africa? [Interjections.] The hon. members must not run away from the wording of their amendment. The amendment clearly reads “that not more than fifteen and not less than eleven members of whom at least one shall be from the Black population group, one from the Coloured population group and one from the Indian population group …”. Wherever one has a regional board in South Africa—and there could be up to 30 or 40 …

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

No, not now.

You must not run away!

Whatever number may be decided upon—and there are numerous magisterial districts—the hon. the Minister will be compelled, whether members of that population group exist in that area or not, for the sake of colour and for the sake of the racist outlook of the PFP, to appoint a Black man, an Indian man and a Coloured man irrespective of whether or not those people have any interest whatsoever in that region. [Interjections.] That is what the amendment amounts to. The hon. member for Pinelands has done a lot of shouting about this Bill outside and he has given a lot of wrong impressions about the intentions of this Bill, for what reasons I do not know, considering his background.

Stick to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said earlier: In no welfare legislation on the Statute Book of South Africa or ever before in the discussion of welfare matters in this House, has the question of race ever entered until the advent of the PFP in this House.

No!

Those are the facts and it stands on record in Hansard to this day.

Read the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech.

In other words, in order to make some political capital and to undermine the confidence of the welfare workers of South Africa and the welfare societies of South Africa and they have adopted the tactic of undermining confidence in this legislation and the Department of Social Welfare to play racist politics in this House. That is the basis of the hon. members’ arguments, whichever way they look at it. It is very clear in this Bill that from the side of the Government there is no discrimination whatsoever in the appointment of a regional board or in the appointment of the National Welfare Council as far as the interests of any other population group in this country are concerned. If for example Mitchell’s Plain is declared a magisterial district, then in terms of the Bill as it now stands, without the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston, the Coloured people of that area will look after their own welfare interests and the inhabitants of that area will serve on a regional council of that nature.

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

If the hon. member has anything to say in the course of this debate he must get up and speak because the hon. member for Bryanston told us that they were going to fight like anything on this clause. However, we have not seen the beginning of that fight.

[Inaudible.]

Well, get up and let us hear your views. Do not ask questions across the floor. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members have made enough noise. The hon. member may continue.

I want to complete what I have to say, Mr. Chairman. If one takes this amendment as it stands and at its face value, to me and to any reasonable person outside, it is nothing more than an attempt to play racist politics with a welfare Bill of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Von Brandis has dealt with certain matters, particularly the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston. I noted that he did not in any way deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, which takes cognizance of and provides that due regard must be had to the population groups in the areas concerned. I would also like to mention that the hon. member for Von Brandis seems to ignore the fact that there are a large number of welfare organizations which participate in welfare work amongst all race groups. There are also welfare organizations—in Durban in particular—who work amongst the Coloured people and the White people as well. It is highly probably, in terms of the provisions relating to the nomination lists, which are provided for in clause 10 of the Bill, that some of these organizations may have within their ranks an outstanding person who could make a very substantial contribution to the work of the regional boards. If the system is going to be worked on a non-racial basis as the hon. member for Von Brandis has indicated, it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister will be prepared to consider such a person who is nominated, whether he is Coloured, White, Indian or Black. Will he consider such a person of outstanding ability for appointment to a regional board if his name is submitted on a nomination list? If the hon. member for Von Brandis’ argument is taken to its natural conclusion, then the hon. the Minister should give due consideration to this and he should, if the person deserves such an appointment on merit, appoint him. Such a person should not be precluded from serving on a regional board. The constitution of the regional boards indicates that at least three-quarters of the members of a regional board shall be appointed from the nomination lists. In this regard I want to emphasize the position in so far as the term “at least” is concerned. I think it is important that, if such a board is to be truly representative, the members of the board should all be taken from the nomination lists and not only three-quarters of them. In terms of the clause as it now stands, the hon. the Minister has the power to appoint all the members of a regional board, if he wishes to, from those nomination lists. A minimum percentage, three-quarters of them, have to be appointed from the nomination lists. The position therefore is that the welfare organizations will endeavour to nominate people who, according to them, will be able to make a positive contribution while serving on these boards. As such they will recommend people, in terms of the provisions of clause 10, for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. They will ensure that these people are at least considered for appointment to the regional boards. We still have to deal with the provisions of clause 11, but according to the provisions of that clause the functions of the regional boards will include certain additional responsibilities. Consequently the appointment of a chairman of a regional board is an issue which does cause some concern. The people who will be nominated and who will eventually be appointed to the regional boards, will be responsible people who will be leaders in their particular spheres, particularly in so far as welfare services in that particular region are concerned. The hon. the Minister should at least have the confidence in those regional boards to allow them to elect their own chairmen as indeed has been the case in the past. I have yet to hear of any great difficulties that have existed in respect of the election of chairmen of regional boards.

In the light of the additional responsibilities that will be placed on these regional boards, an additional workload will have to be carried by them and it is therefore surprising that no provision has been made for a deputy chairman. There may be periods when the chairman is absent for some time or it may happen that he is indisposed. Provision is made later on, in clause 9 of the Bill, that the members may appoint someone to act as chairman of a meeting when the chairman is absent, but there are also many other matters that have to be attended to. We know, for instance, that an additional function of a welfare board will be to handle the registration and the deregistration of welfare organizations. This will means a considerable increase in the workloads of these regional boards. I would therefore like to move the amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (3) The members of the regional welfare board shall elect one of its members as chairman and one as deputy chairman.

Since the regional boards will be constituted of people of the area who are actively engaged in and who are fully aware of and acquainted with all the necessary welfare services that have to be provided in that area, the chairman of the board should be elected from amongst those people, and there should also be a deputy chairman who can act as chairman at times when the chairman might be indisposed or not available. I believe it is an important issue which will ensure the smooth running of these regional welfare boards.

In regard to the whole question of the number of people that are to be appointed, the hon. member for Durban Central has indicated, in his amendment, that the number could be increased to 19 so as perhaps to accommodate a greater number in the larger regions where there is sure to be additional work. The province of Natal, for instance, is classified as one region. It is a very large geographical area consisting of a large number of people. [Interjections.] I presume the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to the appointment of additional regions, particularly in the province of Natal. We in these benches would like to see as many members of the boards as possible appointed from the nomination lists, put forward by the welfare organizations in the areas concerned. We accept the fact that there might on occasions—I would certainly consider them exceptions—be an outstanding person who could make a contribution as a member of the regional board, but who has not been nominated by a welfare organization. Consequently, in terms of the clause as it now stands, the hon. the Minister has the power to appoint such a person. The hon. the Minister can exercise his right to do so. However, in all probability all the persons who are associated with welfare organizations in the region concerned will have their names included in the nomination list.

I should like also to say a word or two about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bryanston. We cannot support the amendment, because it appears to be completely impractical. It is going to create a severely difficult situation if one should try to have an election from amongst the members of the welfare organizations operating in that region. I can just imagine the enormous task trying to submit a roll of persons qualified to vote in such an election. It would also to a great extent favour the larger organizations, and it does not necessarily mean that the larger organizations will provide the people who are most suited to serve on a regional board. There might be someone who could make a very positive and valuable contribution as a member of a regional board, but who belongs to a very small welfare organization. In terms of the election proposed, it would be extremely difficult for that person to be elected, because one would tend to support the nominations from the larger welfare organizations. It does happen that there is tremendous professional jealousy amongst welfare organizations, and therefore it is quite obvious that if an election is to be held amongst all these welfare organizations, it could prejudice the chances of somebody who might be a highly suitable person, but who comes from a very small welfare organization. He might attract only a very small number of votes.

Our aim is to ensure that the regional boards are as representative as possible of all the persons in that region. That is why the hon. member for Durban Central and myself have moved these amendments. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept these amendments, because we are endeavouring to see that these regional boards are truly representative of people working in the region, as well as of the best brains that are available in the region, so that the boards can make a contribution to the smooth functioning of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a number of speeches on this clause and we are in point of fact repeating arguments which we have already advanced. Consequently, I shall try to be very brief. Firstly, I want to deal with a few isolated matters before I come to the essence of the argument, viz. the question whether the boards should be multiracial or whether they should be established separately in terms of clause 22.

Firstly, I want to react to the contribution of the hon. member for Bryanston. He made the amazing statement that a board that is appointed, has no prestige.

I did not say that. I said that a nominated board has less prestige than an elected board.

Very well. The hon. member said that such boards enjoy less prestige. The hon. member makes one angry and then one is inclined to express oneself strongly. I am not aware of the fact that the members of the Economic Advisory Board have less prestige. On the contrary, in the industrial town where I live, I encounter great respect for the person amongst us who serves on the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister and another who only serves on a committee. A lot of fuss is made about it in the local newspaper. Similarly the Education Board of which Prof. Viljoen is the chairman at the moment—the former chairman was Prof. Thom—is a board which enjoys a very high prestige in the teaching profession.

Of course! The board has a major task.

There hon. members have the testimony of the hon. the Minister himself! All these boards are appointed and not elected. Even the administration boards that fall under the Department of Plural Relations and Development have a great deal of prestige. My voters consider it a great honour to serve on these boards, and these boards do very important work in the community.

Their prestige would have been very much greater if they were bodies whose members were elected by the Black people they serve.

The Black people served by administration boards, elect their own community councils. [Interjections.] The statement the hon. member made, is therefore a slap in the face of all members of statutory boards. It insults them and impugns their status and honour. I should like cognizance to be taken of the fact that the hon. member thinks they have a lower status because they have been appointed. In contrast, he proposes a ridiculous election procedure. He quoted figures and said that someone had told him that there were only 45 000 members. However, there is nothing to prevent a church from registering. There are churches with 500 000 members. Those hon. members also want it to be completely mixed. If every Bantu church registers, does the hon. member realize how many voters there will be to vote for such a board? It is an absolutely impracticable proposal. The argument of the hon. member for Umbilo in this regard hits the nail right on the head.

The hon. member for Umbilo requested that we should as far as possible, elect all the members from the nomination list. I have made provision for three-quarters of them to be appointed from the nomination list. As far as the other quarter is concerned, I have a discretion, purely because sometimes there is someone in a community who can make a special contribution. In community A it may be a clergyman with a particular interest in welfare work, but who does not serve on any management. In community B it may be a school inspector who deals with a large number of children and has a special knowledge of their needs. There may simply be no-one else with the same specialized knowledge. The idea is basically, however, to implement the wishes of the welfare organizations themselves.

The important reason why they must be appointed—this also applies in the case of the chairman—and cannot be elected, is that it must be possible for smaller organizations— that do important work, to be represented, whereas they may be eliminated in an election situation.

One must appoint a chairman who has the time for it and will be able to fill the position in a functional capacity. I foresee that the chairman will have to spend a great deal of time on his task. Whilst previously there was a fear that we would accept as our policy that officials would be appointed as chairmen or as first chairmen, I want to say that this is not my policy. I foresee that in some cases, however, officials of the department will nevertheless have to be appointed as chairmen. If, in other cases, there is a suitable person with time at his disposal, we shall also consider such a person. I shall give careful consideration to the proposal that there should be a vice-chairman. However, as it is formulated now, he must be elected, and I am not prepared to accept this. The idea that there should be a vice-chairman, is, however, a practical one and I shall look at it. I do not want to promise anything, but I shall consider whether I cannot have it changed in the Other Place. As the hon. member knows, provision is of course made for the meeting to elect a chairman from its midst for the period of that meeting when the chairman is not present It is true, however, that the situation may arise that a chairman has to go to hospital for three months or so and then it would be desirable to have a vice-chairman. That is why I am favourably inclined towards the principle.

I think I have now replied to all the individual statements about practical matters. I now want to discuss the question of how these boards should be made up with reference to the population situation in South Africa. We have had the interesting experience that the hon. member for Pinelands could choose between two amendments. He could choose between the amendment of the hon. member for Bryanston, an amendment which proposes specific formulas as to how many Black people, Indians and Coloureds should be represented on the board, and the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central, an amendment that simply moves that the population composition should be taken into consideration. It is very interesting that the hon. member for Pinelands chose the wording of the hon. member for Durban Central.

[Inaudible.]

I do not think it has any political significance. I just think it proves that he is more intelligent than the hon. member for Bryanston. The amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central is simply a very much more intelligently worded amendment, politically speaking, than that of the hon. member for Bryanston. In essence it boils down to the same thing. All hon. members who moved amendments in this regard, have based their ideas on the premise that the regional welfare boards should be multiracial. I want to say—I am not doing this to make political capital, but because I am convinced of it—that a typical, liberal paternalism lies behind the amendments of the hon. members. What is the factual situation as regards welfare work amongst the non-Whites? In the Western Cape a great deal is being done by Whites for Coloureds, but practically nothing for the Black people. If something is being done, it is just a drop in the ocean. In the rest of the country, however, a little more is being done for the Black people, but practically nothing for the Coloureds and Indians. The hon. member for Pinelands said that we simply do not have enough money to share out. The fact is that if we look at the whole country, it is the exception for the money being collected at the moment, to be used for a proportion of the members of the other population groups. When it is done, it is done in such a way that the Black man, the Coloured and the Indian have no say at all in how that money is used. What is the essence of welfare? I think it is essentially, profoundly and intimately involved with the community. The hon. member for Pinelands agrees with me. We do not have mixed communities in the Republic of South Africa.

Now now.

We do not have it now nor will we have in the future. My party says that communities must develop within the framework of their own ethnic context, as their education is community orientated, nationally orientated and group orientated and as their place of residence is community orientated and group orientated. It is in the community that the need for welfare arises.

I want to ask hon. members opposite why there should be a mixed board to decide for the Coloured population whether they need an orphanage or an old-age home. Hon. members of the Opposition do not understand the philosophy of the Bill. The philosophy of the Bill is that there will be a national Welfare Council on which members of the other population groups will also serve—as I have already said is my intention. When we come to what the hon. member for Bryanston called the “nitty-gritty” of the Bill, however, we come to the decisions that will be taken on a regional level. What is this decision in actual fact? The decision is: We have received RX from welfare organizations. We receive RY from the Government. X plus Y is equal to Z. What can we do with this RZ? Decisions will be taken on a priority basis. Is an orphanage needed more than an old-age home? This is the type of decision that will be made. Now I ask—and hon. members can twist it as they wish: Why should the Coloureds have a say whether an orphanage or an old-age home should have preference in a White area for the White community? Why should it be so in the converse case? What hon. members are overlooking is that we envisage establishing similar bodies under the control of the relevant Ministers for every population group, in terms of clause 22, regional welfare boards of their own. How will this now influence the matter? The Department of Plural Relations is in a hurry and would like to implement this. They think the idea has tremendous potential. However, how is it going to work out? Let us contrast what is happening now with what is going to happen once these structures have been established for every population group. At the moment an organization suddenly decides—with good intentions, of course, I am not attacking it for this—that a swimming pool is needed for the people of Sharpeville. Say that organization collects R50 000 for building that swimming pool. It is a praiseworthy idea, is it not? However, the Black people of Sharpeville are not given the opportunity to say: “A swimming pool is not at the top of our list of priorities. Do you not rather want to give us that R50 000 for food and clothing for our poor?” That is why I talk about liberal paternalism. [Interjections.]

Who collected that R50 000?

I am just explaining first how the legislation is going to work. The hon. member can ask me as many questions as he wishes later on. [Interjections.] We are going to have separate regional boards for the various population groups. However, we foresee that they will have to liaise with one another. This is stated in clause 11, and the hon. member referred to it We find the following in clause 11(1)(g)—

Where there is reference to regional welfare boards, it applies to all regional welfare boards. I therefore have no objection to a regional welfare board for Blacks holding a meeting with a regional welfare board for Whites and discussing their welfare requirements together.

Why not have it so as a matter of course, then?

Because it can easily happen, as history has proved—and this is the hope of the PFP which gives the hon. member for Green Point the courage to support the PFP—that only a few Blacks are involved and that the Whites therefore remain on top. That is the paternalism of the PFP. [Interjections.]

You are talking utter nonsense!

Of course that is true. It is the basis of the qualified franchise which the PFP advocates. [Interjections.] The PFP just wants to skim the cream off the top. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say that the regional boards can liaise with one another. Clause 11(2) provides for discussions and conferences to be arranged. I should like to see liaison taking place between the various regional boards. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fatal mistake that hon. members of the PFP are making, is to try to make out that there is something in the Bill and in what I have said so far that prevents a White organization from providing money for welfare work amongst Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. There is nothing to prevent that—absolutely nothing. The hon. member for Pinelands made an emotional plea and suggested that the issue here was one of human needs. Does his statement mean that we are not concerned about human needs? I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether his statement means that the Government is not concerned about human needs? Does the hon. member not want to reply? Must I conclude from that that he made his plea in order to insinuate that the Government is not interested in human needs, not interested in what happens to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians in their distress?

I did not say that at all.

The hon. member says “no”. I thank him for that. We agree that human distress should be attended to wherever it occurs. The only issue here is how, and in accordance with what structures, and in what way, it should take place. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

After all the hon. member must take note of the realities. What are the realities? The realities are that every population group has its own political structures, structures that have certain powers and may obtain still more powers. That is why it is the policy of the Government to transfer powers in connection with welfare to those political bodies, as the political structures of the various population groups develop. Hon. members must accept this now, and if they do not agree, we can debate it during the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill. Since this is the case, the welfare sphere is a sphere where a division of power must be applied. It is not one of the community spheres. I agree that there is a need for co-operation. There is also a need for interaction. Similarly there is a need for one population group to perceive the distress of another population group and to be in the position to grant aid in order to alleviate that distress. However, there is no need for us to have a mixing of our communities when it comes to the “nitty-gritty” decisions of where an orphanage should be built and whether the building of an orphanage should have preference to the construction of an old-age home.

The logical consequence of the amendments of hon. members on the opposite side is the logical consequence of their policy. Therefore I do not hold it against them that they state this, but then they must recognize and admit the logical consequences. The logical outcome is that, like their policy towards mixed schools, they also advocate mixed orphanages, mixed old-age homes and integrated communities. Let us admit this and stop arguing about it at such length on this occasion. We can discuss it further when we are engaged in a political debate.

Mr. Chairman, before I try to respond to the hon. the Minister, I want to come back to the hon. member for Von Brandis who made certain charges. One of his charges …

I made requests.

No, I say one of the charges that the hon. member for Von Brandis made—it seems to me that he now wants to deny it—was that we on this side brought the question of race into a social welfare debate.

Yes, that is right.

I want to ask him to listen to just one sentence in the speech of the hon. the Minister when he moved the Second Reading. Remember that that speech was made before we had said one word. If the hon. member listens to that one sentence, he will agree with me that that is where it began. If he has any honesty at all, he will acknowledge this and I expect him to withdraw those charges. This is what the hon. the Minister said—

In other words, the hon. the Minister told us, before we had said anything at all, that it was his belief that we did not have to have these regional boards on a “veelvolkige basis” or a multinational basis—call it what you will. However, that is where it began and our response to that was that we believe that social welfare regional boards ought to be represented according to the needs in a particular region.

Not according to your amendment.

I do not want to waste any more time on that hon. member.

[Interjections.] I want to come to the hon. the Minister. First of all he said I had made a choice of amendments. In the course of the debate when the hon. member for Bellville advanced one particular argument, I wanted to test the validity of that argument. I did that by saying that we should, for the moment and for argument’s sake, accept that because one can say that the Free State does not have any Indians, one can also say that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston is impractical. That is why I referred to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central and said that we would support his amendment since we believe that it is very much in line with what we are trying to achieve.

The hon. the Minister talked about the “ontwikkelende gemeenskappe”. I want to know where we are going to draw the line when it comes to these regional boards. Is every single separate community as it exists now in our land going to have its own regional board? Perhaps the hon. the Minister will just answer me.

I shall answer you.

It is just possible that a regional board will spread over a certain area. Let me say to the hon. member for Von Brandis that in this connection one can take my constituency as an example. Let us take Pinelands itself. As our next-door neighbours we have Langa and Athlone—Black and Coloured people. A region in terms of the legislation may well incorporate that whole area.

Are they at least using your streets yet?

Then I want to say that it makes absolutely good sense to have representation for Black, Coloured and White people on that regional board.

You do not want them on the streets; why do you want them on the board?

The hon. the Minister also said that regional boards can meet. I am very glad that he makes that allowance. However, when people in a particular area are facing a common problem, why on earth can they not come together to apply their minds in terms of their skills?

Where? In Pine-lands?

Yes. Anywhere. In any region. I made the point and I want to make it again to the hon. the Minister because I believe it is valid, that there are over 3 000 White social workers and that, according to the figures I have here, there are only 83 Indians, 233 Coloureds and 302 Blacks. That gives a total of just over 600 as opposed to more than 3 000 Whites. That is the point How can one use one’s resources in the best possible way? We say: By allowing these regional boards to co-ordinate. The hon. the Minister, however, says they must be separate. This is duplication. We say: Let us co-ordinate; let us get rid of a whole lot of organizations; let us streamline the effort; and let us do it in terms of human need.

As I indicated earlier, the hon. member for Von Brandis accused us of bringing the question of race into this whole question. I want to ask him whether he believes that the Cape Committee of Social Workers is a racist organization. I do not think he accepts that. Yet, in their representations to the Minister, which I have in my hand and of which the hon. the Minister knows, they were not attempting to be racist when they made the strongest objection if there were going to be separate regional boards. Will the hon. member accept their bona fides if he does not accept mine? These are people who are daily engaged in this work. To say that Prof. Erika Theron is some sort of pathetic liberal is nonsense.

She is well versed in social welfare work— practically and theoretically. She knows what she is talking about, and she says it is an absolute tragedy if each regional board is to be confined to one particular group.

I want to put a final question, and I want the hon. the Minister to answer me directly when he gets up to speak. What is more important in South Africa and for South Africa’s good: That sportsmen should come together and play together …

Cut me out [Interjections.]

There is nothing personal in this, Sir.

I am happy to hear that.

I know what that hon. Minister’s reply will be and therefore I will not ask him. We appreciate his views. Sir, is social welfare more important than cricket or rugby?

Do not be stupid.

Well, what does the hon. the Minister think? Does he agree with me that social welfare is much more important?

All I say is that cricket is very important.

Of course it is very important. That is why he preferred to bend the rules so that people could come together and we could travel all over the world. I say we must bend the rules of the NP and of the Government in order to fulfil the needs of social welfare. That is why we have moved these amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to take up the one point raised by the hon. member for Pinelands. He asked who brought race into the debate. He accused us of doing so. I challenge him to show me one example where the hon. the Minister in introducing the Second Reading of this Bill made a reference to racial concepts in regard to this Bill. There was not one word about it I want to tell the hon. member what that very vociferous member for Bryanston had to say in the Second Reading debate. Following on the Minister, he said, in opposing the Bill (Hansard, 8 May 1978, col. 6424)—

The Minister made that clear.

He continued—

That is quite right.

He then went on and in the very same speech admitted that the hon. the Minister said that it was possible that a National Welfare Board …

What about a regional board?

Just a minute. He admitted that the hon. the Minister said that it was possible that the National Welfare Board could well have representatives of other races. Coming to the regional interests, the hon. the Minister quite rightly said that he was not prepared to do so as it was not in accordance with his policy.

That is arranged on a racial basis.

We do not think in terms of race when we think of welfare. The hon. members are so obsessed by the concept of race, by race politics, racial prejudice and racial discrimination, and whatever you have, that they cannot look at anything objectively. The hon. member for Pinelands must not turn his back now. He asked me certain questions.

You do not answer them.

I put a question to the hon. member for Pinelands from which he ran away. [Interjections.] Yes, he ran away. In terms of clause 6 of this Bill a region can be established anywhere in a magisterial district, but it is entirely in the discretion of the hon. the Minister to do so. Say it is decided that such a region should be established in the White area of Pinelands because of the number of welfare bodies that exist there …

You used that stupid argument before.

I am not asking a question.

Include Langa.

I put a direct question because we want that hon. member to tell his constituents the answer. If the White area of Pinelands found it was necessary to have a regional board for welfare work in that area, would the hon. member for Pinelands still adhere to what is proposed in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston, viz. that the regional board who will look after the interests of the White community of Pinelands must be compelled by law to have a Black member, a Coloured member and an Indian member? I ask the hon. member to say “yes” or “no”.

I will make my own speech.

This is the hon. member who gets up in the course of the debate on these clauses and asks us to think in terms of human needs.

That is right.

However, he does not have the courage to reply “yes” or “no” to a question like this.

I will get up and make my own speech.

That hon. member then attacked the hon. the Minister by saying that we on this side of the House brought race into this debate because our policy is a multinational one and because we foster group interests. But we do not conceive a regional board in terms of race as the hon. member is doing. The hon. member will now go on record as standing for a policy of integrated boards to look after the welfare interests of his constituency, particularly the interests of the White voters of Pinelands. [Interjections.] It is hard to describe this—and I do not know whether the term is parliamentary—sort of double talk of hon. members on the Opposition benches. I hope the hon. member for Pinelands will face up to the issue when he is challenged in Pinelands. We will certainly challenge him on this issue in his constituency.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to react to the hon. the Minister’s accusation—I take it he also accused this party on account of our amendment—that we are guilty of paternalism. Before I deal with that I want to say that it does not matter how much the hon. member for Von Brandis protests in this particular regard. As far as I am concerned there has been a deliberate attempt from that side of the House to try to bring racialism into this debate. [Interjections.] Why will any hon. member go to such great lengths to prove that either my amendment or the amendment moved by hon. members on the other side will lead to some system of forced integration unless those hon. members believe that there is some political mileage for them in that type of racialism? That is why they are using it. However, I want to leave the matter there.

*The hon. the Minister said in effect that my amendment was essentially the same in the sense that it would lead to a multiracial board. In the same breath he said it was a form of paternalism. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention pointedly to the fact that I would have been able to understand this were it not for the fact that we have placed the discretion wholly in the hands of the Minister. But he must agree with me that, as my amendment is worded, we are placing the discretion wholly in the hands of the hon. the Minister to make those appointments, with due regard to the composition of the various population groups. In other words, there is absolutely nothing paternalistic in the amendment. The hon. the Minister can simply do so on a fair basis. In the first place, therefore, I reject his charge of our adopting a paternalistic attitude, in this regard. I would have been able to understand this had we possibly wanted one or two token appointments.

I just want to raise the two other aspects briefly. The hon. the Minister says quite readily that mixed communities do not exist in South Africa. I do not know when we in South Africa are going to wake up for a change.

He did not say it.

The hon. the Minister said we had no mixed communities in South Africa. In my constituency there are mixed communities in Greyville, etc. These communities have existed there for many years, and there are church and other organizations that see to it that welfare work is done amongst the people of those communities. Therefore, such communities do exist. The final aspect I want to raise, concerns the standpoint of the NRP. I agree that welfare work is an intimate affair of a community. We all accept this. In South Africa, however, there is some overlapping. Sometimes this overlapping takes place as a result of historic factors and sometimes as a result of a natural development. I see nothing wrong in welfare organizations in a specific community being divided in such a way, as a result of natural circumstances, that one may perhaps belong to one race and the other to another race. Although it is the duty of every one of those communities to see to the intimate affairs of their own community, there is an increasing tendency for the one to see to the other.

†The whole purpose of my plea tonight is that I do not want a situation to develop where one can adopt an attitude of “I am all right, Jack”. I am scared that this regimented situation will precisely lead to that.

Mr. Chairman, I want to take strong exception, on behalf of this side of the House, to the accusation that we are liberal paternalists. What has happened, is that we have asked for representation on the board of other groups where they now have no representation. The hon. the Minister must tell me why we were not called liberal paternalists when he accepted that there might well be representation by other Coloured groups on the National Council. Why were we not then accused of being liberal paternalists? In regard to the Government’s new constitutional plan, the upper group of the Coloureds and Indians will be represented on the Cabinet Council, and I therefore want to know why the Government cannot be called liberal paternalists as well. The hon. the Minister introduces an ideology based entirely on colour and then accuses us of being liberal paternalists. A very clear picture has now emerged, and I think the hon. the Minister—I want to give him credit for this—states unequivocally that he will, on no account whatsoever, be prepared to have a multiracial board. He said so during the Second Reading debate and has confirmed it now. A very clear picture has emerged in this regard in that up to now there may be a national council with representation of the other groups, but that it will depend on negotiations that will be held at a later stage. The regional welfare boards will be established in terms of this Bill for White areas only, in respect of White social welfare work done for the Whites of the country. That is what we are doing here. In so far as the Indians, Coloureds and Blacks are concerned, all the legislation does is to refer their affairs to their own Ministers in terms of clause 22. Is it the hon. the Minister’s intention, in terms of clause 5, which we have just passed, to declare no regional boards for groups other than the White group? If that is so, what about the time gap between the coming into operation of this legislation—which the hon. the Minister says will be in the first half of next year—and the coming into effect of the new constitutional proposals, which may be only in two or three years’ time? Furthermore, how will those groups develop their own social work in terms of the provisions of this Bill? How will the hon. the Minister fill the time gap I have referred to?

The hon. the Minister also explained why the regional boards are going to be composed in this particular way. He used the example of old-age homes, and wanted to know why the Coloureds should have a part in a decision as to whether we should establish an aged home for the Whites. However, if the hon. the Minister looks at clause 11 of the Bill, he will see that these regional boards have certain powers in terms of this clause. One of their functions will be to consult with other regional boards, which in our opinion is reasonable, but in terms of clause 11(1)(e) one of their functions shall be—

Some of these welfare organizations are bound to be doing work for the Coloured and Indian communities in their regions. How is this situation going to be taken care of?

Look at clause 12.

I shall look at clause 12 in a moment.

The regional welfare boards which are to be established in terms of this legislation are not—the hon. the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—going to establish old-age homes for people in their area It is not one of their functions. In terms of clause 11 their functions are to plan, to determine what welfare services are required, and then to ask registered welfare organizations whether they will undertake the work of erecting old-age homes. The particular welfare organization will then go into the matter, and apply to the local authority; the local authority will approve their application and will also have to stand surety for the bond which is applied for to the department to get their 40-year loan at 0,5% or 1%, whatever it will be. The welfare organization is the body which is going to do the work and so, with the greatest respect, it will not be regional boards which are going to set up homes for the aged. How are the Coloureds then going to decide on a priority issue such as whether an aged home for Whites should be built? I should also like to point out that the question of swimming pools is, as far as I am aware, not the function of welfare organizations.

In my opinion the hon. the Minister has created a situation where we shall only worry about welfare services for Whites, whereas the welfare services for the other race groups are cast to the winds, to other Ministers in a new constitution. My last question is: If the Coloureds and the Indians are going to have their own Parliaments and are going to undertake their own welfare work, what is going to happen to the African population? They do not have their own Parliament. By whom are they going to be looked after? The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development? How will their welfare organizations dovetail and be co-ordinated with the council which is established by this legislation?

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the functions of the regional welfare boards, I should like to refer the hon. member for Hillbrow to clause 12. In clause 12 …

Mr. Chairman, apparently the hon. member is not interested in my reply. He can come and see me later for my reply.

I should like to remind the hon. member for Durban Central that in his motivation for his amendment, he said that that particular little portion of his amendment, “with due reference to the population situation”, meant that a regional board must be truly representative of the factual situation in a particular region.

*In other words, if these boards have to be truly representative, it will mean, according to the hon. member, that if 250 000 Black people live in a specific area and only 50 000 Whites, I shall have to have due regard to that. [Interjections.] His statement is open to that interpretation only. When I speak of paternalism, I mean that those hon. members propose that there should be only one Black, one Coloured and one Indian on that board while they know that the Blacks represent the vast majority in the country. That is paternalism.

At least one of each.

Then why do they not also say that at least one White is to serve on that board? That is paternalism. If I say that they are paternalistic, I mean that they do not accept the logical consequences of their own policy. If they believe in an integrated community, they should just have said that members of all population groups are to serve on it.

You have created an abnormal community.

The hon. member for Pinelands asked whether every small town would now have its own regional board. The answer is “no”. Every region will have its regional board for Whites and our ideal is that every region in which there are large numbers of Coloureds will also have a regional board for them, and that the Blacks will also have their own regional boards in their own areas.

One for the Zulu, one for the Xhosa, one for the Venda …

Order! Hon. members must not try to make a joke of Parliament.

The hon. member for Pinelands said that he was concerned about social workers and he furnished certain figures. I want to tell him that nothing prevents a White social worker from doing social work among Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. The issue here is welfare organizations that can nominate candidates. From those nomination lists I can appoint members to these various boards for the various population groups. A Black welfare organization therefore cannot nominate candidates to a regional board for Whites and a welfare organization for Whites cannot nominate candidates to a regional board for Blacks. This is what it is all about Nobody is being prevented, however, from employing anyone, no matter what his race, nation or colour. There is no restriction on where anyone may move except if he is subject to other legislation. Just as he is not prevented from working for whom or under whom he wishes, so there is nothing to prevent money donated by Whites being used for Coloureds, etc. If the hon. member does not think so, he is under a misapprehension or he has a caricature of our intentions in mind.

The hon. member wanted to draw a comparison between social welfare and sport. I do not know if he was in the House when I quoted a portion of the new circular again. There is no gap between the policy set out in that circular and the policy that we apply as regards sport. When that circular was approved, I also had the approval of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. He agrees with me that these matters go hand in hand, because we believe our national identity should also be maintained in the sporting sphere and come into its own there.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has now made our case unanswerable. In terms of clause 12 the regional welfare board shall determine the existing and future welfare needs of the inhabitants or any particular section. In other words, if they are going to determine the needs of the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians, there is more reason than ever why people of each group should be represented on the welfare boards.

On amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg,

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. B. R. Bamford, J. D. du P. Basson, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Mr. D. J. Dalling, Dr. Z. J. de Beer, Messrs. I. F. A. de Villiers, J. F. Marais, H. H. Schwarz, Mrs. H. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, S. S. van der Merwe, H. E. J. van Rensburg and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendments (1) and (2) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived and amendment (3) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield negatived and amendment (4) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg dropped (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.