, as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Irrigation Matters.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. the Minister has given effect to matters which he undertook to look at before the Bill went to the Other Place. In regard to both the amendments that have already been dealt with, and in regard to these particular ones, we have no objection. However, I should like to get the reaction of the hon. the Minister to the following. He has, to a considerable extent, met the problem in regard to companies who are in the business of providing dwelling houses, but who also engage in other business activities. To that extent we obviously welcome it. However, the problem that still remains is that there are public companies with subsidiaries which specifically deal with the financial aspects, and different subsidiaries which deal with construction aspects. In those circumstances, unless one actually now makes the arrangements in regard to collateral through the company running the building activities this is not permitted. In other words, what one is doing is putting the finance subsidiaries virtually out of business in so far as collateral is concerned.

The second point is that if the holding company itself is a financial company, and obviously a company of greater substance than the subsidiary that does the construction, one cannot use the holding company in order to provide the collateral. Thus, whereas this particular amendment deals in some measure with one of the problems which we raised, it still does not deal with the entire problem. Whereas at this stage I do not want either to hold up the amendment or to create any difficulties about it, I would appreciate if the hon. the Minister would look at this with a view to effecting an amendment at some later stage, an amendment in terms of which one can have either the holding company which is not in itself erecting dwelling houses, or a finance subsidiary making the arrangements for collaterals. It does not seem to me that there is a great principle involved. I think it is merely a question of the convenience is the commercial community. Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister to look at it again.

In regard to the second amendment to clause 31, I think the wording has virtually the same effect as that which I originally suggested. Therefore we welcome it. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having dealt with the matter in accordance with his undertaking given in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his remarks. In the short time at our disposal we did look as carefully as possible at the outstanding matters that were raised and came forward with these amendments. I take the point of the hon. member about the first amendment to clause 31. We need a little more time. That matter will be referred to the next meeting of the technical committee. The other matter that will also be referred to the technical committee, is about the period of 20 to 25 years or 30 years. The hon. member will remember. Those two matters will be specifically referred to the next meeting of the technical committee. We shall see what advice we obtain there, and if a good case is made out I will proceed to introducing the amendments next year.

Amendment in clause 31 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, as this Committee will appreciate, it was this clause to which we in these benches took strong exception during the Second Reading debate. Nothing that has transpired since then has made us change our minds. We still are in total opposition to this clause of the Bill. We do not believe that the hon. the Minister should have the right to determine the price of timber in the round.

Not even after consultation?

No, not even after consultation. We must admit that the clause has been improved. Consultation with the Forestry Council does inhibit the Minister’s powers, although to a very limited extent. The argument seems to hinge on whether or not, as a result of this provision, something like a control board will be inevitable. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, indicated that he was not in favour of a control board to deal with timber in the round. He did not express himself on control boards generally, but certainly in this instance he said that he did not really feel that a control board was a good idea. I was very glad to hear that, because we certainly do not believe that a control board is a good idea. We still contend that it is absolutely inevitable, when you take away the normal buyer/seller relationship and give the Minister this sort of power, that you are not going to find industry resolving its differences. They are going to come to the Minister and before very long he is going to find himself in the situation where he is going to have to take action in terms of this provision. If he is going to do it adequately, it is our contention that he is going to need a tremendous bureaucracy to do so. Whether he calls it a control board or not, it is still going to be a costly operation and one that I do not think will bring any alleviation of the troubles that beset the timber industry at the moment.

But the Minister is only called in when there is a deadlock.

Sir, I am afraid that we are in a situation of deadlock at the moment. I think there will be an insistence on the part of the small growers that the price offered by the processors is not adequate, and I believe that the small growers are going to carry this further and force the Minister to take action. We had evidence to this effect in the Select Committee. I do not have the actual reference with me at the moment, but certain witnesses who gave evidence on behalf of the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association, Satga, said that they regarded a control board as inevitable as the result of this provision.

Nevertheless, I admit that this is a matter of opinion. I have my opinion and the hon. the Minister obviously has another opinion. But, Sir, perhaps he may resolve this; he may be prepared to say at this stage that if the stage is reached where it becomes necessary for him to establish anything like a control board, he will definitely bring this bit of legislation under review. If he finds that holding the sword of Damocles over the industry’s head does not work, that they do not put their house in order, and that he is forced to establish some sort of organization to assist him in the determination of prices, I would like him to say that he will be prepared to come back to this House and attempt some other solution rather than the establishment of a control board. What we are arguing about, therefore, is whether or not this is going to result in a control board. The hon. the Minister says it will not, and I say it will. So, all I am saying to the hon. the Minister is that if it should, I would be most grateful if he would come back to this House …

I have to come to Parliament if we want to change the Act.

That is the point; now we are getting to the absolute kernel of the whole matter.

I have to do that; why do you ask me to do so?

The hon. the Minister now has the power to establish something like a control board. He is in fact pushing this legislation through Parliament against the weight of the evidence which was given before the Select Committee, on the basis of a bland assurance to this House that a control board will not result. The Minister has also said that he does not favour a control board. All I am saying is that the hon. the Minister should give us an undertaking that, if it should transpire that this bit of legislation will result in the establishment of a control board, he will come back to this House before he does so. I think it is a reasonable request to make. After all, the hon. the Minister does not like the idea of a control board.

There is no provision in the Act for a control board …

If the hon. the Minister is to determine prices, as we believe he will have to, then how is he going to do it unless he has a major organization, a major bureaucracy, to advise him in a most complicated matter? We are not talking here of an industry like the sugar industry, for instance, where there is only one final product, or even about an industry like the wattle industry, where the number of products that can be produced from wattle is very limited indeed. What we have to do with here is an industry with numerous products—from pulp right through to mine props: altogether a considerable number of different products. Therefore I submit that it is a most complicated operation to determine prices for this industry. If the hon. the Minister is only going to have a guess, then of course he would not need anybody to advise him. However, there is evidence from his department that if the Minister were to determine the prices and then police the operation, a considerable work force would be needed. And once you set up a bureaucracy to assist the Minister to determine prices, then in my book—the hon. the Minister may call it what he likes—it is a control board.

I should like to return for a short while to the Second Reading debate. Certain hon. members made statements during that debate which I think are not entirely correct. For example, the hon. member for Standerton— he does not seem to be here at the moment— argued that the weight of the evidence heard by the Select Committee was not necessarily as I said it was, viz. against this provision. He said the small growers were much more in number than the big processors and large growers. That is quite correct. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Wynberg replied to that in response to an interjection from the hon. the Minister during his speech. What we are talking about is a percentage of the industry, the volume of the industry. Furthermore, we are talking about the professionals, those who are in the timber business, that being their only and sole business. I would like to go on record that Satga did many small growers a disservice in the past because they actively discouraged their members from entering into contracts, long-term contracts, with the large processors. Mr. Anderson of Satga admitted as much in evidence.

Now we have run into a situation of oversupply and we find that the processors do not need as much timber as before. The people they go to buy timber from are those with whom they are under contract to buy timber from while those who refused to sign contracts now find themselves out in the cold. These are the people who have brought about the pressure which has induced the Minister to take the action he has. They constitute only a small percentage of the total industry. Yet what the hon. the Minister is doing is detrimental to the industry as a whole and that just because a limited number of small growers have to be kept happy.

A limited number?

Can the hon. the Minister tell me how many there are?

About 2 000.

Many of them are people who are not in the timber industry exclusively. They are farmers with plantations which might be cut once every five years or once every 10 years. In other words, they are not in the timber business as such.

Many of them are …

Yes, many of them are. But many of them are quite happy. Many of the smaller growers do not go along with Satga. The hon. member for Ermelo will go along with me on this. What is more, I do not believe that they actually speak for all the small growers. There is no doubt at all that in terms of the capital invested in the industry, the bulk of it… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a great pity, after I tried to give a balanced view of the problems in the industry, that we had to listen here once again to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He picked up some story somewhere and now he is talking about a control board. But the idea of a control board is not at issue in the existing legislation nor in this Bill. As I have already said, we are trying to reach a compromise in the present situation where we have conflict of interests between a large group of small growers on the one hand and the large growers and processors on the other. I am convinced that the Select Committee did a very good job when it came up with this compromise. Therefore I can see no reason why we should cast more suspicion and speak almost with contempt about the interests of a large group of people. Although they are not timber growers exclusively, a good number of them are largely dependent on the timber industry for their income. I do not think we can simply brush them aside and look after the interests of the large growers and the processing industry only. Therefore I want to suggest that the hon. member for Orange Grove did not take a balanced look at this problem.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to ask every one in the timber industry to bury the hatchet. We have succeeded in introducing a clause in this Bill that affords all bodies and persons an opportunity through the Forestry Council, to get together if any differences on prices should arise. Only when they cannot agree, will I be called in to determine the price in the light of the evidence that the Forestry Council, on which all bodies are represented, presents to me. I do not think we can go any further than the clause of the Bill is going now. I therefore want to content myself with that. I just want to repeat my request that we should not raise insignificant matters, but that we should support the Bill in the interests of the industry as a whole, in the interests of small and big growers, and not sow suspicion or read into it something that is not there. I feel that the hon. member should please stop his scare story about a control board.

Mr. Chairman, the objection we are raising to the right which is being given to the Minister to determine prices, is based on the fear, as my hon. colleague put it earlier on, that price control will inevitably lead to quota control.

But legal provision for quota control exists at the moment.

We believe that price control will inevitably lead to quota control, and I shall tell you why. Say a timber processor has to pay a certain price for the timber he needs and that he also has timber himself. In times of over-production he will then be inclined to use his own timber. How will he then be forced to buy timber from grower A, B or C as well? Under those circumstances the Minister will be forced to institute a quota system. If he does not do so, the fixed price will be worthless to the independent small grower who cannot make his timber available to the processor of timber at that price. This is the problem. In the evidence that the committee heard, some of the timber processors said that, should prices be determined, they would seek a way out. I therefore believe that price control will cause us to move in the direction of quota control. I do not know what control may follow that. However, we have already seen that there is always the tendency in South Africa to move in the direction of more and more control when the economic climate is not favourable.

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

There was an attempt in yesterday’s debate, as far as clauses 9 and 5 were concerned, to make the point that there is actually no difference between these two clauses and that the power that the hon. the Minister has in terms of clause 9, is approximately the same as that which the arbitrator has in terms of that clause, and that it is actually the same power that the hon. the Minister has in terms of clause 5. This allegation is unfounded and legally incorrect. Arbitration entails the final settlement of a dispute by an outsider, i.e. an independent, impartial referee. That is arbitration.

Am I not impartial?

I explained yesterday that no matter how independent the hon. the Minister may want to be in his personal capacity, he inevitably has to take other interests into consideration too. There is no other way, even if the hon. the Minister is given the best advice available. A decision by a politician, for instance a Minister of the State, can never be considered to be that of an independent or impartial referee, no matter how impartial he may try to be. This is the truth and no one can deny it. This is the situation, and on those grounds we oppose clause 5.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary for me to reply to something the hon. the Minister said. He said I was disregarding the interests of a quite substantial group of growers in South Africa. That is not true at all. I do not believe that the legislation that is before us is in the interests of that group. I think it will, in fact, damage them.

How?

If the hon. the Minister wants to know how, I will tell him. We are in a situation now where the hon. the Minister is in complete conflict with the bulk of the timber industry, and in saying that, I am talking about the volume of turnover. The hon. the Minister has now gone against the processors and the big growers. These people—this we had time and time again in the evidence—have been exercising a voluntary quota system in terms of which they agreed to use say 80% of their own timber while they took 80% of the timber of their regular suppliers. Now the hon. the Minister has, in his wisdom, taken this power. I want to make the forecast that these people will now say that this is the hon. the Minister’s responsibility. They will now ask why they should bother about the interests of the small grower. They are going to say that they are going to use their timber for as long as they want to, thereby forcing the hon. the Minister into a situation where he will try to operate a quota system which will not work.

You do not know a thing about the industry. You had better keep quiet.

The hon. the Minister says I do not know a thing about the industry.

What about the department? How must they work now?

As I said in my Second Reading speech, the department has exercised discipline and restraint themselves. However, I find it extraordinary, in the first instance, that the hon. the Minister should have taken this step when the bulk of the industry is against it. I also think it is a little extraordinary that the hon. the Minister will not accept that he is in conflict with the bulk of the industry. They are going to feel very sore and aggrieved about this, and he knows it. He knows he is putting his head into a noose. I suggested to the hon. the Minister that he come back to us before he instituted what we may call a control board or anything like it. However, he has not given us that assurance. I think the hon. Minister knows that he is going to be forced into a situation where he is going to have to determine simple prices and where he will have to set up a bureaucracy. This is typical of the Government. They just love creating a bureaucratic empire.

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

Mr. Chairman, with respect, if the possibility of a control board— a strong possibility in terms of this Bill—is not setting up a bureaucratic empire, I find it very difficult to discuss any aspect of the Bill at all. I believe that it will be necessary for a bureaucracy to be set up. Quotas are obviously unenforceable. The hon. the Minister did not say much about quotas in his reply to the Second Reading debate, but I do not believe he can enforce them. I think I made it clear in my speech during the Second Reading debate on the Bill that I found it very difficult to imagine how the hon. the Minister could enforce quotas from a cash-flow situation. The hon. the Minister cannot force anybody not to use his own material, but to use other people’s material. What is the hon. the Minister going to do if a person says that he does not have the money to use other people’s material? Will he tell that person either to find the money or to go out of business? I find it regrettable that the hon. the Minister should have gone against the bulk of the opinion put forward to him by the Forestry Council, that he has introduced the legislation in the first place and that he goes ahead with it regardless.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place the clause at present before this House has nothing to do with a control board. I want to make that very clear. I have already said that I do not think that a control board will be able to solve the problems relating to the marketing of timber products, and I am stating very emphatically again today that in my opinion this will not be possible. I think this clause is the closest we can get to a compromise between the interests of the various major groups within the forestry industry because they are now being afforded the opportunity of solving their problems properly. In the first place, therefore, it has nothing to do with the control board and, in the second place, it has nothing to do with quotas. In fact, I foresee that this clause will contribute to causing the insistence upon control to disappear. Consequently it is for that reason that I made an appeal to all the branches and interested parties in the forestry industry to bury the hatchet and, in terms of the provisions of this clause which affords everyone an opportunity to do so, reach an agreement and co-operate with one another on that basis. In view of the importance of the industry with which we are dealing here, it surprises me that hon. members on that side of the House are trying to make political capital out of the situation and that they are trying to stir up feelings on the basis of supposed differences, and conclusions which they arrived at concerning the so-called control boards. Consequently I shall quote the clause to hon. members. It states—

It does not state that he “shall” or that he “will”—

That is the Forestry Council—

The point that I want to make is that after consultation with these people, he may do so. Consequently I cannot understand why there are people who say that a bureaucracy will be established for this. In this connection I cannot agree with the hon. member for Wynberg either that we cannot compare this with arbitration since the Minister will not be objective because he will to a certain extent be an interested party in the matter. An idea which I will perhaps take back with me and, if necessary, put forward again next year, is that if a dispute arises, we shall be able to settle it by means of arbitration, as is usually the case. At present, however, I am convinced that it is in the best interests of the industry that we proceed with this provision, for then we shall have the statutory machinery—if the industry should find itself in a crisis—in terms of which the problem can be dealt with. But I shall in the meanwhile hold discussions with the department and with other bodies and try to establish whether we cannot perhaps refer the matter to arbitration. I want to content myself by making an appeal to the hon. members to be more lenient and realistic in their views.

Certain groups are making a great fuss about how they want to be entirely free and that the State should not intervene at all. However, I can assure hon. members that if the State did not, for example, apply quality control by means of legislation, the forestry industry would be much the worse for it.

I come now to the question of the control which, according to those hon. members, is being written into clause 5. I decided this year that there would be no price increase on sawlogs. What happened then? The major growers came to me and said that they wanted a price increase. What does that mean in reality? They wait until the Department of Forestry determines the price, I have given my approval, and then they fall in behind the department. In other words, these people are at present using the department and the Minister as a price determining mechanism for their own purpose. If I do not want to determine the price at as high a level as they want, they want to know from me why not.

Equally undesirable.

This is the kind of thing which is happening at present. In many cases these people use the department and the Minister when it suits them. When it does not suit them theoretically, they say the legislation is at fault and gives the State too much power.

I want to content myself with what I have said. I do not think we will make any further progress at all by arguing about it here. I have given hon. members the assurance that we shall consider these provisions again, and that I shall effect the necessary amendments next year, if I find that we can in fact improve the position by referring this issue to ordinary arbitration.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to convey our thanks to the hon. Minister for his undertaking that if it appears to be necessary, he shall reconsider the question of arbitration and possibly effect the necessary amendments next year. We appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister at least went so far as to intimate to us that our argument on arbitration was perhaps a sound one after all.

New Clause 5 put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—104: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bartlett, G. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Henning, J. M.; 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, 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; (Dickers, 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.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J.D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—17: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. 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.

New clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to chew over old bones. We have made our point of view very clear right throughout the debate on this Bill. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for saying that if it is necessary, he will have a look at this again next year. We believe that we have made a little progress in this regard and accept that this legislation will be brought back next year. As my hon. colleague says, perhaps we have seen a little wood through the trees. We shall therefore still oppose this Bill at Third Reading in that clause 5 is totally unacceptable to us.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the reference made by the hon. member for Mooi River during his Second Reading speech when he said that he felt that only one group of timber growers should be recognized and then he went on to use the S.A. Cane Growers’ Association as an example. The hon. member for Orange Grove said during the Committee Stage that he disagreed. He said that he felt we are talking about quite a different industry when we talk about sugar as opposed to timber. However, I do not think he is quite right in that respect, because the sugar industry is not an industry that produces only sugar. The sugar industry also produces many by-products. The industry even produces a type of hardboard, and a very good one at that. However, be that as it may, the sugar industry has established the S.A. Cane Growers’ Association and also the S.A. Cane Millers’ Association. There is also the S.A. Sugar Association, which we all know. It is the S.A. Cane Growers’ Association that we want to look at, because we feel that by the establishment of a similar body, one body—call it the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association—which would represent both the large timber growers and the smaller timber growers, of which there are some 2 000-odd, a step forward will be made. If the hon. the Minister would move towards the encouragement of the establishment of such a body, a body which he could recognize as being the voice of all timber growers in this country, we feel that it would make a tremendous difference to the timber industry as a whole. Equally, we know that there is the timber grower who is not only a grower, but also a miller. His problem can be overcome in the same way as it is overcome in the Sugar Association. I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to look at how this is being done in the sugar industry. I believe he would find a lot of meat on the bone on which he could chew, and would give him a lot of information which could possibly lead to a better relationship between the Ministry, the grower and the miller, in the timber industry.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend going into all the arguments again at any length. However, I do want to reply to the hon. member for Umhlanga. I have already replied to the points which he raised during the earlier debate, but I want to repeat what I said then. The position at the moment is that we have two organizations of growers, the S.A. Timber Growers’ Association and the Forest Owners’ Association. We have these two growers’ organizations because we have a clash of interests, and I have already asked and even begged them to come together. They did form a federal organization which I hope will ultimately bring them closer together. The bone of contention presently is the question of prices paid to the small growers and the share they have in the market. We have a direct clash of interests, and all I can do is to try my best, together with my department, to bring these people together in an attempt to iron out their difficulties. I have already appealed to those concerned to bury their hatchets and to get together in the interests of the industry. I do not think I can do any more but repeat that request.

*Nevertheless, I am convinced that the differences are being unnecessarily fanned. I am also sorry that the hon. member for Mooi River, a person with an intimate knowledge of this industry, was not here during the last part of this discussion. He would probably have been able to throw more light on the subject. The problem of course is that the Official Opposition is placing unnecessary emphasis here on a supposed difference. It is by no means an actual difference.

Finally, I want to convey my thanks once again for our at least having been able to reach this stage where we can lay down in legislation a clause which I regard as a fair compromise between the two conflicting factions in the industry. I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that we have at least been able to get the Official Opposition so far as to show their appreciation for this as well. I hope that we will still reach the stage in which they will be less recalcitrant and more accommodating, and that we will then have more unanimity and make greater progress.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, clause 8(4) provides that the period of office of a member of a regional welfare board may be terminated by the Minister at any time, if, in the opinion of the Minister, there are good reasons for doing so.

The argument we want to put forward in this regard, is an argument that we have already made in respect of a previous clause. Essentially it means that we feel it is a responsibility that should rest with the board itself. The decision to terminate the period of office of a member of the board, is something upon which the board itself should decide, regardless of the reason for taking such a step. We do not think it is a matter that should fall under the Minister.

The motivation for this is simple. The members of the board itself know best what happens on the board and how the various members of the board act or behave. They are therefore in the best position to judge whether a member’s period of office should be terminated or not. We believe that it accords greater status to the board to leave a power of that nature to the board instead of giving it to the hon. the Minister. After all, if the hon. the Minister simply exercises this power of terminating the period of office of a member of the board as he deems fit, it will give the impression—whether it is true or not—that the Minister is intervening in the functions of that board.

It may perhaps result in resentment towards the hon. the Minister arising amongst the members of that board. Consequently we think it is fair to ask the hon. the Minister to accept our amendment in this regard, which is aimed at leaving the responsibility and right to terminate the period of office of a member of a board, for the board itself to decide upon. Therefore I move accordingly.

Order! Has the hon. member moved all the amendments appearing in his name on the Order Paper?

Mr. Chairman, I move the fifth amendment, as follows—

1. (4) A regional welfare board may at any time terminate the period of office of any of its members.

Are the other four amendments out of order?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I did not catch what the hon. member has just said.

He has moved amendment No. 5 only.

On clause 9? [Interjections.]

Order! We are dealing with clause 8. The hon. member for Bryanston did not move amendments Nos. (1) to (4) standing in his name on the Order Paper. He moved his fifth amendment only.

I was not quite sure, because so many of that hon. member’s amendments to this Bill are so conflicting that one has difficulty in attempting to understand what he is driving at. This clause refers to the period of office of members of regional welfare boards. In his first amendment the hon. member suggests that these members should not be appointed by the Minister, but that they should be elected.

Order! That has not been moved. [Interjections.] Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston is so confused already, that he is beginning to confuse our members too! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bryanston has once again made a statement that cannot be read into the clause. He must try to be practical when he reads a clause. He says the Minister will now be able to discharge a member summarily. Surely, Sir, I am not going to attend the regional board meetings. I am not going to be present at every meeting to keep an eye on every member of every regional board in order to see whether he is doing his duty to my satisfaction. After all, I can and will only use the powers in terms of this clause if I receive reports that there is something wrong with a specific member of a regional board. In practice I shall only use the power if complaints are addressed to me and if other members of a particular regional board bring a particular situation to my attention. Naturally I shall not, even then, act summarily. Investigations will be made and discussions will be held with other members. It will be established whether there is a member who is not doing his work, who cannot work in a team at all, who is causing serious trouble, or completely obstructing the functions of a specific regional board in some or other way. There is no question of voluntary action. The hon. member may really set his mind at rest that we shall not abuse this power.

Secondly, it is only logical, from a legal point of view, that a person who appoints someone should also be able to discharge him. The Committee has already agreed to the Minister appointing the person. It is an absolutely unheard of principle that a person who is appointed by A, has to be discharged by B. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is a fixed, recognized principle …

What amendment are you speaking on now?

On the same amendment. [Interjections.]

Order! There is only one amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Chairman, as I say, there is a fixed, accepted principle that we cannot accept an undertaking that a Minister gives on a Bill or any specific clause during a debate here in the House. The undertaking must be included in the legislation itself. Here the hon. the Minister is now giving us an undertaking that he will not summarily discharge a member of the board and that, since he does not attend the board meetings, he will act only on the grounds of reports and information presented to him. Only on those grounds will he proceed to terminate the period of office of a member of the board. Now we are expected to accept on the strength of this undertaking given by the hon. the Minister that he will not abuse that power or use it for any other objective. But this is not contained in the Bill here before us. There is no indication that it is what this specific clause seeks to do. This clause gives the Minister the power to terminate the period of office of a member of a regional board at any time. It depends exclusively on the judgment of the Minister. It is for him to judge whether there is good reason to do so. Therefore, no mention is made here of consultation with the relevant board as a whole. No mention is made here of reports that the board concerned has to present to the Minister nor is any mention made of the fact that the Minister may act only on the grounds of such reports. What we have, is merely the assurance that the Minister gave us during the course of a speech here in the House, the assurance that he will not act otherwise and that he will not discharge anyone summarily in any other way. Of course, it is easy for us to accept this undertaking of the Minister and to trust the Minister in this regard. But it will clash with the responsibility of an Opposition. It will clash with our responsibility if we accept an undertaking not contained in the relevant legislation. We can only act in the light of the actual wording of the clauses which the hon. the Minister has presented to us. And even though I may wish to accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister, I cannot do so because it would be wrong in terms of the clause that we are discussing here at the moment.

Despite the fact that they are the Minister’s appointments, I still believe that the final judgment should be the responsibility of the board itself. The board must recommend that the period of office of a member should be terminated and it must give its full reasons for doing so. If an hon. member who is threatened with discharge, has a defence himself against the board’s reasons, we shall accept the procedure. But we cannot accept it as it stands here.

Mr. Chairman, I find it difficult to understand the hon. member. He wants us to provide for an investigation, etc. If one looks at the hon. member’s fourth and fifth amendments to clause 14, however, one sees that he proposes there that the investigation should fall away in the case of a welfare organization being deleted from the register and that it should simply be possible to do away with such an organization after consultation with the S.A. Welfare Council. There is no logic in the hon. member’s argument. Let me show him once again what steps will be taken. I am not going to attend regional meetings. I shall therefore not be able to take personal note of the reasons why an hon. member should be discharged from his position. Therefore, reports will have to come to me and I shall only be able to react if reports are presented to me. That is why it is a purely administrative matter and the hon. member should deduce from that that there will be no abuse of power as regards this matter, but that certain circumstances would have to arise first. This type of decision is not simply taken before an investigation is made. I am not asking the hon. member to accept my assurance in this regard. I am just asking him to accept that the country is administered with normal common sense. As I said, a decision like this is not taken before an investigation has been made. The hon. member has employed people himself. Has he ever discharged people about whom he did not receive complaints? Have any of the hon. members on the other side who have been employers, ever discharged an employee about whom no complaints were received? Have any of them ever received a complaint and not even made a few investigations before they reacted to it?

If a certain person is not politically acceptable, you can use this provision to discharge him.

Sir, fortunately we are on this side of the House because the vast majority of the population accept our bona fides.

It is a minority of the population.

Fortunately our future and credibility is not dependent on the hon. member’s acceptance. I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I move the first and second amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 24, to omit “prescribed” and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 9, in line 26, to omit “prescribed” and to substitute:

These amendments deal with the places where meetings will take place, the times when they will take place as well as the quorum that will be accepted for meetings. The clause provides that the Minister will have the right to promulgate by means of regulation the manner in which days and places of meetings are determined and the quorums for such meetings. In this regard I want to put forward precisely the same argument as before. The members of the regional welfare board are best able to judge where the board should meet, when it should meet, how often it should meet, etc. After all, they are best able to decide on all the circumstances and regulations concerning their meetings. They are also the right people to decide about the desired quorum for their meetings. I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that these are normal powers that can be transferred to the regional board. They must be given the responsibility to decide on these matters themselves and they must be trusted to decide correctly. We accept that these boards will be made up of responsible people. The Minister must not deprive an organization of these rights, that can surely be considered the normal rights of an organization, and then exercise them himself. That is why I have moved these two amendments to clause 9.

Mr. Chairman, I placed on the Order Paper an amendment which would have been consequential had my amendment to clause 7 been accepted by the Committee. The amendment to clause 7 was to provide for a deputy chairman. However, the hon. the Minister indicated that he was not prepared to accept that amendment at this stage, but that he was prepared to give consideration to the question of the appointment of a deputy chairman and that, if he considered it necessary, he would move an amendment to that effect in the Other Place. I merely wish to place on record my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for giving consideration to the question of the appointment of a deputy chairman. If such an amendment is moved in the Other Place I want to indicate that it would obviously be necessary also to amend clause 9 in order to provide for a deputy chairman to be able to take the chair at a meeting in terms of paragraph 3 of this clause. If the deputy chairman is also absent, the members present at that meeting can elect a member to act as chairman for that meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to deal briefly with the two amendments that the hon. member for Bryanston moved. That hon. member proposes that the regional welfare board itself should determine the time and place of its meetings. On the surface the amendment seems quite innocent, but if it is tested against the practical situation, we see that it is quite unacceptable. This amendment, as the hon. member moved it, simply cannot work in practice, for two reasons. I should be obliged if the hon. member for Bryanston would show some interest, when he has moved an amendment, by listening when someone is arguing with him. I repeat that his amendments will not work, for two reasons. Firstly, the amendment is a formula for the self-dissolution of the regional welfare board. Suppose that at its previous meeting, the board failed to determine a time and place where the following meeting would take place. In a case like this the board must be dissolved.

If they are so incompetent …

It may happen, and that is not the worst. It is also laid down here that the time and place for the meeting of the executive committee must be determined. What happens in practice? The executive committee of a regional welfare board has an urgent matter that they have to settle, but they are unable to meet immediately. They first have to convene the regional welfare board.

That is not true. You are completely wrong.

It is true. It is precisely what the amendment provides. A meeting of the regional welfare board must now be called before a time and place can be determined for the executive committee to meet in order to discuss certain matters. After that, the meeting of the executive committee is held and that meeting once again reports back to the regional welfare board. When debating these matters and submitting amendments to the Committee, I think that we should appreciate the consequences of our amendments.

The amendments must be intelligent at least.

Yes, they must be intelligent at least. Therefore mr. Chairman, this amendment cannot be accepted at all because it simply will not work in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot just allow what the hon. member for Bellville said, to go by unchallenged. Clause 9(1) reads as follows—

These times and places are prescribed by regulation and announced by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Bellville now wants to allege that if a regional welfare board fails to decide on the time and place of their next meeting, they cannot meet if they have the right of deciding on that. Does the hon. member mean that the hon. the Minister should promulgate a special regulation to remind them where and when they must meet in such circumstances? If they can decide themselves they can surely decide on that. If they forget, the chairman can decide to hold a meeting and he can decide …

Where do you find that?

If, according to my amendment, we leave that responsibility to them, and do not place it on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, and if we trust that the chairman of that board at least has the sense of responsibility and the ability to decide for himself how often meetings should be held, where they should be held and when they should be held, then the hon. the Minister cannot leave anything to that board. If the hon. member for Bellville wants to create the impression that the board does not even have the power or the sense of responsibility to be able to decide where and when their meetings should take place, no responsible decision can be left to them. The hon. the Minister should then rather retain all powers in his own hands. The hon. member also said that if a committee meeting has to be arranged, the welfare board must first be convened.

That is true.

It is not true. What the hon. member maintains, is that the hon. the Minister will arrange a committee meeting by means of a special regulation. Surely this is not so. There is no organization that acts in that way. The chairman of the committee will decide, together with his committee, where and when they should meet. After all, this is the normal procedure followed by all organizations. When has a regulation ever had to be promulgated to remind a committee that it must meet? Surely that is impossible, and it is not going to happen, either. All I should like to convey to the hon. the Minister, is the fact that these are normal, recognized responsibilities that, in the case of all organizations, are the responsibility of the management of those organizations. One trusts that the management and the office-bearers of the organizations will fulfil their responsibilities of this nature conscientiously. If one cannot trust them with that, they cannot be trusted with any other responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman, I assume that the hon. member for Bryanston is aware of the fact that there are regional welfare boards functioning at the present time under the provisions of the existing Act. I would like to ask the hon. member—he has had a great deal to say on this Bill—whether he has any practical knowledge of the workings of these regional boards when they meet and, if so, is he perfectly satisfied with the way in which they are presently constituted and with the way in which they meet?

Mr. Chairman, may I answer that … [Interjections.]

I have asked the hon. member a question …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston can make a speech when the hon. member for Von Brandis has finished his speech.

The hon. member for Bryanston simply has to say “yes” or “no” as to whether he is satisfied with the way in which the existing regional welfare boards operate and in which they meet.

Are you?

Yes, I am.

Are you totally satisfied?

Yes. I am satisfied that they do a very efficient job and that they meet regularly.

Order! Hon. members may not put questions to one another to and fro across the floor of this House. The hon. member must make a speech.

It is obvious that the hon. member for Bryanston will not commit himself. If we look at the existing legislation and at the way in which the boards operate at the moment, there is absolutely no difference between the manner in which this clause has been drawn up and the existing provision in the Act. It has only been made, I assume from a draughtsman’s point of view, more efficient in its operation. The provisions of this clause are virtually exactly the same as those in the existing legislation. The Act refers to the calling of quorums and the procedure at meetings of regional welfare boards and it also deals with the establishment of welfare boards. It states very clearly—

The functions of the board and the appointment of members will be as prescribed. In other words, it is exactly the same as is provided in this clause that we are presently dealing with.

These boards have drawn their allowances and their pay for attendance at regional board meetings from funds supplied by the Department of Social Welfare. They do not create their own finances and their own funds, and this gives the hon. the Minister the right to prescribe the procedure, their operation, as well as the time at which and place where these boards should meet and fulfil their function. I would accept the arguments of the hon. member for Bryanston if he could show in any way whatsoever that the procedure followed in terms of the existing Act for the past 13 years has proved inefficient, or could prove that these boards have not done their work and that they should place a greater onus on themselves. However, the hon. member for Bryanston has not brought one argument to show that this system has not operated in a most efficient manner and that the gentlemen who have been appointed to these boards have not fulfilled their functions in a most diligent fashion. Therefore it is impossible to accept the arguments of the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an innocuous clause here, one which we really do not have to get hot under the collar about. When we dealt with previous clauses in the Bill prescribing how often reports should be presented by the S.A. Welfare Board and laying down certain other directives for the board, the hon. member for Bryanston did not object. On the contrary, he said he thought the provisions were not sufficient and moved an amendment in this regard. In clause 9 the issue is merely that there is going to be a set of regulations. It is customary that when a statutory board is appointed, its main functions are defined in the relevant Act. The additional aspects are then defined in regulations. There is no question of us not trusting the regional welfare boards. It is not the case that every time the boards want to meet we want to issue a regulation. What we are going to do, is the same as we have done as regards more important aspects in the Bill. For instance, we are going to say that the regional welfare boards should meet at least ten times per annum, or once per month. The boards and their executive committees can then decide on what day of the month they want to meet. I want to point out to the hon. member for Bryanston that he is himself violating the principle of his argument, because in his second amendment he moved that the S.A. Welfare Council should prescribe to the regional welfare boards. Therefore, all the hon. member wants, is that instead of the Minister prescribing, the S.A. Welfare Council must do so. In his second amendment he does not say that the regional welfare boards must do so themselves either. His argument is therefore a contradictio in terminis because all the time he has been arguing that the board should be allowed to do this itself. His amendment says, however, that someone else must prescribe this to them.

The regulations at issue here, are going to be innocuous ones and in addition will be published for commentary beforehand. The regulations are merely going to prescribe how many times meetings must be held and within that framework the regional welfare boards will have full scope to decide whether to meet on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, the last Friday of the month, or on whatever day it may be. The provisions of this clause are really quite innocuous. Let us rather argue about more important matters.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

This is an interim measure. The amendment relates to the constitution of the first council. There is a provision in the Bill that the bodies which may nominate candidates for the regional welfare boards, have to be approved by the council. At this stage, however, there are not yet any regional welfare boards. The amendment makes provision for the training institutions recognized in terms of the Act, i.e. the existing Act, to have the right to nominate candidates as well.

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bellville. In fact, we think it is an improvement on the clause. The clause deals with the preparation of nomination lists and is therefore an important clause. At least three-quarters of the people whose names will appear on these nominations lists will be appointed to the various regional boards. Consequently it is important to ensure that all interested organizations and training colleges should have an opportunity of submitting names for consideration. In terms of this clause they can submit up to five names for consideration by the hon. the Minister.

Many organizations have expressed a degree of concern about the drawing up of nomination lists, because, obviously, they wish to have every opportunity of putting forward the names of persons whom they believe will be suitable for appointment to the regional board for the region in which they are situated.

I have already pointed out the importance of national councils. I think it is important that these national councils should have every opportunity of submitting names and nomination lists for the various regions. I now wish to move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 47, after “council” to insert:

In effect this amendment will give recognition to the management of the national councils and will enable them to nominate persons who are connected with that national council. My amendment specifically states “recognized as a national council”. That part of the amendment is based on the definition of a national council as contained in clause 1, which we have already dealt with. Consequently the word “established”—the hon. the Minister will move an amendment to that effect at a later stage—would perhaps be more appropriate. Clause 10(3)(c) stipulates—

I have already indicated that the hon. the Minister intends moving an amendment to the effect that the national council shall be established. However, there are national councils who have members in other areas. In many instances the national councils are operative on a Republic-wide basis. It would appear that they should have the opportunity of submitting names for the nomination lists in those areas where they have been established or where they are, as I have mentioned earlier, recognized. I have moved this amendment in order to clarify the situation in this regard. I now move the third amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (3) On page 9, in lines 59 to 61, to omit paragraph (c).

This amendment tries to give some clarity so as to ensure that these national councils do indeed have the opportunity of submitting names of resident members of the various regions, people who belong to that national council and might be employed in those areas. A national council is given the opportunity of submitting their names for consideration for appointment to the regional boards.

There are some organizations which have been established in certain areas, but have offices in other regions. These may have persons who are highly suitable to be considered for nomination to the regional boards. I think of an organization such as the Tape Aids for the Blind with its head office in Durban and offices in other parts of the Republic and which might also like to submit for consideration of the hon. the Minister names for the nomination lists.

The other portion of this clause which causes some concern is the subsection dealing with the professional associations of social workers. Clause 10(3)(a)(iv) provides—

These managements will be entitled to nominate at least five persons for appointment to the regional board. I now wish to move amendment No. (2) printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (2) On page 9, in lines 51 and 52, to omit “, of which the head office is situated in” and to substitute “in”;

This would have the effect that each professional association of social workers would be able to submit five names for the region concerned and not have it restricted merely to where the head office of the professional social workers is situated. A situation could arise that the head office of the social workers’ association is situated in one particular region while they have an active organization in another region. It would only be fair to see that these people also have an opportunity to submit five names for the consideration of the hon. the Minister.

Looking at the clause as it stands, the hon. the Minister should welcome any efforts to create a wider selection from which he can appoint people to the regional boards. I do not think we should try to restrict the number of organizations that may submit names for the nomination lists. Rather, we should encourage the submission of a large number of names to give the Minister a far greater and wider scope in the appointment of people to the regional boards. In view of the fact that the regional boards’ functions are going to be extended and that there is to be a devolution of authority to the regional boards, these boards are, indeed, going to become the kingpin in the organization as far as our welfare services are concerned, particularly as far as the regions are concerned. Therefore it is most important to ensure that the hon. the Minister has a full opportunity to appoint the best possible experts in their particular field to serve on the boards.

It is for these reasons that I have moved the three amendments. It is to assist him to have a greater number of people and more experts on the nomination lists. This will give him a greater variety of people from whom he can appoint his regional boards.

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

1. (1) On page 9, in lines 32 to 36, to omit subsection (1) and to substitute:
2. (1) Candidates for election to regional welfare boards in terms of section 7(2) can be nominated by—

1. (a) the management of each welfare organization and of each branch of a welfare organization which is registered or is deemed to be registered in respect of the region concerned;
2. (b) the management of each national council, provided it has been recognized as a national council for the region concerned;
3. (c) the executive authority of each institution for the training of social and associated workers in the region concerned;
4. (d) the management of each professional association of social and associated workers in the region concerned.

1. (2) on page 9, in lines 37 to 41, to omit subsection (2);
2. (3) on page 9, in lines 42 to 61, to omit subsection (3);
3. (4) on page 9, in lines 62 to 67, and on page 11, in lines 1 to 6, to omit subsection (4);
4. (5) on page 11, in lines 14 to 19, to omit subsection (6).

I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Bellville said yesterday when we were debating another clause and were dealing with the composition of the regional welfare boards and the manner in which these boards should be constituted. At that stage the hon. member for Bellville pointed out that in his view the system which I proposed would be totally impracticable because of the numbers of candidates involved. At that stage the hon. member for Bellville said that if a region such as the Cape Western region were to become a region for a regional welfare board one could assume that there would be in the vicinity of 1 000 welfare organizations in that region. And because there would be 1 000 welfare organizations the system which I proposed would mean that there would be in the vicinity of 2 000 to 4 000 nominations, from amongst which …

I said 150.

The number of persons nominated by the 1 000 organizations. That makes it much better as far as my argument is concerned. Let us assume that in terms of what I proposed the 1 000 organizations nominated 150 candidates from which their members would elect the members for the welfare boards. This would then mean that the welfare board, consisting of, say, 15 members, or whatever the number may be, would then be elected from the 150 by the members of the welfare organization whose management nominated them.

How many members would there be?

If the hon. member says that that is impractical, clumsy and difficult, let us compare it with …

How many members are there who are going to vote?

Let us just compare it with what is proposed …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In view of the fact that this Committed decided by agreeing to clause 7 that the council was to be appointed by the Minister, and in view of the fact that amendments had been moved which requested that there were to be no elections, are the amendments prescribing the procedure to be followed at the election of members of the councils, in order?

Order! I shall allow the first of these amendments. If that is rejected, the other four will drop. The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Bellville that what is proposed in clause 10 is the mechanism for the drawing up of the nomination list. This mechanism is far more clumsy, far more impractical than those put forward by me in the debate yesterday. Nevertheless, the hon. member alleged that my amendments were clumsy and impractical. Let us look at what is required here, and let us look at it in terms of the example which the hon. member himself mentioned, the example of the Western Cape region. The hon. member said he visualized there would be approximately 1 000 welfare organizations in the Western Cape region. In terms of this provision a nomination college is to be created which will be representative of everyone of those welfare organizations and of the management of everyone of those welfare organizations. Even the management of every single welfare branch within that area, as well as the management of each national council, the executive authority of each training institution and the management of each professional association of social workers will all serve on such a nomination college. That will mean that between 5 000 and 10 000 members serve on such a nomination college in a region in which there are 1 000 welfare organizations. That would be the size of the nomination college.

Each one of those managements—and there could be 1 000 or more of them because every branch of every organization will be represented—is entitled, in terms of this legislation, to nominate five members. In other words, what we are talking about here is a mechanism created by the hon. the Minister in terms of this legislation, a mechanism which first of all provides for a nomination college.

The nomination college should be composed of the managements of all the welfare organizations, their branches and a number of other organizations operating within a specific area. It appears that, in a place like the Western Cape region, there are 1 000 odd organizations, as the hon. member for Bellville has pointed out. That means there would be between 5 000 and 10 000 people who will constitute the nomination college. In terms of this provision every management of every organization and of every branch has the right to nominate five members whose names are to appear on the nomination list. That means once again that, if the hon. member for Bellville is correct, we will have a nomination list for the Western Cape region of between 5 000 and 10 000 names. From that list of between 5 000 and 10 000 members the Minister, in his sole discretion, is now going to choose 12 members to serve on the regional welfare board. The suggestion is that that is an equitable basis, that that is a fair and just basis for the constitution of a regional welfare board.

In other words, we must now accept and believe that the Minister will nominate the 12 best members out of all the candidates nominated by all the organizations concerned. It also means we will have to accept that those will be the 12 members best equipped, best qualified and best able to make the optimum contribution to the work of that regional welfare board. It may very well be that that will be the case, but the …

Mr. Chairman, please permit me to raise a point of order in respect of the clause we are dealing with now. The amendment that the hon. member for Bryanston has moved talks in terms of an election of candidates. Nowhere in the provisions of the Bill, including those provisions already accepted in clauses 7 and 8, do we find mention made of an election. The members of the boards are appointed solely by the Minister. All we are dealing with here is the question of nomination, after which the Minister will make appointments. We are not in any way dealing with an election of candidates.

Order! This whole clause deals with the preparation of nomination lists. If the hon. member for Bryanston is prepared to change the word “election” to “nomination” in his first amendment, I shall be prepared to accept it.

Thank you, Sir; I shall do so. Therefore my first amendment will read—

1. (1) On page 9, in lines 32 to 36, to omit subsection (1) and to substitute:
2. (1) Candidates for nomination to regional welfare boards in terms of section 7(2) can be nominated by—

1. (a) the management of each welfare organization and of each branch of a welfare organization which is registered or is deemed to be registered in respect of the region concerned;
2. (b) the management of each national council, provided it has been recognized as a national council for the region concerned;
3. (c) the executive authority of each institution for the training of social and associated workers in the region concerned.
4. (d) the management of each professional association of social and associated workers in the region concerned.

I am actually talking about the drawing up of nomination lists and the nomination college. In terms of this provision nomination lists of between 5 000 and 10 000 members will be drawn up. These members will have been nominated by the nomination college in each region. This will require a tremendous amount of organization, book work and red tape. The Minister will then appoint, from amongst those nominees, 12 people. I have said that it may very well be that the Minister will appoint the 12 best people in terms of all the requirements. Nevertheless, the Minister has the opportunity to appoint 12 people who may not necessarily be the best people, but whose outlooks and views suit his particular views and attitudes. He can do so, and the suspicion will always be there that those 12 appointees, taken from a nomination list of 10 000 people, are not necessarily representative of the vast numbers of people who have been nominated.

You do not understand this clause.

Yes, I do. My question to the Minister now is: Would it have been so much more difficult, instead of having a nomination college, to have called it an electoral college and allowed those same people to have undertaken the election of the members of the regional welfare boards, rather than have them appointed after nomination? It would not have been any more difficult, and it would have resulted in elected regional welfare boards rather than appointed boards.

Mr. Chairman, firstly, I want to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that I am prepared to accept his second amendment. As far as his first and third amendments are concerned, they are in fact replaced by my own amendment, which I now move and which reads as follows—

In consequence of this amendment, the whole concept of recognition falls away, and a national council will now itself be able to submit nominations. Only, the constitution of such a national council must be in order, and it depends on the area where it is established, and where it actually operates. An organization which operates on a Republic-wide basis and of which the constitution is in order, will be able to submit nominations and those nominations will naturally be approved. I therefore accept the hon. member’s second amendment, but as I have said, his first and third amendments are replaced by the amendment which I have now moved. I also accept the amendment by the hon. member for Bellville. I want to thank both those members for the constructive proposals they have made. Their amendments will effect an improvement to the Bill.

As far as the amendments by the hon. member for Bryanston are concerned, I do not wish to argue again about the question of election or otherwise. I think we settled that last night. This House has given a decision, and if the hon. member now still feels that there should rather be an election, he is opposing a decision of this House, and not merely a decision of the Government. He now takes his argument further and speaks about the vast number of names. He appealed to the hon. member for Bellville. The hon. member for Bellville made that projection in the course of an argument, about what would happen if an open election were to be held now. It is very possible that what the hon. member said, might happen, but we are not dealing with an election situation here now. We are dealing here with exactly the same procedure being followed at the moment to constitute regional welfare boards. Now, I just want to tell the hon. member that our experience has been that we receive approximately 200 nominations from all over the country for all the regions. We receive only that number of nominations from which to make appointments.

Exactly.

There is even one region from which we received too few nominations. There were not sufficient members nominated to fill the board. With the increased functions, the increased work capacity and the increased target planning which will now come with regional boards and with the important and central function which they will perform in connection with planning from now on, we hope and trust, and also expect, that there will be greater interest. We trust that the number of names will increase radically so that we shall indeed be able to make a choice. However, I do not expect the overwhelming numbers which the hon. member predicts.

Neither do I.

It might of course be possible if an election situation, because in an election situation, everything changes. Then it is not merely a question of putting forward a name, but rather of conducting an election campaign and stirring up enthusiasm, and people canvassing support from other people. It is an altogether different situation.

Would that not have been wonderful?

I therefore cannot accept his amendments. I wish to let the two amendments which I have accepted, together with my own, suffice.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that I was able to elicit that particular reaction from the hon. the Minister. I knew that it would not be 5 000 or 10 000 names. I used those numbers merely to elicit that reaction from the hon. the Minister. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, the numbers are only a few hundred. Precisely because the numbers are a few hundred, it means that the procedure which I previously proposed, would not have been so difficult at all but would have worked very effectively.

However, the hon. the Minister has also stated that if it had been an election, there would have been thousands of names. There would then have been great interest.

Order! We are not dealing with an election; this merely concerns the preparation of a list of names.

Then I shall conclude by merely saying that that is the best argument in favour of the procedure which I have proposed.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for being prepared to accept my second amendment. In view of that and the explanation given by the hon. the Minister concerning the position of national councils, I should, with the leave of the Committee, like to withdraw my first and third amendments.

Amendments (1) and (3) moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to state that we support the amendment by the hon. member for Bellville.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived and amendments (2) to (5) dropped.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield agreed to.

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

Amendment moved by Mr. A. T. van der Walt agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the powers and functions of regional welfare boards and the appointment of the executive committees and welfare committees. I move all the amendments as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 11, in line 29, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “council”;

2. (2) on page H, in line 40, after “encourage” to insert:

   in the community a sense of responsibility for the welfare of all persons and to encourage

1. (3) on page 11, in line 52, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “council”;
2. (4) on page 11, in lines 55 and 56, to omit “Minister or the Secretary” and to substitute “council”;
3. (5) on page 11, in line 58, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “council”;
4. (6) on page 11, in line 60, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “council”;
5. (7) on page 11, in line 62, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “council”;
6. (8) on page 13, in line 8, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “council”;

7. (9) on page 13, in line 9, after “committees” to insert:

   from among the members of welfare organizations operating in the area

1. (10) on page 13, in lines 17 and 18, to omit paragraph (c) and to substitute:

1. (c) The members of a welfare committee shall elect a chairman and a deputy chairman from among themselves.

1. (11) on page 13, in line 30, to omit “prescribed” and to substitute:

1. (12) on page 13, in lines 32 and 33, to omit “an officer in the public service designated by the Secretary” and to substitute:

I should like to indicate that all the amendments deal with these powers, but in particular they deal with the functions of the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions. The Secretary can request a welfare board to determine the needs of a particular regional welfare area. The Secretary can ask the welfare board to advise him on matters relating to its functions. The Minister or the Secretary can ask the welfare board to perform any other function. The approval of the Secretary is required for the arranging of conferences and the Minister can require the board to report to him. I believe that in view of the representations we have made previously, all these functions should be carried out by the S.A. Welfare Council and not by the Minister or the Secretary. The motivation for this is precisely what it was before, namely that the S.A. Welfare Council, we believe, should be the primary body co-ordinating the activities of the regional welfare boards; should be the primary body initiating and stimulating activities by the regional welfare boards; should be the primary body evaluating their activities and assisting them with those activities; and should be the go-between acting on behalf of the regional welfare boards in representations that are made to the Minister and his department. That would ensure a smoother and more effective structure of organization and it would give the S.A. Welfare Council a meaningful and effective role to play as far as this is concerned.

This particular clause also provides for the creation of welfare committees. We believe that, when a welfare committee is to be created in a particular area by a regional welfare board, its members should come from any welfare organizations operating in the area concerned. In other words, if it is felt that a welfare committee should be created in an area in respect of which certain welfare activities have to be planned and carried out, the regional welfare board should in the first place consider members of existing welfare organizations for appointment on that committee, because they will be the people who will have experience and knowledge of the area and who will have the motivation and ability to provide the best possible service as required. We also feel that the chairman should be elected by the members of the committee and should not be designated by the welfare board. We hold that point of view for the very reasons that we have mentioned before. If one wants the committee to operate effectively and successfully, the chairman must have the support and confidence of the members of the committee, and the only way in which that can be ensured is by giving the committee the right to elect their own chairman.

It is also important that the quorum in such committees, instead of being prescribed by the Minister, should be determined by the regional welfare board and that the secretary appointed to serve such a committee should also be appointed by the regional welfare board and not be, as provided for in the Bill, an officer in the Public Service designated by the Secretary. The question may immediately be posed why in this case we say the secretary should be appointed by the welfare board and not by the committee itself and why we say the quorum should be decided by the regional welfare board and not by the committee. In this case the committee is obviously established as an interim body to investigate the welfare needs of an area and to present a plan to the regional welfare board of what should be done about the needs existing in that area. Because it will operate on that basis, we believe that a slightly different approach is in order in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept a single one of the amendments moved by the hon. member, although there are one or two of them which are arguable and have some merit. However, I shall explain to the hon. member why I cannot accept them.

As far as the first amendment is concerned, the hon. member loses sight of the fact that a regional board can also perform those functions on their own authority. It therefore does not amount to a subjection of the regional board to the Secretary. It means, in effect, that the regional board may perform those functions either of its own volition or at the request of the Secretary. The board is free to do that of its own free will. That places the matter in a completely different light to that in which the hon. member sees it.

The second amendment may, on the face of it, have some merit. However, one should take a more thorough look at the essential functions of the regional boards. We must guard against these regional boards taking over the functions of welfare organizations as such. A regional welfare board is not a super welfare organization, and we do not want to create a bureaucratic structure which will impinge on the activities of welfare organizations in the private sector. They can forgather on the regional board to reach consensus on a plan, and to draw up a list of priorities. But the hon. member now wants to allege that one of the functions of a regional board is to encourage a sense of responsibility for welfare work on the part of all people. It is really self-evident that everybody who is interested in welfare, will do that. But it is basically and primarily a function of the welfare organizations themselves, a function which those organizations set themselves as goal. It is the whole task of those organizations to address themselves to the public and to involve the public in welfare work. Because I believe that we should guard against the possibility of the regional welfare boards becoming a super welfare organization, I cannot accept that amendment either.

Amendments (3) to (8) deal with the substitution of the words “S.A. Welfare Council” for the words “Minister” and “Secretary”, wherever they appear. We have debated this matter repeatedly. Last night already it was decided that the S.A. Welfare Council should not have an administrative function. It will be a body which stands on its own and which is not going to meddle with the administration and daily activities of the regional boards. In view of the explanations which I have already given of the interaction which will take place in any case, the co-ordination which there will be, and the fact that it will not become a purely administrative body, I cannot accept these amendments either.

With amendment (9) it is basically intended that welfare committees may only be appointed from members of welfare organizations which are active in a region. This is, to me, a peculiar deviation in the hon. member’s argument. He says we are imposing too many restrictions. But now he himself wants to impose restrictions. He now wants to prescribe to regional boards in an Act whom they can co-opt on to committees when those committees have to undertake practical investigations and other functions. From the experience we gained with the pilot committee appointed in the Vaal Triangle, we ascertained that people from other bodies in the community, for example schools and municipalities, are able to make a valuable contribution to welfare work. Therefore I believe that it would be unwise to exclude them by law from participation. What is important, however, is that the regional boards—which we trust, although the hon. member accused us a moment ago of not trusting them—need not take someone else. They may appoint only members of welfare organizations. They are quite free to do so. Why does the hon. member want to restrict their freedom of movement? I simply cannot agree with his argument.

Amendment (10) provides that the welfare committees should designate their own chairmen. That hon. member absolutizes his—I say this with all due respect—distorted view of democracy in the same way in which freedom of the individual is absolutized in the USA at the expense of authority and the interests of the community. The welfare committees are tools of the regional welfare boards, and they are appointed by those boards. It is only correct to state that when a board appoints a committee, it should be able to decide who chairman of that committee should be. That happens daily in every organization of which that hon. member has ever been a member, long before he came to this House. It is a standard—and practical— custom in organizations, that when a board designates a committee, it also designates the chairman and members of the committee. That is all that this is concerned with. If the hon. member wants to be consistent, then in my view he should want to enable the regional boards to designate the chairman in whom they have the most confidence, because the instructions come from that board to a subcommittee thereof.

As far as the hon. member’s motion No. (11) is concerned, I can merely refer the hon. member back to his amendment No. (9), according to which he wants to prescribe that the members appointed to the committees, may only be drawn from specific categories. In this case, the hon. member does not trust the regional boards. But when we are dealing with something like their constitution, their internal rules and regulations, their procedure, their order arrangements, etc., then the hon. member prefers that there should be no directives to them. It has already been stated here ad nauseam that these things will be published and that there will be an opportunity of objecting to them. All that is laid down, is how many times per month they ought to meet and similar matters. These are therefore completely innocent regulations within which they will enjoy great freedom of movement. According to the hon. member’s motion No. (12) the regional welfare boards should appoint their own secretaries. I am pleased to notice that after the argument we had about this last night, it is obvious that this hon. member no longer feels very strongly about that. Apparently he no longer insists that we should do it in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to subsection (5)(a) which refers to the establishment of welfare committees. This is one of the most important provisions of the Bill, because it goes to the very root of the whole idea of welfare work. The important question to answer in this regard is whether the Bill is going to kill private initiative or whether we shall still be able to motivate private individuals to take part in social work. We are bearing in mind the example of the PWV complex that the hon. the Minister put to us, but we feel that that might well be a case where a specific type of welfare work was required because there was a gap and the work was not being fulfilled. The hon. the Minister will find that, in most urban areas, many people are deeply involved in welfare work and committed to it. It is often very difficult to motivate people to do welfare work. These people usually serve in organizations and unless they are personally motivated for welfare work, it is very difficult to get them to do it. The provisions of subsection (5) of clause 11 is obviously dealing with voluntary workers, because in paragraphs (a) to (g) no mention is made of any remuneration. Those people are going to have to do the work because they want to and they will have to be motivated towards it. In the light of that I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how these welfare committees will fit in with the existing commissions. Under the provisions of the existing Act there already exists a Welfare Organizations’ Commission, a Social Work Commission, the Family Life Commission and the Welfare Planning Commission. I take it that when this Bill becomes an Act, those commissions will be phased out. But these commissions have done a great amount of work and I want to know how their work will be integrated, whether it will be stopped completely or whether there will be some benefit on a regional basis in regard to the work that should be done. Is it perhaps the idea to replace these commissions by the regional boards themselves? In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that there were 10 regional welfare boards in existence at the moment. In terms of section 5 of the principal Act they were established as welfare offices in these areas. In terms of this legislation we are going to have regional boards in relation to magisterial districts, i.e. one regional board for every one or more magisterial districts. Up to this stage the hon. the Minister has not yet indicated how many of the boards he anticipates. In order to clarify this matter I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how many of these regional welfare boards he anticipates, what the work of the committees will be in relation to these boards, and how these welfare committees are going to be established so that they do dovetail with the system which has been established already.

Mr. Chairman, the basic reply to the hon. member’s question is to be found in clause 11(5)(a) itself, which reads—

In other words, a regional board is instituted for a fairly large area. Such a board may cover 20 magisterial districts and the idea is that the welfare committees can now be established for particular magisterial districts, for instance—just to give the hon. member a practical example—10 committees for each of 10 magisterial districts. This is the basic underlying idea. In regard to the functions of these welfare committees, clause 11 (5)(a) further provides—

To me this is plain and simple language. This provision clearly states that welfare committees will be instituted on a geographical basis for portions of the larger regional areas, and it clearly states that the functions of these committees will be such functions as are assigned to them by the regional boards. I can imagine that quite a number of duties can be assigned to such a welfare committee by the regional boards. I agree that these committees are very, very important and we hope that in practice they will prove to be a very great success.

With regard to the number of the regional boards, I can assure the hon. member that it is not the idea suddenly to double or triple the existing number of regional boards. We have a limited number of these boards at the moment and the basic idea is that there may be addition of one or two. After that I think the situation will stabilize itself and other boards may be added only as a result of new developments in particular areas. In other words, we do not foresee large numbers of regional boards. The number will be more or less what it is at the moment. These regional welfare boards may themselves decide how they want to subdivide their regions and appoint committees. The way in which their committee systems operate may differ from region to region. Once again we want to allow freedom of ideas within each region to develop, and to let local option to a certain extent decide exactly which particular practical line they want to take. This would of course have to be in the ambit of the principles of the Act and also subject to general co-ordination which we will try to ensure.

What about the four commissions?

The four commissions will fall away.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to amendment No. 9,I find the hon. the Minister’s explanation satisfactory and with the leave of the Committee, I should like to withdraw amendment No. 9.

Amendment (9), with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived.

Amendments (3) to (8) and (10) to (12) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, clause 12 deals with the drafting and the approval of welfare programmes. In terms of this provision regional welfare boards will be requested by the Secretary to examine the welfare needs in their areas, to draft regional welfare programmes and to suggest ways and means in which the welfare needs of the area are to be dealt with. These welfare programmes will then be referred to the hon. the Minister and his department and they will decide whether to approve or disapprove of the programmes in their entirety or in part or whether they are to be referred back. Provision is also made that even after the approval of a welfare programme, such programme can be amended or be referred back for further consideration. The exercise of all these powers which relate to this procedure, rests with the hon. the Minister and his department. Once again the S.A. Welfare Council does not come into the picture at all. I accordingly move all the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 13, in line 38, to omit “Minister or the Secretary” and to substitute “council”;
2. (2) on page 13, in line 62, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “council”;
3. (3) on page 13, in lines 65 to 69, to omit paragraph (a) and to substitute:

1. (a) The council shall, after consultation with the regional welfare board concerned, negotiate with the Minister the acceptance by him of a regional welfare programme submitted to the Council, and shall recommend to the Minister the changes, if any, it may deem necessary.

1. (4) on page 15, in line 1, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “Minister”;
2. (5) on page 15, in line 2, after “may” to insert:

1. (6) on page 15, in lines 5 and 6, to omit “it is in the opinion of the Secretary” and to substitute:

1. (7) on page 15, in line 7, to omit “he may refer it” and to substitute “it may be referred”.

The purpose of all these amendments to clause 12 is to introduce the S.A. Welfare Council into this procedure in a meaningful way in order to give them the right to evaluate …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member has moved all these amendments, and now I want to argue that since his amendments to clause 3 were not accepted and since clause 3 was agreed to, the S.A. Welfare Council does not have the power now to exercise these functions, and that the basic arguments which the hon. member is advancing now in virtually the identical terms, were rejected during the discussion of clause 3.

Order! I think there are other things involved as well. I shall permit the hon. member to deal with them, but he must not elaborate on them for too long.

Mr. Chairman, I was in fact not going to continue with this argument. The hon. the Minister may be right with regard to the third amendment. However, in regard to the other amendments I believe the argument is valid in regard to clause 12. I have moved these amendments in order to give effect to the motivation I have suggested.

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

1. (1) On page 13, in line 62, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “Minister”;
2. (2) on page 13, in line 65, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “Minister”;
3. (3) on page 15, in line 1, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “Minister”;
4. (4) on page 15, in line 6, to omit “Secretary” and to substitute “Minister”.

All four of them amount to the same thing, namely that “Minister” is substituted for “Secretary” at the placed indicated. I should like to motivate that by stating that it is being done in consequence of representations we have received. In those representations, it was stated very clearly that the greatest appreciation exists for the secretariat of the department and for the Secretary as a person, and that there is also full confidence in the office of the Secretary, but that the basic reason why “Minister” should rather be substituted for “Secretary”, is that fairly far-reaching powers are involved here. We should like to avoid any grounds for being accused of bureaucracy. The Minister is responsible to this House, and must therefore obtain these powers so that he can report to and be examined by the House in this regard and, if he were to exercise the powers wrongly, be reprimanded for doing so. Therefore there is no motion of no confidence in the Secretary in this connection. The issue is the extension of the obligation to report back, if I may express it that way, and it affords the Opposition the opportunity of tackling the Minister about his action in terms of this clause.

As far as the amendments by the hon. member are concerned, I am going to be just as brief and concise as he was. This argument was really already settled when we debated clause 3. I am not really going to add anything to what I said then. We are going to establish the necessary co-ordination, as I fully indicated to the hon. members last night, and we do not want to give the S.A. Welfare Council administrative capacity. It is an independent matter—independent of the regional welfare boards, which are concerned with administration as such. The S.A. Welfare Council will, however, take note of what happens at the regional level. I can give hon. members that assurance. There will also be an interaction of persons, and for that reason I am not concerned about the two-way exchange of information, and I cannot accept the amendments by the hon. member for Bryanston, because they clash with the essence of what has already been adopted here, namely the philosophy of decentralization as far as the administrative matters are concerned, and a council of experts which really should not be burdened with administration.

Mr. Chairman, we shall support the hon. the Minister’s amendments. If one’s life is in the balance, as the organizations’ lives may be in the balance and as the regional welfare programmes of the regional boards may be in the balance, I do not know whether it is best to be in the hands of the Secretary or in the hands of the Minister when one is in that predicament. But because the hon. the Minister has a position of higher authority and a direct responsibility to Parliament as well as a direct responsibility to the public and can publicly be called to account for his actions, we shall support his amendments in order to shift that responsibility from the Secretary to the Minister. If the Minister then does put a foot wrong w shall at least have an opportunity to deal with him.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (1), (2) and (3) moved by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions agreed to and amendments (2), (3) and (4) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg dropped.

Amendment (5) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (6) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived and amendment (7) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (4) moved by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, clause 13 deals with the registration of welfare organizations and sets out the procedures and provisions that deal with such registrations and applications, the evaluation of applications, and the decision whether or not to register. There are just two points which we would like to make and in terms of which we have attempted to amend the legislation by the amendments which appear on the Order Paper. In the first place, we believe that welfare organizations, once they have passed the scrutiny of the Minister, once they have satisfied the requirements set out in this legislation and once they have been judged to be responsible and capable organizations, should be totally free of any provisions in the Fund-raising Bill which is also before Parliament at the present stage. In other words, these organizations should not be subject to dual registration and dual control. We therefore ask that the expression “fund-raising organization” should be changed to “organization”. The second point is that we once again believe that the regional welfare boards should be able to decide on conditions for registration, on the requirements that apply to applications, on particulars that are set out in certificates, and on the classification of registered branches, the particulars of which are set out in the registration of branches. We believe that it should be the regional welfare board which should have the power to take these decisions. The reason for that is simply this. If one believes in the principle of decentralization and if one motivates one’s decisions to decentralize to regional welfare board areas, and if one’s motivation is that one does it because the people operating in a particular region have a better knowledge of the requirements of that region, are better able to deal with the problems that arise in that region, are better able to take decisions in respect of the services that are required within that region, then one must equally accept that it is the people within the region who are best able to decide the conditions and the circumstances under which applications should be made for registration, the conditions which are to be laid down in terms of the certificates which are issued, and any other conditions or particulars or procedures which should apply in terms of registration in a particular area. One cannot argue that decentralization is necessary because of the circumstances which apply in different regions, circumstances which differ from one region to another. One cannot argue that such circumstances justify decentralization and that one therefore needs a body of people operating in every separate region.

On the other hand one cannot again do the opposite and merely say that although the conditions apply in terms of the different regions, let the Minister, when it comes to laying down the rules and regulations, step in to decide what those rules and regulations should be. I believe one should be consistent in one’s motivations and that one should also allow those decisions to rest with the regional welfare boards concerned.

Therefore I now move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in lines 12 and 13, to omit “a fund-raising organization as defined in section 1 of the Fund-raising Act, 1978,” and to substitute “an organization”;
2. (2) on page 15, in line 19, to omit “prescribed requirements” and to substitute:

1. (3) on page 15, in line 21, to omit “fund-raising organization” and to substitute “organization”;
2. (4) on page 15, in line 22, to omit “prescribed conditions” and to substitute:

1. (5) on page 15, in lines 24 and 25, to omit “prescribed particulars” and to substitute:

1. (6) on page 15, in line 25, to omit “fund-raising organization” and to substitute “organization”;
2. (7) on page 15, in line 28, to omit “prescribed particulars” and to substitute:

1. (8) on page 15, in line 31, to omit “prescribed manner” and to substitute:

1. (9) on page 15, in line 34, to omit “fund-raising organization” and to substitute “organization”;
2. (10) on page 15, in lines 46 and 47, to omit for a period of two years after such commencement,”.

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the registration of welfare organizations. It is a clause which causes some concern among existing welfare organizations. From clause 13(4) it appears that there will be a period of two years during which existing welfare organizations which are registered in terms of the National Welfare Act, 1965, will continue to be deemed as being registered as welfare organizations. Here I should like to obtain a little further information from the hon. the Minister on the application, at the end of that two-year period, for registration in regard to existing welfare organizations.

Some concern has been expressed by the existing welfare organizations who feel that a regional board, in its enthusiasm to obviate overlapping that might exist, could create a situation in which some of the existing organizations would possibly not be successful in applying for registration in terms of the new provisions. I hope the hon. the Minister will give some indication that the existing welfare organizations will receive due consideration and that they will not be prejudiced by the passing of this new legislation. I realize that these organizations have a right of appeal against a decision. They will have that right in terms of clause 15, a clause with which we still have to deal. However, there is a degree of concern among some of the existing organizations about the question of overlapping. We do know that, in some cases, overlapping does occur in certain regions. In view of the overlapping that does exist some of the organizations fear that they might not be successful in their applications for registration in terms of the new provisions.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to motivate amendment No. 10 moved by the hon. member for Bryanston to subsection (4) of this clause. We are adopting a much stronger stand than the hon. member for Umbilo, who has made no more than a vague appeal. If this provision is accepted as it now stands, it will in fact sentence to death every one of the welfare organizations in South Africa. The sword of Damocles now hangs over every single welfare organization, and I feel sure that I enjoy the support of the 3 940 welfare organizations in South Africa in asking the Minister to accept this amendment and remove the provision relating to the two-year period. I am sure every member in this House agrees that there are welfare organizations in the country which are doing a tremendous job. They are doing great work. I do not have to mention their work among the blind, the deaf, the aged, the youth, adopted children, etc. Is the hon. the Minister actually condemning each one of these 3 940 organizations as being unfit to carry on their work? Is that not in fact what he is doing? By providing that every one of these organizations will within a period of two years no longer be operative and that each and every one of them then has to make a new application, the hon. the Minister is placing all their security at risk. They have bonds, they have commitments, they have staff whom they have employed on a contract basis, they have premises which they have leased and they have arranged pension funds for their staff. The Minister is placing all these aspects at risk. Why condemn these welfare organizations in South Africa?

There is no question of condemnation.

There is, with great respect. They do not know that when they apply for registration in terms of the Fundraising Bill, which has yet to be passed, the Director of Fund-raising will in fact register them. Having passed that test, they do not know whether they will in fact be registered in terms of the provisions we are now discussing. Why do it, with great respect? There is no reason to do it. The Minister already has the power, in terms of this Bill, to act in this respect if he so wishes. Clause 14(3) reads, inter alia, as follows—

In other words, if a welfare organization does not pursue its objects effectively or if it commits any of the other wrongs mentioned in that clause, the Minister has the power to withdraw its registration certificate. Why jeopardize each one of these organizations? Why place them in this position? I appeal to the Minister, on behalf of all the organizations, to accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston to remove the two-year provision. Let these organizations live and let them know that they will live. Let them carry on with their fund-raising. Let us take the case of a director of a firm who is called upon to make a donation to a particular welfare organization which he supports. How will he feel about making such a donation when he does not know whether that organization will still be in existence in two years’ time?

Nonsense!

It is not nonsense. That hon. member has been talking nonsense all day. He is the one who has not been following the clauses which have been discussed here today. The hon. member is the last one to talk. Just consider my position if I, as the head of an organization, am about to make a donation of, say, R20 000 of shareholder’s money towards a welfare organization if I am not sure whether that organization is going to be able to survive the rigours of this law which we are now passing. With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the hon. the Minister should label and condemn every welfare organization in South Africa. That is, in fact, what the hon. the Minister is doing. He condemns them all. He says to them: You are all bad guys; we are not sure how bad you are and therefore you must all come back to us. You are all going to be disbanded and you will have to come back to us by means of a fresh application and if you pass the test, we shall allow you to continue. Surely, that is not in the interests of welfare work in South Africa. It is not in the interests of the partnership between the State and the Voluntary workers. Why should voluntary workers submit themselves, give up their time, their energy and very often give of their own finances to assist in the matter if the legislation is such that they can say: Well, how do I know what the State is going to do with us?

I think the hon. the Minister is a reasonable man. I think we must test his reasonableness. In testing his reasonableness, I ask him to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, one finds it difficult to keep calm when an hon. member has talked so much irresponsible, meaningless, disjointed rubbish. I should like to request the hon. member for Bryanston to request the hon. member for Hillbrow not to try to help him by speaking in support of his amendments.

He is only making it weaker and it is already so weak!

The hon. member for Hillbrow once again cast suspicion on the legislation. He said the sword of Damocles was hanging over welfare organizations. He said that people would no longer offer their services for voluntary welfare work. He asked: “Why condemn the social welfare organizations?”

Yes, that is what I said.

The hon. member said that he was speaking on behalf of all those welfare organizations when he asked the hon. the Minister to accept those amendments. I wish the hon. member would rise and tell us on behalf of which organization he was speaking.

The Black Sash!

Surely the hon. member cannot speak on behalf of everyone. Surely it is impossible for him to speak on behalf of everyone. I like the way he can exaggerate in this House.

I want to come back to the amendments of the hon. member for Bryanston. However, I do not want to review the whole discussion we have had up to now, because in the consideration of clause T, we have already listened to some of the arguments, in dealing with an amendment to the effect that there should be reference to clause 13(2) in the definition of a registered branch.

The whole philosophy of the Official Opposition is that a fund-raising organization should not be registered. If a body is a welfare organization, they do not want it to be registered. Their point of view is, as the hon. member for Bryanston also stated in his Second Reading speech, that the State only has to motivate the public, whereas the biggest job of the State is to provide the money. As far as they are concerned, the matter is therewith disposed of and afterwards there should be no control and no registration. This is the very problem with these amendments. People are in fact not to be tied in any way. Nor does one register with their party; one only goes along with them. This is exactly what they want in this case as well: There should be no registration. The money the State gives, should be there but there should be no accounting as to the spending of the money. Financial documents should not be submitted for inspection, as envisaged in the legislation on fund-raising. That is why they want to separate it from this Bill.

The problem is that if the amendments are accepted, we might as well cancel this Bill and the one on fund-raising, because then there is no discipline. The statements by the hon. members for Bryanston and Hillbrow to the effect that this legislation and especially the clause in question, pose a threat to welfare work and welfare organizations, we reject with contempt.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with amendment No. 10 first, because I do not want to have any misunderstanding about that. The hon. member for Hillbrow used superlatives which may, in fact, lead to a great deal of misunderstanding about this. At the outset I want to give the assurance that they will have to re-register, since this will be necessary as a result of the difference in the concept of registration as contained in the existing Act. Registration is now embodied in two separate Bills. Furthermore, I want to give the assurance that I do not know of any of the present registered welfare organizations which will be regarded, in terms of the provisions of either of the two pieces of legislation, as an undesirable organization. They may rest assured. To them registration will be a formality.

Let me say against this background why registration will, in fact, be necessary. The first reason is that the existing Act provides that an organization has to be registered as a welfare organization to obtain certain powers with regard to fund-raising. For that reason a WO number is important for an organization in terms of existing legislation. This resulted in certain organizations being registered as welfare organizations although they were not doing welfare work at all. Let me give two examples. One of them is a praiseworthy organization, which everyone in this part of the country knows very well, i.e. the Community Chest. This is a fund-raising organization which gives money to various welfare organizations. The organization itself does not undertake welfare work. In terms of the new legislation, which separates these two aspects, the Community Chest does not have to register as a welfare organization. It only has to register as a fund-raising organization. For administrative purposes, however, we have to have two new registers. In order to prevent an unnecessarily long list of organizations appearing as welfare organizations on the register, organizations which have to be consulted with regard to nominations every time regional boards are appointed, it is practical, useful and a good thing for them to have to register again. That is the first reason.

Let me just give another example. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is registered as a welfare organization. In terms of a clause already approved, welfare work is defined as welfare work amongst human beings. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will therefore not be able to re-register as a welfare organization.

What will become of the Progs?

That organization may, however, rest assured, because it will be able to register as a fund-raising organization.

A further reason is that as far as I know, all organizations doing welfare work—we have already cleared this up in previous arguments—raise or receive funds. Therefore all welfare organizations will still have to register as fund-raising organizations. They are always concerned with the receipt of funds. Practically and simply, put, therefore, there will be two types of organization. The non-welfare organizations only have to register as a fund-raising organizations in terms of the Fund-raising Bill to be able to raise funds. The second category is the welfare organizations which, according to the definition, do in fact do welfare work. Those organizations have to appear on the fund-raising register, because they receive funds. However, they do not have to register as welfare organizations. The hon. member spoke about condemnation. But we are telling welfare organizations: Look, if you only want to raise funds and with the funds you have raised and with the funds you have in reserve, you want to do welfare work without any State interference at all—in other words, do your own thing with regard, of course, to the provisions of health laws, etc.—and if you do not want to join in the regional planning, meetings, nomination lists, etc., registration as a welfare organization is unnecessary.

To summarize: All welfare organizations have to register as fund-raising organizations; all welfare organizations may register as welfare organizations, but are not obliged to do so. If, despite what I have said, registration is still refused to a welfare organization in terms of this Bill or the Fund-raising Bill, both measures still provide for an appeal committee. This is at the same time my reply to the hon. member for Umbilo. Such an organization can appeal to an appeal committee on which, in terms of an amendment I shall move—a magistrate with ten years of experience will serve. He can, therefore, appeal to a higher body. For that reason I foresee no problems for any existing organization which has already been accepted as a welfare organization. The hon. members may therefore assure all their organizations who made representations to them in this regard.

I cannot accept any of the other amendments moved by the hon. member, and I want to motivate my point of view once again. The first amendment deals with the question of a fund-raising organization which has to be replaced by a welfare organization. This, in fact, goes hand in hand with the question of double registration and the explanation I have just given, answers that question. As regard the second amendment, I want to repeat that the word “prescribed” in the Bill means “prescribed by regulation”. We shall publish regulations for comment and give everyone the opportunity to make representations. I want to explain to the hon. member what those regulations will provide. Certain minimum requirements are laid down in such regulations, and this will help the regional welfare board to get organized applications before them. I want to refer to four things which will be stipulated in the regulations. It will be stipulated, for example, that welfare organizations which apply must have a written constitution. It will also be stipulated that the constitution has to set out the organization’s aim. The organization will also be required to set out its name and composition in the constitution. Furthermore, the area in which the organization wants to function will have to be mentioned in its constitution. This is what the regulations will be about. This is being done in order to enable regional boards to have organized applications before them and to check whether they have all the relevant information. The discretion to register such organizations or to refuse registration, however, rests with the regional boards. I hope that this will eliminate the uncertainty which the hon. member had in this regard.

Amendments (3) to (9) contain consequential amendments and I do not think they justify further comment.

Amendment (1) negatived and amendments (3), (6) and (9) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived and amendments (4), (5), (7) and (8) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment (10),

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—91: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; 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 Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. G; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—25: Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; 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. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, clause 14 deals with the amendment, suspension or withdrawal of a registration certificate. I now move the amendments which appear in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 15, in line 50, after “may” to insert:

1. (2) on page 15, in line 55, to omit “prescribed manner” and to substitute:

1. (3) on page 15, in line 62, to omit “fourteen” and to substitute “thirty”;
2. (4) on page 17, in line 1, after “may” to insert:

1. (5) on page 17, in line 2, to omit “prescribed manner” and to substitute:

1. (6) on page 17, in lines 15 to 17, to omit paragraph (d);
2. (7) on page 17, in line 20, to omit all the words after “enquiry” up to and including “raise” in line 29;
3. (8) on page 17, in line 41, to omit “prescribed manner” and to substitute:

By these amendments we would like to achieve the following: In the first place we would like to ensure that before any action is taken, in terms of any of these provisions, against a welfare organization, there should be full consultation with the welfare organization regarding that action. The welfare organization should, in other words, have the opportunity of being fully informed as to what the complaints are, what the reasons are for the intended amendment, suspension or withdrawal of the registration certificate, in order to give them an opportunity to make full representation from their point of view and to obviate, in that way, any miscarriage of justice which might take place as a result of these provisions.

Once again we feel that regulations that apply for any of these procedures should be drawn up by the welfare board concerned because of its more intimate knowledge and experience with the area and the organizations which operate in that area. There is also a provision in clause 14(2) that a welfare organization must within 14 days of being advised to do so return the registration certificate for amendment. We believe 14 days is an unreasonably short period and that that period should be extended to 30 days.

Amendments (4) and (5) deal with the question of consultation with an organization before action is taken and that the regulations should be drawn up by the regional welfare board. Then we come to clause 14(3)(d). We propose that this be omitted completely from the legislation.

Why?

If the hon. member will give me an opportunity, I shall come to my explanation. Paragraph (d) provides for the withdrawal of the registration certificate if the regional board is satisfied—

In other words, if the regional welfare board decides that a welfare organization is not pursuing its objects effectively. This is a very wide and very vague provision. There are no clear-cut criteria or norms against which such a decision can be tested. The decision is to be taken purely in terms of the discretion of the regional welfare board. If they decide in terms of this very wide and vague power which is placed in their hands, that a welfare organization is not pursuing its objects effectively, it may withdraw that organization’s registration certificate. The provision does not refer to malpractice, the misappropriation of funds or any norm of that nature. In terms of the Fund-raising Bill on the Order Paper, by withdrawing this registration certificate of a welfare organization, that organization will be precluded from being registered as a fundraising organization and, therefore, this provision can cut off financial support for such an organization. In other words, the consequences of a regional welfare board exercising this very wide discretion, could be the death of an organization because its life support could be cut off by it. Furthermore, this provision says that the regional welfare board can withdraw a registration certificate if they believe that no substantial need exists for the social welfare services rendered by a welfare organization. Surely, it is not up to the regional welfare board or anybody else to decide whether a substantial need exists or not. If there is no substantial need, the organization will disappear of its own accord. In this particular field the success of a welfare service in a free society depends on the initiative and the enthusiasm of those members of the public who commit themselves to providing that service. This is the primary motivation for the rendering of welfare services, the basis and substance on which these welfare services are rendered. It should not have to be decided by the board instituted by the hon. the Minister whether or not that need really exists. It should be left entirely to the natural processes which operate in that field. If the need exists, an organization will arise and if the need does not exist, the organization will disappear of its own accord. To hand such wide powers and discretion to the regional welfare boards to exercise and to subject organizations to this particular provision, is totally unfair. We recommend that that provision be omitted from this Bill. Clause 14(4) reads as follows—

This is an extremely wide provision in terms of which the welfare board can summon any organization providing a similar service to appear before it when it is considering the registration or the amendment, suspension or withdrawal of the registration of another organization. Amendment No. 7 standing in my name on the Order Paper in this connection reads as follows—

We believe it is unfair and unnecessary to give the regional welfare boards such very wide powers to exercise.

Mr. Chairman, we now have had a very typical example of the muddled thinking of the hon. member for Bryanston in his approach to this Bill. It is exemplified by the amendments he has moved to this clause we are dealing with. It must surely be clear to the hon. member that when a regional board is conducting an inquiry in regard to the conduct or activities of a welfare organization, they are in a sense being judged by their peers, because the members of the regional board are themselves members of welfare organizations from which they have been nominated. In terms of this clause it is virtually a judgment by their peers. In his first amendment the hon. member proposes that after the word “may” in line 50 there should be added “after consultation with the welfare organization”. If the hon. member will read the clause properly, he will surely realize that that is self-evident. The clause stipulates that such an inquiry must be conducted in the prescribed manner. An inquiry is obviously not just a closed shop discussion within a regional board; the inquiry must surely take into consideration the views of the welfare organization which will be affected in this regard. Most surprising is the hon. member’s amendment with which he proposes to delete certain words in subsection (4) in terms of which the welfare organization has an opportunity of being heard. The hon. member now wants to deny to the welfare organization the right of being heard when there is a question of an inquiry. On the other hand, he says that the welfare organization must be included in subsection (1). The hon. member is completely inconsistent. He fails to recognize the objectives of this Bill. He does not read it in its proper context with regard to this Bill and with regard to the existing legislation as far as inquiries were previously concerned. For that reason I submit to the hon. the Minister that the hon. member’s amendments are entirely unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, the arguments of the hon. member for Von Brandis are right on target and therefore I shall not repeat them. I associate myself with his remarks in this regard.

As regards amendment (1), it concerns patent errors. It is the same kind of authority which a magistrate has, and is merely an administrative power. I cannot accept this amendment. There is no concealed threat to any organization.

As far as amendment (2) is concerned, I want to say that if we accept this we shall create insecurity of justice where there should be security of justice. It concerns a very important problem, the same problem which caused the hon. member for Hillbrow so much concern just now, viz. that a welfare organization which has now to register in terms of this new legislation, can lose its registration. Such an organization should know the procedure in terms of which it can lose its registration and what steps to take. It should be able to determine exactly what its rights are in order to defend its position if it feels threatened. For that reason I cannot accept this amendment either.

As far as amendment (3) is concerned, I believe that whether it is 14 days or 30 days, is merely a matter of six of the one and half a dozen of the other. There cannot be any good reason why someone who had been notified to send in his certificates, should be given more than 14 days to do so. Furthermore, hon. members can be assured that these things are done by registered post.

As far as amendments (4) and (5) are concerned, I cannot understand what the hon. member envisages. Apparently he does not want any further inquiry. He believes consultation is better than an official investigation. The audi alteram partem rule which the Opposition is concerned about so often and in which we, too, believe, applies here. Since somebody can lose his registration now, we should like to apply this rule. The hon. member wants to take that away now. It seems to me he is getting more “verkramp” by the day.

As far as amendment (6) is concerned, we are first of all dealing with a council made up of representatives of the welfare world which takes the decisions. One moment the hon. member advises us to have confidence in this council; it is a wonderful council; it should make its own regulations; it should appoint its own secretary; it should have wide powers, etc.

And it should be an elected council.

But when it does not suit him, he calls it a bad council because it is appointed by the Minister. It cannot be entrusted with functions. Surely Parliament is not a debating society. There should at least be some logic in one’s arguments.

As regards amendment (7), all of a sudden the hon. member wants to abolish the consultation we introduced. The clause as it stands at the moment, provides that where there is overlapping of services, people should come together and try to achieve consensus by way of consultation. In connection with a previous clause he maintained we should consult when we wanted an inquiry. But here, where we want consultation, he says we should do away with it.

As regards amendment (8), I cannot accept it either. It concerns precisely the same arguments that we have had over and over again on the value and usefulness of regulations.

Amendment (1) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) negatived and amendments (3) and (8) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (3) and (4) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

On amendment (6),

Question put: That the paragraph stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C, (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; 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 Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—15: Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; 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.

Amendment (7) negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for appeals by welfare organizations if they feel aggrieved by any decisions taken by the regional welfare boards. In order to hear the appeals, the Bill provides for the appointment by the Minister of an appeal committee consisting of three persons. The appeal committee will then decide upon the merits of the appeal, and whether the decision of the regional welfare board concerned should be changed or whether it should stand. Our amendments to this clause, which I should now like formally to move, read as follows—

1. (1) On page 17, in line 52, after “A” to insert:

1. (2) on page 17, in line 56, to omit “prescribed manner” and to substitute:

1. (3) on page 17, in line 57, to omit “Minister” and to substitute “Council”;
2. (4) on page 17, in lines 63 to 68, and on page 19, in lines 1 to 4, to omit subsection (3);
3. (5) on page 19, in line 10, to omit “prescribed” and to substitute:

1. (6) on page 19, in lines 11 to 15, to omit subsection (6) and to substitute:

1. (6) If an appeal fails, the welfare organization concerned may appeal to the courts.

1. (5) on page 19, in lines 16 to 19, to omit subsection (7).

The first aim of these amendments is to make it obligatory upon a regional welfare board to submit the full reasons to the welfare board to submit the full reasons to the welfare organization concerned for its rejection, amendment, suspension or withdrawal of its registration certificate before such an appeal takes place. We believe that it is absolutely essential that if an organization finds that its registration certificate is to be amended, suspended or withdrawn, it should at the earliest possible opportunity be given all the reasons applicable to that intended action by the regional welfare board. We also feel that the committee should be appointed by the S.A. Welfare Council and not by the Minister and that that committee, in terms of an amendment which we argued earlier on, should adjudicate upon the appeal and make its findings known to the S.A. Welfare Council, who can then act on such findings.

Finally, we believe that if an appeal before this committee fails and a welfare organization is still unsatisfied by the decision of the appeal committee and feels that it has not been justly treated and that the action taken against it is wrong or unjust, such an organization should have a final right of appeal to the independent courts of the land. This is a fundamental principle which I believe should be maintained and adhered to in all cases where organizations or agencies of the State act against individuals or private organizations. If in any such case a person or private organization feels that it has not received justice at the hands of committees or appeal committees or agencies or organizations of the State and if in such a case action is taken in terms of the decisions of such committees or appeal committees against such a private organization or individual, such a private organization or individual must always have the right to appeal to the courts in order to have the decision of the Minister’s appeal committee or any other organization or agency of the State overthrown. We believe this is a fundamental right to justice that every organization or person should have and that it should also be applied and adhered to in this particular case. We therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept our amendment to the effect that if an appeal fails before his committee, the organization or person concerned will have the right to appeal to the courts of the land.

Mr. Chairman, this clause which deals with the question of appeal against a decision of a regional board is the one reason why we did not take part in the division on an amendment on clause 14. We had hoped that the appeal committee would provide a sufficient safeguard for aggrieved welfare organizations in consideration of decisions made by the regional boards. In terms of subsection (1) of the clause an appeal can be lodged in relation to an application under clause 13 or to an amendment, suspension or withdrawal of a registration certificate. This, of course, is covered by clause 14 with which we have already dealt.

We want to ensure that the appeal committee is one in which the organizations have the utmost confidence. In terms of other and proposed legislation it is suggested that a magistrate, for the purpose of the legislation, should be a person who has had at least 10 years’ experience as a magistrate. As the clause now reads, the appeal committee will consist of a magistrate of senior standing who will be the chairman and two persons who are not members of the regional welfare board concerned or of a committee of that board and who, in the opinion of the Minister, have experience and knowledge of the functions of welfare organizations and who have no direct interest in the affairs of the appellant and are not in the employ of the appellant or in the public service.

We believe this is a satisfactory form of an appeal committee, but we should like to see that a magistrate with more than the qualification of being “a magistrate of senior standing” is appointed as chairman of the committee. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

If we look at the other piece of legislation still to be considered by the House, namely the Fund-raising Bill, we see that provision is made for a magistrate of at least 10 years’ experience to be the chairman of the appeal committee.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Umbilo, I want to state immediately that we have taken a close look at it and we believe he has a good case. We are not quite happy about the wording of the amendment, however, and consequently I want to request him to withdraw his amendment in view of the amendment I am now moving—

In the light of the above, I assume the hon. member will request the permission of the Committee to withdraw his amendment, for the amendment which I proposed, will, if accepted, achieve exactly what the hon. member wants to achieve.

I cannot accept any of the amendments of the hon. member for Bryanston and I want to furnish my reasons briefly. As far as his first amendment is concerned, I think he will be reassured if he reads the Bill once more and finds that as soon as an organization lodges an appeal, reasons have to be furnished to that organization. Therefore it only takes a simple act on the part of the aggrieved person or organization for their reasons to be furnished automatically.

The hon. member’s second and third amendments are based on the same grounds that we argued the whole afternoon and yesterday. Therefore I shall not repeat those arguments now. It is, quite simply, a question of procedures. He wants the council itself to dictate the procedures, whereas we want it done by way of regulation.

The fourth and fifth amendments are consequential amendments and therefore need not be discussed. The sixth and seventh amendments deal with the question of appeal. We are dealing here with an administrative body taking an administrative decision. I do not want to discuss the whole question of administrative law which is developing now. I only want to tell the hon. member that there are numerous examples in our law where there is no right of appeal to the courts in respect of this kind of administrative decision. Perhaps we could debate that extensively at some later occasion. Then he can ask one of his lawyer colleagues to argue about the different verdicts of courts to the effect that they do not want to act as administrative appeal courts. For that reason I believe this appeal committee with a senior magistrate with at least ten years’ experience at its head will really be an effective higher body to which people will be able to appeal. I believe it complies with all principles of ordinary justice. Therefore I do not see my way clear to accepting the hon. member’s amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for moving an amendment which is an improvement on the amendment I placed before the Committee and which with the leave of the Committee, I now withdraw.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. N. Oldfield, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived and amendment (5) dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (3) and (4) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

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

On amendment (6) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg,

Question put: That the subsection stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—89: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—22: Bartlett, G. S.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (7) moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I want to submit two points to the hon. the Minister in regard to this clause. The first relates purely to the question of procedure. In terms of clause 20(2) the hon. the Minister will prescribe certain conditions. Welfare organizations have obviously become used to a specific type of procedure in making application for grants to in able them to carry on with their work. My appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should not change the existing procedure. Changes will obviously have to be made in relation to the work done by the regional welfare boards and to the work done by applicants whose applications will be coming directly to the hon. the Minister. We have no doubt that these applications will not go to the S.A. Welfare Council, and in this respect the hon. the Minister can perhaps outline to us the procedure that will have to be adopted when dealing with an application of one of the welfare organizations.

The second point that I want to submit to the hon. the Minister is that we are hoping that it is his intention to see that welfare work in South Africa will be improved. If that is the case, this is one of the most vital clauses in the entire Bill, as the success or failure of welfare organizations will depend on the amount of funds that the hon. the Minister will be able to grant I took a quick glance at the amount voted under Vote 10 “Social Welfare and Pensions”.

I noticed only a small increase in the amount voted for an important matter such as child welfare. R36 035 000 is voted this year as against the R31 403 000 of last year. Under the division “Subsidies for general welfare and co-ordinating services”, I notice that the amount voted has increased from R3 868 000 last year to R4 386 000 of this year. The amount voted “Rehabilitation services”, increases from R2 006 000 to R2 403 000, which is not a big improvement at all. The amount voted for the very important service “Care of the aged and infirm”, has increased from R10 995 000 last year to R13 848 000 this year. In the light of this I finally want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he now intends that an extra amount should be voted for and whether he will obtain extra funds so that welfare organizations can fulfil their share of the social work which they do in partnership with the State.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member may repeat his last request on Monday during the discussion of the Vote, since it does not concern the Bill directly. As regards the hon. member’s other question, I merely want to say that I want to look at it first and that I shall then reply to it during the Third Reading.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

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

By this amendment we wish to establish the principle that regulations will be made only subject to the fullest consultation and, preferably, that the regulations should be made only upon request by these bodies.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment for reasons I have already outlined with regard to regulation powers. For the sake of the hon. member I repeat that all regulations will be published for comment in the Government Gazette, that widespread public reaction to them will be welcomed and that we shall reconsider it at that stage.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, even if we were prepared to ignore all the other shortcomings and weaknesses that appear in this piece of legislation, there is one particular provision which we cannot ignore, because the effect that it will have on social welfare services in South Africa is too serious. We therefore have to express our strongest possible disapproval of this provision.

This clause provides for the structuring of the social welfare services in South Africa on a strict apartheid line; it provides for the segregation of social welfare services on the strictest possible apartheid lines. This clause provides for the setting up of uniracial welfare structures to attend to the welfare needs of exclusive colour communities. We must oppose this provision because we believe it is contrary to the best interests of South Africa and all its people. I know the hon. the Minister is terribly sensitive about the word “apartheid” and has objected to the use of it. In fact, he went so far as to say that to use the word “apartheid” is irresponsible. I cannot understand why it has taken the Government 30 years to realize and accept that apartheid is irresponsible. However, it is not the word, the name, which is irresponsible; it is the practise of apartheid in South Africa which is irresponsible. It is the practise of apartheid which has divided South Africans, which has caused resentment and hatred and which has put South Africa in the dangerous and insecure position in which we are today. Funnily enough, we thought this hon. the Minister was a “verligte” Minister. I really thought so, but the moment he became a member of the Cabinet, the moment he appeared in that august body of “verkramptheid”, it rubbed off or he found it necessary to conform to the norm of the Cabinet, the norm of “verkramptheid”. [Interjections.] Instead of providing for a non-racial structure for social welfare services, instead of providing for a system which will provide social welfare services to all the people of South Africa on a non-racial basis and instead of getting away from race prejudice, racialism, segregation, apartheid and all those evils, the hon. the Minister provides the opposite: a strictly apartheid structure, a system which apparently will stand for all time. Does the hon. the Minister really believe that apartheid is here to stay? Does he really believe that for all time South Africa is going to be a society which will be strictly segregated on racial lines? Does he believe that the system which he is now creating is going to withstand the test of time? Does the hon. the Minister not realize that it would be far more effective, productive, positive and enlightened if he did what the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation had done and provide for a non-racial system? Instead of providing, as the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation has done, for a system which will fall under the Council of Cabinets, this hon. Minister is providing for a system which will be segregated under the three future Parliaments. We therefore have the strongest possible opposition to this provision and will show it by calling for a division.

Mr. Chairman, I take strong exception to the tone of the hon. member’s speech, just as strong as the exception he takes to the clause. I want to reply to the hon. member by way of a promise, i.e. that I shall give him a full reply during the Third Reading debate. I shall resist the temptation the hon. member exposed me to with his extremely provoking speech and I shall not succumb to the temptation to put him in his place now and tell him the truth. During the Third Reading debate we shall come back to this important aspect, an aspect which, in my opinion, is appropriate to that debate. For the present, then, I shall let the comprehensive debate we had yesterday afternoon and last night on this specific subject, suffice.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches should like to just briefly state our position. This clause deals with the administration of the Act. At present the welfare services of the various population groups are administered by the CRC, the IRC and the Bantu homeland Governments. They assume responsibility for the welfare services and therefore, for practical purposes, it would be necessary for them to administer sections of this legislation. However, we felt that the regional boards, as we hoped they would be constituted, would solve this problem. The amendment which we put forward, however, was not accepted, and in view of the practical circumstances involved, we in these benches intend abstaining from voting on this clause.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—87: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—15: Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine. Clause agreed to.

Title:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.